When Is an Abortion Not an Abortion?

Time ^ | 3-6-06 | NANCY GIBBS

[Indy Pendance]

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds had to decide whether to side with the Purists or the Pragmatists in the Abortion Wars. His decision to sign the state’s dramatic new abortion bill means the Purists have prevailed, and the moral, political and legal argument surrounding abortion rights is about to turn a corner.

In a country where two thirds of the public does not want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but nearly as many favor stricter limits on abortion, pragmatic abortion opponents have pushed for parental notification laws, waiting periods, restrictions on late-term abortions: The strategy was to chip away at Roe to try to shrink it, change its shape, and over time promote a “culture of life” that would view abortion less as a right than a tragedy, perhaps eventually a crime. That gradual approach requires a certain level of hypocrisy—or at least a willing suspension of moral belief—because if you truly equate abortion with murder, it’s hard to settle for slowing it down rather than stopping it altogether, right away: the Purist approach.

Which is what South Dakota now proposes to do. Lawmakers threw away the chisel, grabbed a sledgehammer and went at Roe with a fury, all but daring the Supreme Court to step in. The bill they passed last month, HB 1215, bans all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest, including cases that threaten the health of the mother; the only exception is if the mother’s survival itself is at risk, and even in those instances the doctor must “make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child.” Doctors caught performing abortions would be charged with a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

[JNL]

I'm not sure of the tactics on this one. This will be struck down very quickly and I doubt it will make it to the Supreme Court. However, if it does make it as far as the Supreme Court I doubt that they will uphold it.

Overall great poilitical point scorer (for the base) but seemingly bad manuver.

I don't get it.

[Reactionary]

What exactly is so "pragmatic" about a shrinking population in the minds of the fools at Time?

I would like to know...

[Dog Gone]

The timing isn't great. I don't think we have a Supreme Court yet that is ready to overturn Roe.

The danger is that every time you raise the issue and lose, you make it that much more difficult to raise in the future.

Waiting out the retirement of Stevens or Ginsburg would have increased the chances of success.

The Supreme Court tends to nibble away at previous decisions until the original decision can no longer be supported by the more recent "tests" the Court has embraced. This is a full-scale frontal assault on abortion and will be struck down, in my opinion. That won't represent progress. It will further cement abortion as entrenched constitutional law.

[Indy Pendance]

Even if Roe was overturned, it'd be a states issus, where is should have been in the first place.

I think the supremes will wait on this as a federal vote. States are issuing their own rules right now, kinda cool. Is it constitutional, fed trumps states....

[jdhljc169]

Bump

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I'm heartened to see various states doing things like this to rock the boat a little bit. Not only on the issue of abortion, but on altering State Constitutions on defending traditional marriage and property rights issues, etc.

This particular abortion ban won't go anywhere, but to me it shows a turning tide. States REALLY need to stand up for themselves these days. The Feds strip us of our state rights at an alarming pace, IMHO.

[JNL]

Yeah but the pro-abortion rights groups are gearing up. If you get one death that's the result of a back alley job in SD then the press is going to howl.



Don't doubt, if someone doesn't die, the press will invent her anyways.

[The Great RJ]

Sad thing is that this new law will not prevent even one abortion in South Dakota and will quickly be thrown out of the courts leaving South Dakota tax payers nothing but a large legal bill. This is pure politicl grandstanding and the Governor should have had the courage to veto this bill as being ineffective.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"Don't doubt, if someone doesn't die, the press will invent her anyways."

I don't doubt that one bit. They're probably inventing her at the New York Times for the upcoming Sunday Edition as we speak, LOL! Some imaginary young girl in SD is committing suicide because she now thinks she can't get an abortion, etc.

I'm just certain this abortion ban in SD won't be going anywhere...but it sends a clear message that those of us in The Heartland are sick and tired of the liberals on either coast dictating what we should and shouldn't accept.

You do know that the two women involved in Roe v. Wade never did have abortions and did carry their kids to term, right? Both are now outspoken pro-lifers and even Sandra Day O'Connor said that Roe v. Wade was just flat-out BAD LAW.

The Culture of Death marches on. It will always be with us, as long as socialists live and breathe. Fortunately, they're aborting themselves out of existence. From what I've seen over the years, they can never see one chess move ahead of themselves. ;)

[manwiththehands]

That gradual approach requires a certain level of hypocrisy—or at least a willing suspension of moral belief—because if you truly equate abortion with murder, it’s hard to settle for slowing it down rather than stopping it altogether, right away ...

And is there not a certain amount of hypocrisy needed to make exceptions for rape and incest?

[Indy Pendance]

It's a slow process, a win now will be able to fulfill a win next year. It's one less murder. I'll take the gradual approach, because a full stop won't happen immediately. As long as it's trending in the life direction. God is watching, and He's working with us.

[ndt]

"Overall great poilitical point scorer (for the base) but seemingly bad manuver.

I don't get it."

Sounds like you do.

[bushinohio]

Hearing a lot of pessimism about this, but I still think it's a courageous maneuver and not political grandstanding. Anyone ever think that maybe the people of SD are tired of innocent children being killed?

This will take quite some time before it reaches the Supreme Court and perhaps the makeup of the court will be a little different by then. At any rate, the liberals trash us enough, we shouldn't be arguing with each other. We need to stand firm in our support of the unborn.

****Oh, and the statistic about 2/3rds of the country not wanting Roe V Wade overturned is pure crap.

[TigersEye]

When it concerns shredding a baby, burning it to death with saline or stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and vacuuming its brains out I think I have to be a Purist.

No baby murder!

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Adverse Effects

Total Abortions since 1973

45,951,133

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[TigersEye]

****Oh, and the statistic about 2/3rds of the country not wanting Roe V Wade overturned is pure crap.

Pure, unadulterated, fresh, wet, sticky and fly covered.

[TigersEye]

I don't get it.

Ahhhh, it's a no-brainer really! Murderin' babies is bad.

[spikeytx86]

Under Roe V Wade the court ruled that a women had a right to an abortion, under this law they still do in the event carrying to term will be detrimental to the mothers health, I don't see how this is "Extreme" but merely keeping with the law (wink wink). They cant say there banning all abortion because if a womens life is threatened they still can receive one so what is the leg the left can stand on? this may be common sense talking and I know that contradicts with the courts.

[Delta 21]

10th Amendment bump.

[spikeytx86]

"3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health "

Oh my god that is ballsy, " I had to have an abortion because if I didn't my baby could be in danger!"