S Dakota Abortion law

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:53 pm

Will the new law banning abortion bring about the final defeat of the anti-abortion side?

It's a very risky move, and one certainly not supported by more worldy conservative leaders. They want to use abortion to "motivate the base" but don't want to take on a directly an issue that will be a long-term looser for them.

If RvW is overturned, then the repubs are going to have to go out and campaign on a strong anti-abortion platform and they will likely loose. Badly. If they choose not to, then they will loose the support of their base, which will be worse.

OTOH, a rush to the Supreme Court is quite likely to yield just another precedent in support of RvW, and leave them in worse position than before. Much worse. I think the last thing anti-abortion strategists want is an early review of a blanket ban.

My bet: (write this down for consultation later) The Supreme Court will bust a gut to find a technicality on which to throw out this law. Then they won't have to rule on the issues.

DanZ

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:11 pm

but RvW is not the be-all and end-all of abortion decisions.

Ah, but I think it is.

If I understand things right (I'm not a legal scholar, just a brilliant lay person) RvW established as law a prohibition on banning abortion.

States may regulate abortion in terms of time, place, who, etc, but not ban it. To make a law not a ban the law must be limited in scope. Part of that limitation must (courts have ruled) include exceptions for medical necessity.

However, if the SC overturns RvW, saying that there is not Constitutional protection for abortion, then all the rest (including all precedents that depend on or modify RvW) goes down with it. States would then be able to regulate, ban or criminalize abortion as they see fit.

There would then not need to be a medical exception for a ban just as there is no medical exception for homicide or securities fraud.

The point being that this new law, being a ban on abortion as a whole, will require them to review RvW, not just to define subsets or details. If they reject the new law on its merits, then RvW is considerably strengthened. If they overturn RvW, then the repubs will have to campaign on the abortion issue. It's a real trap for them.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:15 pm

juliod wrote:The point being that this new law, being a ban on abortion as a whole, will require them to review RvW, not just to define subsets or details. If they reject the new law on its merits, then RvW is considerably strengthened. If they overturn RvW, then the repubs will have to campaign on the abortion issue. It's a real trap for them.

You may be right. I must confess I don't have an accurate sense of where the public would be as this debate plays out. Poll results depend a lot on how the question is worded, and even if the legal result on the SD law might result in up or down for Roe, if it goes down, then the details, restrictions, caveats, etc. would definitely be a part of the subsequent debate.

If the socially conservative Repubs can accurately guage how to use 'possible conditions on when abortions can be done' they might not be as trapped as you think. They just need to tap into enough of the uncomfortableness with 'abortion on demand' that is probably out there to get through the the most stringent restrictions they can get away with, state by state.

Their biggest problem would be getting the most adament 'no abortion at all' folks to back off and accept a more incremental approach. This is exactly the position Governor Rounds is in right now. He let those with the most extreme position get ahead of him, and now he's lost control.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:26 pm

Their biggest problem would be getting the most adament 'no abortion at all' folks to back off and accept a more incremental approach.

Which, in my view, will be impossible if RvW is overturned.

The republican strategy over the last few decades has been to motivate their base by claiming to defend the unborn from baby-killers. And then follow-up with "oh, but we can't because of those mean-and-nasty activist judges". But once RvW is out of the way, that excuse won't work. Thier supporters will expect them to support a full ban right away.

I also believe that the support for abortion is underestimated because many people take RvW as the status quo. The loss of RvW will wake up a lot of activism, I think.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:01 am

juliod wrote:I also believe that the support for abortion is underestimated because many people take RvW as the status quo. The loss of RvW will wake up a lot of activism, I think.

You may be right. I would have to say the idea of the activists on both sides getting more riled up about this does not exactly excite me. As I've said before, I think society would be much better off if those with the extreme positions didn't drive the debate.

I will note that my morning paper had some other interesting details concerning the law (which you may be more familiar with than me, as I haven't gone to the original document at this point).

It seems that the law does allow a woman to use emergency contraceptive drugs to abort the fetus as long as she doesn't know she is pregnant. In effect, she would have to take the drugs within the first two weeks after conception, prior to the time at which a doctor could actually determine she is pregnant due to the implantation of the fertilized egg. The law defines pregnancy as beginning at the point where 'medical science' can determine that there is actually a pregnancy.

Thus, though the law says life begins at conception, you can terminate the life, but not the pregnancy.

