In South Dakota, a bold challenge to Roe v. Wade

Star-Tribune ^ | February 22, 2004 | Chuck Haga

[non-anonymous]

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- After 31 years of trying to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the state of South Dakota is poised to lead a frontal assault on the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

A bill that would outlaw all abortions in the state except to save the life of the mother passed the state House earlier this month, and it wasn't close. After turning back all attempts to amend the bill, including one to provide an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, the House voted 54-14 to approve the ban.

The Senate will hold its hearing today, and a floor vote must come by Tuesday. Passage appears assured unless the bill gets tangled in amendments; there are 18 sponsors in the Senate, a majority, including the Republican and Democratic leaders.

Both sides expect Republican Gov. Mike Rounds to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

And both sides expect an immediate court challenge.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yes!

[ServesURight]

Good...all states should be doing this Roe v Wade is not the law of the land as most people (i.e. the baby-killers) would want you to believe.

[whereasandsoforth]

Just to be fair, why don't we give outlawing abortion a shot? We went blindly into legal abortion thirty years ago. Now we know where we are with that (Black Americans have legally murdered their own until they are now in minority-minority status for one example). Let's try the next thirty years without legal abortion and see were we are. In 2025, we can all look back and compare the two eras and make a sound decision where we should go from there.

How 'bout it, Lefties? It will be a honest social experiment. You guys love a social experiment. Sorry I had to use the word "honest". That's like a Cross to a vampire.

[whereasandsoforth]

Make that 2035...

[robertpaulsen]

Yep. A page right out of the liberal's handbook.

If a state can pass medical marijuana laws in violation of federal laws, then let the states ban abortion in violation of a Supreme Court ruling. This should get very interesting.

[inquest]

There's no "violation" of a supreme court ruling. That ruling applied to some guy named Wade. Courts do not have powers beyond the parties to the cases and controversies that come before them.