Do you agree or disagree with this? Find it shocking at all?

I have to say that I'm actually surprised.

While I agree with the ban I disagree with not having an exception clause.

I find it very shocking and upsetting. First of all, that is really close to home for me, and I can't believe I didn't hear/read about this before. (In my defense I have been out of town, but seriously!) Second, I am frightened by the inevitable point in the future where the suddenly very right leaning SC is going to be pondering this issue again. I am afraid stare decisis won't matter much. I hope I am wrong.

I suspect you are going to start a fire with this one, ICU.

__________________

I disagree with the Ban. I also am doing the neener neer dance to all those who said in prior discussions, it's just a commitee Kendra, they don't make the law, it just meets and makes suggestions. Yeah, bite my ***.

__________________

Confused lurker...can a State have a law that is at odds with Federal Law? I thought Fed law over ruled State rules and until Roe vs Wade is over turned States can't pass these things.

Just asking for an explanation. TIA!

__________________
tiah, "mum-mum" to shaun and clara

"...And its from the old I travel to the new, Keep me travelling along with you..."

.


Sometimes all you accomplish in a day is that your children become a day older.

- my grandmother

See my book here!

Have to say I fear the day that the Supreme Court does decided to review this issue. I also don't think that stare decisi is going to hold up.

__________________

Here goes..........

States actually have the power to regulate in this area. The Supreme Court only gets involved when someone contests the law as unconstitutional (or as violating a federal law, I suppose). In the case of abortion, states *can* regulate so long as it fits within the parameters of Roe and its progeny (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, etc). Some things that have been issues in the past have been parental notification, partial birth abortions, etc....

Abortion laws are usually (I believe) contested and taken to the SC on the basis of a constitutional violation of the right to privacy (by a long and winding path, I might add, which usually ends in a closed door -- the SC does *not* want to address this issue...or they didn't. Who knows with the changing of the guard). The right to privacy is hotly debated, not only in the context of abortion but also in the arena of parental rights and gay rights. Roe v. Wade essentially, I believe, was the case that said that women do have a fundamental right to privacy in that they can (within certain bounds that do not cause an undue burden on her rights) choose to terminate a pregnancy. This is not a verbatim quote of the case law, just a very generic summation of the current state of constitutional law on this subject. I would add that the right to privacy has been consistently chipped away at in the years since Roe, and it could likely be overturned by the current court.

So, in short (in long?) there is no federal law, per se, that says women have the right to choose. Rather, that right is protected under the constitution (currently) and states can make laws as they see fit, but such laws, if contested, must withstand constitutional scrutiny. This law *ABSOLUTELY* contradicts Roe v. Wade, and it is a blatant attempt (per the press blurb) to get the court to hear another abortion case.

Boy was that long winded!

__________________

The supreme court cases (like Roe) are the court's interpretation of constitutional rights. As the court changes, so does the interpretation of the constitution.....

HTH

__________________

No Lisa, I think given the mindfield of the issue that was rather short. Thanks for the answer

__________________
tiah, "mum-mum" to shaun and clara

"...And its from the old I travel to the new, Keep me travelling along with you..."

.


Sometimes all you accomplish in a day is that your children become a day older.

- my grandmother

See my book here!

That was what I thought also. Personally I object to abortion except in cases of incest/rape and the mother's life being in danger. On the same token I also don't believe that making it unavailable or illegal really stops people from seeking out that service. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

__________________

Lisa-

I am frantically reading about fundamental rights and strict scrutiny trying to brush up on my con law. Can we start a debate about criminals (since that is what I deal with all day). At least I can comment on that with out having to bust out the law books. LOL

In an earlier post I broke out the barbri mini review to refresh myself on tort law. Maybe instead of a bar exam people should just have to post here for a couple of weeks. LOL

I give you an A+ for you answer.

__________________

LMAO Barb.....Trust me, I had to think about it a little. I suspect that b/c this issue is a hot one for me is probably the only reason I could remember much. I can honestly say that the Commerce Clause doesn't really light the same fire under me.

__________________

oohh....bad grammar.....ah well, you get the point.

__________________

I do find it shocking, but I am very pleased with this news! I can only hope and pray that other states will follow in SD's footsteps, and finally convince the SC to reverse the R vs. W ruling in January, 1973, when BTW, my mother was offered an abortion due to complications with me in her 7th month of pregnancy! I thank the Lord every day that she told that doctor to go to hell! We may have had serious complications bringing me into this world, but we made it, and are just fine! Therefore, I would be so happy if abortion could be made illegal again throughout the country! With one state doing this now, I pray others will follow!