Roger Hunt, the prime sponsor of the bill, says that this was quite intentional. In his view, if we cannot determine that the women is pregnant, this means 'the abortionists' could not be involved in ending the pregnancy. He was quite clear that he wanted to keep 'the abortionists' from operating in the state, but that it was OK for the woman to act on her own prior to the onset of the 'official pregnancy.'

Some quoted in the article portrayed this distinction between 'ending the life' and 'ending the pregnancy' as meaning that there really is an exception for rape or incest in the law. All the woman has to do is use the drugs before 'the official pregnancy' starts.

Of course, SD law already makes it difficult to impossible to obtain these drugs in state, so how this helps, I'm not sure.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:22 pm

there really is an exception for rape or incest in the law. All the woman has to do is use the drugs before 'the official pregnancy' starts.

[sarcasm]Right. And we all know how most rape and incest victims immediately rush to seek medical care right away...[/sarcasm]

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:21 pm

I wish no one ill, but I do predict that if this law or a similar law in another state actually does ever take effect, there will eventually be an instance where the daughter of 'true Christian anti-abortion' parents will get raped and pregnant and they will sneak her off to another state to get an abortion. If the media finds out about it, there will be, as Desi says, ' a lot of 'splaining to do.'

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:57 pm

micatala wrote:I wish no one ill, but I do predict that if this law or a similar law in another state actually does ever take effect, there will eventually be an instance where the daughter of 'true Christian anti-abortion' parents will get raped and pregnant and they will sneak her off to another state to get an abortion. If the media finds out about it, there will be, as Desi says, ' a lot of 'splaining to do.'

If the media reports on Christians getting so-called "private" abortions, it sure would be bigoted of the secular media not to point out which abortion clinics in which states are owned and operated by atheists or secular Jews.

Maybe some Christian newspapers or Fox News would identify them.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:47 pm

I don't know that I would say it would be bigoted. I am not a great fan of the media, but I do think they in general try to be fair (except for FOX news and the 700 club folks, of course

).

I would say the media tends to 'go for controversy' and as such they often do present a distorted picture of reality. We only get 'the juicy stories' and don't get a picture of what 'day to day' reality is actually like.

I think this is not really influenced by idealogy, only the desire to 'grab headlines.' AFter all, especially in this day and age, when people like Rupert Murdoch and yes, even Ted Turner, own so much of the media, it tends to be influenced most by business, and to some extent, by the ideology of the owners, if they are so interested in pushing their ideology, as Murdoch for example is. The documentary film Outfoxed, although hardly an objective piece, is one picture of the problems at Fox News.

I noted in today's paper that a man in North Dakota has been taking pictures of women and license plates outside of an abortion clinic. While this is pretty clearly an intimidation tactic, even abortion rights supporters acknowledge it is probably legal.

At any rate, their is a long-standing legal tradition based in the constitution for a right to privacy. Are you saying that religious groups should be exempt from this right? Do you feel that religious groups should be allowed greater access to private information than other groups?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:14 pm

micatala wrote:At any rate, their is a long-standing legal tradition based in the constitution for a right to privacy.

Yes, but going to a public abortionist is hardly a private matter, especially when the so-called secular right to abortion is no more private than the privacy of marriage these days.

Are you saying that religious groups should be exempt from this right?

No, but they have the right to identify themselves and others religiously as well as the right to publically protest non-Christian abortions on Christian babies in their state.

Do you feel that religious groups should be allowed greater access to private information than other groups?

No, we all have the right to be educated and informed by our government. The Freedom of Information Act was passed in order to enable full disclosure by public authorities.

If Christians or Muslims in foreign countries were killing the offspring of atheists and secularists without their informed consent, I'm sure some seccie American lawyers would let the US public know about it once they found out.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:28 pm

Yes, but going to a public abortionist is hardly a private matter, especially when the so-called secular right to abortion is no more private than the privacy of marriage these days.

With all due respect, this is baloney. Doctor patient relationships and decisions on what medical attention to seek and whom to seek it with are clearly private matters. The fact that any member of the public can go into a medical clinic does not make it otherwise. You are merely engaging in word play here.

No, but they have the right to identify themselves and others religiously as well as the right to publically protest non-Christian abortions on Christian babies in their state.

I would agree that religious groups have the right to identify themselves as they wish, and they have a right to protest, within the bounds of the law, about anything they wish. I'm not sure what you mean by 'a right to identify others.' The 'others' have the same rights to their own religious or non-religious expression. Are you saying that Christians should have the right to decide for others what religion they are allowed to follow or identify with? Except for this confusing claim of yours, I don't see that you are arguing for any 'exemption' here, as these rights are already granted to everybody.