South Dakota in direct challenge of Roe Vs Wade

[Cowperson]

State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation's highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

"They feel with the changing makeup of the Supreme Court that it is perhaps a time to start challenging Roe v. Wade, and they think especially with the addition of Alito and Roberts to the court that those are justices who would vote in their favor," says Jodi Schwan of CBS affiliate KELO-TV.

Will we see a day when abortions are banned in the USA? Will that create a back yard market for them or will we see a flood to Canada maybe Mexico?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1344649.shtml

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

That will polarize the american populace even more than it already is. It will be interesting to see this get played out, it could get ugly.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

It's already ugly down here. Red states live in what is rapidly becoming a de facto fascist theocracy. It wasn't that long ago that Kansas successfully banned the teaching of evolution, and we have a president (who believes "intelligent design" is an alternative scientific theory that should be taught in the science classroom) stacking the courts with pro-life judges. Separation of church and state? Forget it. In ten years, America will be lucky if church and state have separate cubicles in the offices of government.

I just hope I can move back to Canada before it gets any worse. (must write dissertation.... must spend less time on CP.....)

[Displaced Flames fan]

The Court, as it stands now, will not overturn Roe V. Wade.

[Cowperson]

The Court, as it stands now, will not overturn Roe V. Wade.

I would agree.

America is probably going to lean back towards the centre in the November elections as well.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

America is probably going to lean back towards the centre in the November elections as well.

Cowperson

I think so too. I think both parties are alienating their core supporters by polarizing like they have.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The Court, as it stands now, will not overturn Roe V. Wade.

I'm not sure if you're just using this as shorthand, but. . . .

The US Supreme Court will never overturn Roe v. Wade -- even if some argue it was wrongly decided, it has been upheld in enough appeals and has been applied in enough cases that it's pretty much settled law. However, since the Casey decision, it has been legal for states to put restrictions on access to abortion, such as wait times, parental consent requirements, mandatory counseling requirements, etc.

The main issue now is: is the current court going to be willing to expand the states rights to impose restrictions, leaving states open to impose such strict restrictions that, while abortion will still be legal on the books, it will for all practical purposes be unavailable for large portions of the population.

Given the last two appointments, I wouldn't be at all surprised if something along those lines happens.

This opens the door for me to pimp yet another Frontline episode -- The Last Abortion Clinic, which looks at how even the current restrictions allowed to be put in place in many of the Southern States has eliminated an abortion as a realistic option for many women.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I'm not sure if you're just using this as shorthand, but. . . .

The US Supreme Court will never overturn Roe v. Wade -- even if some argue it was wrongly decided, it has been upheld in enough appeals and has been applied in enough cases that it's pretty much settled law. However, since the Casey decision, it has been legal for states to put restrictions on access to abortion, such as wait times, parental consent requirements, mandatory counseling requirements, etc.

You clearly know a good deal more about this than I do. But I wonder--was I wrong to be concerned, for instance, when Samuel Alito and John Roberts were more than willing to comment on the merits of, say, Brown v. Board of Education, on the basis of "that's settled law"--and then refused to answer questions abour Roe v. Wade or Casey because these are "issues that might come before the court"? I found that worrisome--but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know how worrisome that should be.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You clearly know a good deal more about this than I do. But I wonder--was I wrong to be concerned, for instance, when Samuel Alito and John Roberts were more than willing to comment on the merits of, say, Brown v. Board of Education, on the basis of "that's settled law"--and then refused to answer questions abour Roe v. Wade or Casey because these are "issues that might come before the court"? I found that worrisome--but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know how worrisome that should be.

I didn't watch the Alito hearings, but didn't Roberts say Roe was settled law?

I thought I remembered him saying that, but maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: From a CNN article:

Arguing a case for the first Bush administration in 1990 when he was deputy solicitor general, Roberts said Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

In his 2003 confirmation hearing, however, he told senators he was acting as an advocate for his client, rather than presenting his own positions.

He told senators Roe was "the settled law of the land" and said "there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I didn't watch the Alito hearings, but didn't Roberts say Roe was settled law?

Now that you mention it, I remember that too. On the other hand, I clearly remember Alito dodging that very question on the basis of "it may come before the court"--and refusing to either describe Roe as settled law, while also refusing to say anything one way or another on the merits of Roe.

I understand that rationale for not answering a question during confirmation, but it's such a broad standard that it makes the confirmation process a bit of a joke, in my opinion.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by fotze

Hot damn. I'm gonna rent me a warehouse and buy a truckload of these babies. Where do I send my business plan.

ahh yes, the "stir n' queef" method.

[Flame On]

The report I heard stated that the bill was drafted to deny it in all situations except those that would threaten the woman's/girl's life. That includes rape and incest!! Unreal proposal.
I wonder if you could argue that if you were refused the right to abort a child you didn't want you'd get it done illegally and therefore dangerously. Therefore a risk to the woman's health.