If you’ve been following the news carefully you have already heard that the South Dakota senate has passed a bill to ban abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. The bill is now currently awaiting the signature of Governor Mike Rounds, who in a recent press conference indicated that he would sign the bill provided that after review he feels that it would succeed in its intent. The intent in question being a successful and effective “assault on Roe vs. Wade”. My friend Dan of The Creepy Sleepy Show attended the press conference via cell phone and you can read some of his impressions here and you can listen to the audio of the conference here courtesy of SDPB.
Obviously, this concerns a lot of people, including myself, that Roe vs. Wade is being challenged so directly during the current administration. Pete Williams, a justice correspondent for MSNBC, however seems to believe that this bill will not succeed in its eventual goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade and he illustrates his reasoning in this recent column.
Personally, I am not so sure and I worry what will come in the following months if the governor determines that the bill will be the effective weapon against Roe vs. Wade that the Republicans of South Dakota intend it to be.
Those of us outside of South Dakota offer our support for the people of that state in the quest to defend women’s reproductive rights.
In the light of a potentially long legal battle ahead, this would be a great time to donate to NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU.
Keep watch for other opportunities for you to help fight this outrageous attack on women’s rights.
(Comment Feed For This Entry)
This entry currently has 6 comments. You can leave one too, if you like.
Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 @ 11:12 CST
I like how Governor Round, when asked how he justify spending SD taxpayer money on something tht could affect all Americans, talked to me like I don’t understand the legislative process. Bitch! I took State and Local Government! Don’t talk to me like I work for some radg like the NYT! I’m a blogger, bitch!
(I just called the Governor a bitch. Twice.)
Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 @ 11:32 CST
By the way: The Governor will review the bill for up to 15 days. As we can be fairly certain that he already knows the content of the bill, we can assume that he will be looking for vague language, or wording that could potentially cause a hang-up in the court system. What will most likely happen: The Governor will sign the bill, and the law will be implemented on July 1, 2006. A doctor will be arrested for performing an abortion, or a woman will be arrested for receiving an abortion. Planned Parenthood and the ALCU will make absolutely that the plaintiff has all the right criteria: standing, ripeness, etc. They will then sue the state of South Dakota for violating his/her constitutional rights, and the state courts will rule in favor of the state. They will then appeal to a district court with the same results. They will then appeal to the circuit - I believe that us SoDakians are in the 8th circuit - with the same results. Then, the Supreme Court will have the right to hear the case, or send it back to the circuit. Hearing it or not hearing it will have repercussions either way. If they hear it, then obviously it could change the precedent of R v W - unless, of course, they actually follow stare decisis. Deciding to not hear the case could potentially be more troubling. Not hearing the case would then make abortion a states rights issue, changing the precedent, and grant a victory for the state of SD. Or, at least, to the small faction of SoDak right-to-lifers who pushed this through.
I can ASSURE you that this bill, this Governor, and this current legislative body does not speak for the majority of South Dakotans.
Out of fairness, I must comment of a few of the organizations you mentioned. While I would love to support NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU, I cannot in good faith do so. While to mission statements of all three are admirable, their actions are not. First, all three are classified as lobbying organizations for the Democratic Party. That’s fine, but I am of the opinion that they do not disclose that as much as they should. Also, they are as guilty as the Republicans of using and abusing the State of South Dakota in order to advance a specific agenda. While I may agree with aspects of their cause, their tactics are just as dishonest.
Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 @ 15:55 CST
DHP:
I respect the fact that you have beefs with those organizations, but to be bluntly direct THEY are the ones that will be bringing the suits to fight this bill in defense of individual physicians.
Also, just because I am in the mood to nitpick, the case brought to court is not going to be a woman who has an abortion as per Section 4 of the bill where it reads: “Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.” Which is a very strategic move, as a doctor defending themself in court does not carry the same emotional impact. Admittedly, I don’t think this actually helps them much considering how emotionally charged this issue is.
While there are provisions for confict with the courts in which case certain aspects of the bill are either suspended or in the case of being declared unconstitutional the former articles that this bill repeals will be reinstated, however it is troubling that the Act is structured such that even if the conditions where abortion is permissible are reinstated, their (the text claims this is new, but I am not a lawyer who has studied SODAK law) definition of the term “Unborn Human Being” is not, which raises troubling possibilites for future legislation, as the provisions of the bill are severable. That is, unless a court goes so far as to declare that provision unconstitutional which seems highly unlikely.
I’m no legal expert so I cannot speak to the situation if it becomes as you say a state’s rights issue, however I share your concerns. (Christina? You’re the almost lawyer, any input?)
Way to go on calling Governor Rounds a bitch. I join you in that expletive!
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 13:38 CST
My only real beef with NOW, et al is the lack of disclosure. While I realize that they will be the ones fighting this is court, I can’t help but wonder what would happen if no one sued. Now that would cause some surprising results.
I didn’t mean to call the Gov a bitch. It just kinda slipped out.
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 16:35 CST
If no one sued, then women in South Dakota would be unable to get abortions. Period. And that’s simply not fair. This is my problem with the whole “litigious society/activist judges” discourse. Our constitution was erected on the idea that major political disputes are constructed by lawmakers, with details hammered out through litigation. “Law” writ large was seen as a democratic alternative to the arbitrary decrees of a King, and thus, the role of the legal process was to make specifications on the broad strokes of congresses. While this process certainly has it’s problems, it does give an important role to litigation. Judges (and therefore, lawyers), exist to review laws, and alter details of them—that’s how it’s supposed to work.
I’d like to no more about the role of NOW, ACLU, etc… as “democratic lobbying organizations”. Are they on a list somewhere? Curious…
And…we should be having this discussion on the forum.
Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 17:49 CST
Now now, DHP’s forum isn’t the only place for fun like this. Keep posting if you wish.