[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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)

[Delta 21]

In actuality this will only shut down ONE abortion clinic in South Dakota, thats ran by Planned Parenthood and is manned by out of state doctors from Michigan (I think I heard it right?)

But its a start!

[spikeytx86]

Me and my sister were talking about this last night, and I am hoping some of the FReepers here who are more knowledgeable about the law could help me.

What if a state made it so all abortions were legal but that someone who was preforming the abortion had to obtain the license at a fee of say $1,000,000,000.00 Annually and anyone practicing without this license would be charged with a felony. Could this fly with Roe V Wade? Because I don't even think George soros could buy a license every year at that rate thus ending abortion.

[RebekahT]

I appreciate what SD is trying to do but it was horribly timed. Without another "conservative" vote on the Court (and assuming CJ Roberts will vote the way we want him to), SD's plan will fail. The Supreme Court will strike down the law based on Roe & it's progeny. Then, when (if) we get another seat on the Court, the liberals will have yet another (and more importantly, a RECENT) affirmation of Roe & Casey...Bad for us because almost all of the justices believe in stare decisis (following precedent). We don't need another jewel in the crown of "abortion rights" and more stones for the libs in the Senate to throw at a conservative nominee (and another case name for Specter to add to his infamous abortion board in confirmation hearings).

However, I suppose the Court could deny cert but it only take 5 votes on the Court to grant cert to hear a case and there are 5 libs on the Court right now who are itching for ANOTHER chance to affirm "abortion rights." Nice try, South Dakota, but not very good "strategery."

[Hardastarboard]

“culture of life”

Hardly any clue as to what this woman's bias is, eh?

[irishjuggler]

I applaud South Dakota. To have a state openly reject Roe is a great thing. The message is, "The people of South Dakota reject the Supreme Court's anti-constitutional attempt to proscribe our right to regulate the practice of abortion in our state."

Shame on all the naysayers on this thread. Moderation in the defense of liberty is no vice.