Poll: South Dakota Voters Against Abortion Ban
From Associated Press (via The Guardian):
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - South Dakota voters are leaning against the state's tough new ban on abortions, a poll released Monday shows.My Comments:
The statewide survey of 800 registered voters found 47 percent opposed the strict ban, while 39 percent favored it. The remaining 14 percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The Legislature voted overwhelmingly earlier this year to make abortion illegal in all cases - including rape and incest - unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It was to become law on July 1, but opponents gathered enough signatures to delay it and to let voters decide in November whether the ban should take effect.
If voters reject the abortion ban at the ballot box, they would effectively repeal it.
Monday's poll also asked voters who said they would reject the ban or were undecided how they would vote if the legislation allowed abortions in cases of rape or incest: 59 percent said they would support it, 29 percent said they would still reject a ban, and 12 percent were undecided.
"Monday's poll also asked voters who said they would reject the ban or were undecided how they would vote if the legislation allowed abortions in cases of rape or incest: 59 percent said they would support it ..."
This is why pro-lifers should learn to accept half a loaf. While we are right to believe it is tragically immoral for unborn children conceived as a result of rape or incest to be killed, let's not "make the perfect the enemy of the good". Let's take what we can incrementally, and then work to make the law better.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Move to Overturn S.D. Abortion Ban Gains Ground
The GOP's Abortion Anxiety - Why GOP Leaders Worry About Pro-Life Wins
Why Abortion Bans May Not Be the Answer Now - Clarke Forsythe on Judicial Strategies
A Strong Argument in Favor of the South Dakota Abortion Ban
Justice Scalia Agrees with Former Mayor of Columbia, VA on Roe v. Wade
South Dakota Abortion Ban Becomes Law
Joseph Bottum: South Dakota Anti-Abortion Legislation a "Tactical Error"
Fidelis Urges South Dakota Governor to Protect Women and Sign Abortion Ban
Bill Introduced to "Stop Abortion in Ohio"
South Dakota Passes Abortion Ban
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:34 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Jay:
The lesson I draw from this is, don't have referendum and initiative; they are ruinous!
* For one, it undercuts so many worthy legislative projects from the get-go.
Many fail to see that the value of pursuing legislation includes many things, not just after it's passed, but before as well. Actually getting the effect of it as law is but one benefit.
So, even if one knew, with metaphysical certitude, that this bill would never become law, it would still have been worthwhile to pursue -- for all the other benefits. However, the anticipation of a referendum overturning it makes it harder to get started, and thus derails all those benefits. This is the problem in Ohio, too.
* Referenda and initiative have the effect of giving you a worse legislature than you'd otherwise have: because it means the elected officials can avoid casting those controversial votes that would make them vulnerable.
Instead, the controversial votes go on the ballot, and folks who otherwise would get tossed from office for such votes, stay in office. This is what has happened in California.
* Initiative and referendum are a lousy way to govern, every which way. They are a lousy way to frame public law, and they are a lousy way to remedy bad law.
Many like recourse to the ballot to fix what the legislature or governor does, but the problem is, what you need to do is hold them accountable! You don't have to beat all of them; simply making an example of a couple has salutary effects on the rest. And yes, you may not be able to do it at the next election; it takes time.
But referenda aren't a sure thing, either -- back in 1983, Gov. Celeste hiked taxes, here in Ohio, by 90%. Opponents went to the ballot -- and they lost, despite polls showing overwhelming opposition to the new taxes.
* Referenda (there are technical distinctions between referenda, initiative, etc., which I am ignoring here) give one side a huge advantage: whoever has the "no" position.
An otherwise good idea that most people mostly support can go down in flames, simply because the opposition creates enough worry or fear about some negative consequence.
The repeal of Celeste's tax hikes went down 2-1; do you really think Ohioans favored higher taxes that lopsidedly? Or was it because opponents sowed a doubt about what terrible thing might happen if the whole tax hike were repealed?
And once that happens, the losing side wears that defeat around its necks like an albatross for a long time. Republicans in Ohio who refuse to support Right to Work still cite a failed referendum on Right to Work from 1958!
(And because our laws on initiative would mean any Right to Work law would go to the ballot, that's one reason why a Right to Work law goes nowhere, even though most Ohioans support it, and it would have lots of good effects, before and after passage.)
There are other problems with the "incremental" approach, too. A big one is that every time you pass something, part of your winning coalition goes home. They got what they wanted; they go celebrate victory, rather than stay around and help win anything more.
Yes, you may not be able to avoid that; but there's no reason to seek that approach.
This may sound cynical, but: in a sense, it almost doesn't matter if the bill "can't pass" because it "goes too far." You could almost say, that's better. Almost...
That's because of what I said -- the legislative fight, itself, has so much value, essential value.
You need these legislative fights to clarify who your real friends and enemies are, in the legislature and in the political process, and you need them to mobilize your own forces, and build toward victory. And you do that better with purer, clearer, bolder proposals than with softer, milder, incremental ones.
A Partial Birth Abortion ban wins you votes from folks you know won't be with you on the votes that really matter. Not saying its useless, but it doesn't provide the clarity a vote on a full ban does.
You may say, but we'll never pass the full ban. I disagree, only because I don't know what we will, or won't, "ever" do; but even if you're right, so what? The fight prepares a better ground for passing all those other things you want to pass -- and it does a better job of that than making the softer, more incremental legislation your lead issue, precisely because its a bold, visionary approach, not a salami-slice measure.
All that said, I do not want to suggest I don't care if we ever pass the bold, visionary things. I certainly do. I think you can't expect to get what you want if you never actually try.
So if you want an absolute ban on abortion, you propose that, you don't keep that hidden away, for "someday" -- someday will never come with that approach, considering how distant it is, even when you go full-bore.
I'm not saying there are no negatives to pursuing the "it goes too far" bill. There are; but only if its the wrong "it goes too far" bill. Then, it can be a distraction from something more useful. But most of the so-called negatives of such approaches aren't that at all; they may even be positives. I.e., when it brings out the hand-wringers, be very glad: that is one of the salutary effects of such a bill! It exposes the unreliables in your midst, the very ones who turn on you whenever the heat is on, the ones who turn victory into defeat. You want to know who they are, ahead of time; and not only that, you want them to identify themselves, by complaining or opposing your project, so that you can bring heat on them from the grassroots; i.e., you probably already knew they were weak; but until they come out against the bill, all your troops didn't know. Now they do. That is a plus.
I've ranted enough, sorry...
Father,
I definitely agree with you on the ruinous nature of referendum and initiative. One of the worst excesses of the "Progressive Era".
Fortunately, having spent most of my life in the South, where referendum and initiative is not the norm, I've never experienced firsthand its deleterious effects.
I guess that's going to change now that I'm in Ohio.
Jay, let's not forget that you simply can't depend on the polls for the truth, also remember that social conservatives are a lot more likely to actually get out and vote than hippies. This will be a close one don't get me wrong, the liberals are going to say that South Dakota is the laughing stock of the nation, a reactionary Taliban style enclave, now more than ever South Dakota's clergy need to speak the truth and beauty of the Churche's positions on life issues. Imagine if with this refurendum, the voters SUPPORT the ban that will be a major victory for the Culture of Life!
Post a Comment
<< Home