__________________

Jenny -- I really don't think making abortion illegal is the solution. That will just result in back alley abortions and unlicensed personnel performing them. I do not like the idea of repeat abortions and abortions as birth control, nor do I think it should be something a woman keeps in her 'back pocket' so to speak -- like, oh, if we have unprotected sex I can just have an abortion -- but my experience has been that most women don't go into an abortion in that way.....it is a difficult decision to make.

I would add that your mother was given the *choice* -- I am happy she made the choice she did, as you are here because of it, and that it went well, but not every situation would end as positive as your mother's.

I pray this doesn't pass the SD Senate. And if it does and it is challenged as unconstitutional, I would hope that the Supreme Court (including the two latest additions) hold to the statements/promises made in confirmation hearings and follow stare decisis.

__________________

It's nobody's business period. regardless of abortion as use of birth control or need.

__________________

Abortion is murder. No different than if someone came up to you on the street and shot you dead. That person would be arrested and put in prison for life. Abortion being legal is just another way of saying that murder is legal. Just because a baby has not been born yet doesn't mean that it's not a living human being. It is just that, and killing another human being is murder. There are plenty of other options for young ladies who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy...adoption being the biggest one!

Making abortion illegal may cause women to seek out a way to have it done anyway, but it's not going to be an easy thing for them to do, nor will it be done anywhere near as much as it is now. Millions and millions of human beings are being killed and just thrown away without a second thought or remorse about it. With abortion being illegal, millions more babies will be given the chance to live, and make a difference in our world, just like each and every one of us do throughout our lives.

Some will be aborted illegally, yes, but it would certainly not be just a convienent option for someone who had an oopsie! With having sex comes responsibility. If a teenager finds herself pregnant, she should have to face the consequences of the action she took, and tell her parents, and carry that child through until birth. At that time, if she still does not wish to raise a child, the the option of adoption is right there waiting for her. But that child still has a chance to live a life!

And the idea of girls under the age of 18 being allowed to have an abortion without her parents even knowing about it...that's appauling! A parent is responsible for their daughter until she turns 18, and that SHOULD be the case in every way shape and form. A parent ought to have the right to know what is going on with their teenager's life. Abortion shouldn't be legal at all, but if it's going to be, then the parents of a teenager should be allowed to know that's what's happening.

__________________

Well, I don't want to see abortion made completely illegal as I do think, though rare, there are cases where an early term abortion might save a mother's life. As for mid-late term abortions I think those should only be options in severe cases. Obviously if a baby dies in-utero and labor does not happen the baby needs to be removed. Extreme deformaties that are incompatable with life outside the womb may lead parents to want to end the pregnancy early. While it is technically an abortion, I think of it more as helping nature take its course a bit sooner. It is better on the mother, psychologically to do this.

So, basically, I am not for making it illegal, but I am for putting restrictions on it. I would also like to see availability of the morning-after pill as OTC. If they want to avoid someone using it routinely, which can be dangerous and if they want to make sure the woman knows of all the risks that go along with it, they can make it like they do the sudafed, where it is OTC, but you have to sign it out at the pharmacy. I don't really like that idea, but I do understand that the MAP does have risks.

__________________
Asexuality: It's not just for amoebas anymore

"As long as two people love each other I don't think God cares whether they both have a hoo hoo or a haa haa" Marge Simpson

Oh lawdy, here we go again. I don't know if I am up for another abortion debate.

__________________

Nicole

This will never stand.

The analysis of current abortion law is incomplete. You left out the 2000 case, Stenberg v. Carhart. The Court overturned a Nebraska law that banned late term abortions because there was no exception for the health of the mother. Jesus, it is like the SD legislature didn't have access to the opinion because the Court all but gave them a roadmap on how to further restrict a woman's ability to choose an abortion but they didn't read the map. I know, I know - the Court has changed substantially since 2000 but here's how I see it:

Stenberg v. Carhart was decided 5-4 but there is a quirk involved in those 4 votes. One of them was Kennedy. Recall that Kennedy was one of the authors of the joint opinion in Casey upholding the central principle in Roe but allowing states to regulate abortion provided the regulations don't unduly burden a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion. Some people think he voted to uphold the law in Stenberg because he found the procedural descriptions of late term abortions repugnant. There is no way he will ever vote to completely ban abortion. The other three votes to uphold the ban on late term abortions were obvious: Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. Rehnquist has been replaced by Roberts so no matter how Roberts votes, no change in the decision. Alito would be the wild card but that leaves Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg...and Kennedy. Alito's vote doesn't matter. Those five justices will never vote to ban abortion.