The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota (America, abortion)

[DakotaGypsy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12sun1.html

March 12, 2006
Editorial
A Warning From South Dakota
When President Bush's Supreme Court nominees were asked about abortion and Roe v. Wade, their answers ranged from vague to opaque. But the state legislature in South Dakota felt it heard the underlying message loud and clear. Now, South Dakota has thrown down the gauntlet. It adopted a law last week that makes every abortion that is not necessary to save the life of the mother a crime. The law is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings. But its backers are hoping that the addition of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the court will be enough to change things.

The law should be struck down because it imposes an unacceptable burden on women. But it should also serve as a warning that the threat to abortion rights has reached a new level.

South Dakota's abortion law is the most restrictive one adopted by any state since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It does not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or from incest. Nor does it allow abortions that are necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The law is unlikely to go into force anytime soon. If it did, it would simply drive women — as in the pre-Roe days — to risk their lives to end their pregnancies with illegal back-alley abortions.

Gov. Mike Rounds, who signed the bill into law, said that the "true test of a civilization" was how it treated "the most vulnerable and helpless," including "unborn children." But his state has hardly been a leader in protecting vulnerable children who have left the womb. The nation's three worst counties for child poverty at the time of the last census were all in South Dakota, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Buffalo County, home to the Crow Creek Indian Reservation, was dead last.

South Dakota's law defies Supreme Court precedents, which hold that states cannot put an "undue burden" on abortion rights and cannot ban abortions necessary to preserve the mother's health. But anti-abortion forces seem eager to see how firm those precedents will be with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito changing the balance.

The test seems premature, since even if both men voted to overturn Roe there would still only be four votes. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative, has sided with the court's four liberals on this point. But abortion opponents may be hoping he can be pressured to change. They have also begun predicting that Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest member, will leave the court, allowing President Bush to appoint another anti-Roe justice.

Whatever the fate of the South Dakota law, it seems likely to jump-start a whole new era of abortion battles. More states may soon follow South Dakota's lead, and if the membership of the Supreme Court changes, abortion may become illegal in much or even all of the country. Roe ushered in three decades of complacency for the majority of Americans who support abortion rights. South Dakota's harsh new law is a clear sign that the time for complacency is over.

[michel]

Ouch...........

[PureX]

It's just politics as usual. The republicans will all be clamoring to sponsor these and similar bills because they know their bills won't be struck down by the courts before the upcoming elections. So in the mean time, they can all pretend they're doing what their religious conservative supporters want most - ending abortion. Then once they get re-elected, their bills will be struck down, abortion will remain as it is, and they will once again blame the "liberal courts" and "activist judges". Then they will go on happily selling out the American people to the highest campaign contributor, which is all they ever intended to do in the first place.

Once again the religious right will be used like a bunch of ignorant school girls by the republican party, because they are so single-issue oriented. And once again the result will be that the American people will be sold out by their own politicians to corporate greed. The rich will continue to buy the laws they need to make themselves even richer, at the expense of the rest of us.

You would think that by now the people would've wised up to this scam, but we never seem to learn.

[DakotaGypsy]

I found something very interesting in the Toronto Globe & Mail:[quote]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Mr. Hunt even sees economic benefits from banning abortion in South Dakota, noting that there are an average of 800 of the procedures a year. If those babies had been born, the state wouldn't be facing the same demographic crisis of falling school enrolment in rural areas and economic decline, he said.

And it would be a boon to adoptive parents. “People are going to Asia, Central and South America to adopt children? Why not have them adopted here?”

Representative and lawyer Roger Hunt is the prime mover behind this law. I can see that he sees a possible growth industry within the State of South Dakota--selling nice blond, South Dakota babies to people desperate to have such children. Hunt probably plans on making a healthy buck from such an industry.

[michel]

That is awful.

[DakotaGypsy]

And, sob, Michel, I'm from South Dakota.

However, I truly believe that most South Dakotans are quite sensible and are opposed to this law. It is so hard to survive in South Dakota, many have to work two or three jobs to keep afloat--so they can't keep their eyes on what happens politically in the state.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by DakotaGypsy

However, I truly believe that most South Dakotans are quite sensible

Sorry, not buying it.

South Dakota politics are generally dominated by the Republican Party and the state has not supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, especially notable when one considers that George McGovern, the Democratic nominee in 1972, was from South Dakota. In 2004, George W. Bush won the state's 3 electoral votes by the overwhelming margin of 22 percentage points with 59.9% of the vote.

That's even better than Shrub did in South Carolina. (But based on 2004 election results, SD is still much better than Utah, the most ignorant state in the union, where 72% of the vote went to Shrub.)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

I noticed for all the Christian clamor of "abortion is murder", that the law specifies for the "murder of a pre-born" a punishment that is less than given for vandalism worth $1000. Hypocrisy seems to extend into religion as well as politics.

[Draka]

Originally Posted by DakotaGypsy

his state has hardly been a leader in protecting vulnerable children who have left the womb. The nation's three worst counties for child poverty at the time of the last census were all in South Dakota, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Buffalo County, home to the Crow Creek Indian Reservation, was dead last.

With stats like these it sounds like all they need is more children around to live in poverty and not take care of . Great news people!...We're going to make it so that we have MORE children we can't afford! YAY!

[DakotaGypsy]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Sorry, not buying it.

South Dakota politics are generally dominated by the Republican Party and the state has not supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, especially notable when one considers that George McGovern, the Democratic nominee in 1972, was from South Dakota. In 2004, George W. Bush won the state's 3 electoral votes by the overwhelming margin of 22 percentage points with 59.9% of the vote.

That's even better than Shrub did in South Carolina. (But based on 2004 election results, SD is still much better than Utah, the most ignorant state in the union, where 72% of the vote went to Shrub.)

Oh! OK! Maybe all the sensible South Dakotans moved out of the state!! Geesh! Allow me at least a tattered thread of respectability for coming from South Dakota!