Monday, March 06, 2006

South Dakota Abortion Ban Becomes Law

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed a sweeping abortion ban into law. Hat tip to Publius at Res Publica et Cetera who has a roundup of his extensive coverage of the South Dakota law.

Finally, Publius also speculates on whether the Supreme Court will take up the South Dakota ban in the near future.


At 3/06/2006 11:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've edited my post a bit, though the essence remains unchanged. Assuming that another liberal justice doesn't retire in time and get replaced by an anti-Roe justice, I think it would take John Roberts pulling off a miracle to keep Roe from being re-affirmed.

Not the miracle of turning Anthony Kennedy to the anti-Roe/pro-life side (that sort of miracle is reserved to God alone), but the miracle of convincing one or more of the liberal four to vote not to hear the case. Can he do it? Who knows? But if he can't, no one can.

At 3/06/2006 11:47 PM, Blogger O! said...

I'm glad SD did this - even if it doesn't get upheld by the Supreme Court, the message that America is not a "pro-choice country" is clear.

Great site. Can I put a link to yours on my blog?

At 3/06/2006 11:51 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

Please do. Thanks for your comments.

At 3/07/2006 9:16 AM, Blogger The Unseen One said...

Maybe Ginsberg will fall asleep again and miss the whole thing. ;)

At 3/08/2006 4:28 PM, Anonymous American Phoenix said...

If the lower court does overturn the ban, which it must because of stare decisis (i.e., Roe v. Wade), there are enough votes to get the case heard in the Supreme Court, but not enough to overturn Roe. There are not enough votes to keep Roe v. Wade from being reaffirmed: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts & Alito aren't enough. It would take a third Bush appointment to the Supreme Court to put Roe in real jeopardy. The most likely candidate is Justice Stevens, who is the eldest member of the court. But given that Bush only has two years left in his term, it is unlikely that he will get to pick again. Even more unlikely given that Stevens is one of the most liberal justices on the court and would be unlikely to retire and give Bush a pick. So Justice Stevens - or someone else -probably would have to leave the court "feet first" as they say. If he does get another pick, be prepared for a "battle royal".

I'm not quite sure what their legal strategy is, but it's going to be very tricky with only four Justices on the bench. On the other hand, this makes it crystal clear that the people are NOT voting for abortion, rather it is being imposed on them from above. Roe v. Wade is not an example of democracy in action.

Meanwhile, we here in California are simply trying to get a parental notification intiative back on the ballot (sigh)


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger