Opponents of Choice Waste No Time
South Dakota is not even waiting for Roberts and Alito to shred Roe v. Wade to pieces; they’re outlawing abortion in the state today.
Essentially, the law–which outlaws abortions, even in the case of rape, with only an exception for saving the life (not the health) of the mother–is intended to be a Roe-killer. The intent is for the law to be challenged and brought to the new Bush court as soon as possible so that abortion can be outlawed nationwide.
So, for all of those who pooh-poohed the idea that confirming Alito would be no big deal and that Roe v. Wade was really in no immediate danger, here’s a big, giant “I told you so.” Not only is Roe on the edge of being eradicated, but the process is proceeding at warp speed. Yesterday, on Alito’s first day, the court decided to hear a case which would reverse the court’s own 2000 precedent on “partial birth” abortions in a case that could lead to sweeping bans on many types of abortions, and now, the very next day, we’ve got South Dakota blasting away at Roe at full power. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I just realized that I have not written a post that I intended to, one concerning my beliefs on the matter of abortion, the definition of “choice,” and what I believe lies at the heart of the abortion debate. For next time….
My knee jerk response to your comment on the South Dakota law banning abortion is “so what.” Though not likely, would not an overruling of Roe then push the issue back on the individual states to legislate accordingly? I believe that the Supremes today would find that the federal Constitution is silent on the issue. Justification for the sake of privacy rights, I think most would agree, was a stretch for the 1973 Court.