Saturday, February 25, 2006

South Dakota v. Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood has vowed to fight the recently passed law in South Dakota, in which abortion is to be banned in al cases except for those cases where the mothers life is I jeopardy. The governor has vowed to sign the bil into law, after ensuring that there are “no loopholes”.

Loopholes? What in the hell is he talking about? It seems pretty cut and dried to me. Is he wanting to make sure, perhaps, that there will be a second or third opinion from a qualified physician to verify the first diagnosis? If so, that in itself could be one hell of a loophole, assumming these second and third opinions are coming from physicians hired by the state. If this is the case, from where will these phsicians be taken? What willl be their own philosophies in regards to the procedure? I shudder to think about it.

And why not allow the procedure in the case of rape? Are they really that afraid that some women will claim rape as a means of getting around the ban if they allow this exclusion? I suspect this is true in some cases, but the sad, sad truth is that, for the most part, a good many well meaning people actually believe that rape does not justify an abortion. After all, it is not “the baby’s fault.”

And what of incest? Now, it would be pretty easy to verify this. But it is still, alas, an innocent life. An innocent life that will still, nevertheless, pass on dangerously defective DNA into the general population, perhaps to manifest two or three generations later, if not immediately-but innocent nevertheless.

Thankfully, this law will be overturned on appeal, and most observers believe this will be upheld by the Supreme Court. But people are stating to pay for very close attention to recent rulings bythe Court on life and death issues, especially those involving choice and privacy, such as the recent vote on the Oegon asisted suicide law. In addition, the court is due to hear a case involving a ban on late term abortion procedures.

The up-and-coming off year congressional elections promises to be a busy one. Look for an increase in voter paticipation this year. And look for any further Bush judicial appointments to be scrutinized even more than usual, including those to the Federal Appelate courts. Those are the ones that are, after all, perhaps as important in their own wayt, if not more so, than the Supreme Court potentials.

4 comments:

life's tragedy said...

'Tis South Dakota, they need all the people they can moving to their state. Forced child birthing is a good way to force people to live there reguardless of how they came to be concieved in the first place.

Besides all life is given by God, it's a gift to a woman directly from God. The law just prevents women from refusing God's gift, unless it jepordizes her life.

Very thoughtful of them, actually, probably figured it wouldn't fly with activist judges if they said only exception is a God given mandate witnessed by at least 100 conservatives and the governor. Huh?

The Pagan Temple said...

I guess that all depends on what kind of "activist" judges hear the case. Also, seems to me to be a good way to get a lot of people to leave the state, if anything. More people are liable to leave there than move there because of it.

artio.sd said...

I'm from South Dakota, and I and quite a few others don't support what our legislators did. That is why it was forced to a referdum vote. In November the citzens of my state will vote to allow the law to stand or to scrap it. I don't know what will happen when the votes are counted but I'm hoping it will never get a chance to become a court case.

The Pagan Temple said...

If it gets to the Supreme Court there's no chance it would stand. However, I don't see much chance for the referendum to overturn it. In fact, voters will probably uphold the law by about two to one. South Dakota is a very conservative state, isn't it? Still, laws guaranteeing abortion rights were meant to protect the rights of the minority, and at the same time just happen to have the support of the majority of the country. Sure, the country as a whole tends to be more moderate than either extreme in the debate, when it comes to issues such as partial birth and parental notification, they tend to side with the conservatives. I do, as well.

Still, what tends to tip the scales has more to do with which lobby has the most power in any given state, than it does actual, meaningful,thoughtful public policy and fairness. In your state, the lobby with the most power just happens to be the "Pro-Life" side. Or at least that is how it would appear.

Good luck to you. Maybe enough people will rally to your side that the referendum will overturn the law without need of dragging it to the courts. That's what it would take, people on your side caring enough to go to the polls to vote on the issue more than do the conservatives.