This is the first in what will probably turn out to be a series of posts (as the political scene develops) about lawmakers attempting to take advantage of the recent personel changes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
South Dakota Lawmakers consider banning abortion in the state.
The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.And the lawmaker who's introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.
Rep. Roger Hunt says, "Abortion should be banned."
Those four words will likely lead to many others in the South Dakota House and Senate as lawmakers will decide whether to criminalize abortion in the state. The bill's supporters are using findings from a controversial abortion task force report recently given to the legislature.
Hunt says, "DNA testing now can establish the unborn child has a separate and distinct personality from the mother. We know a lot more about post-abortion harm to the mother." ...
Sunday, Hunt and other anti-abortion advocates held an event promoting their legislation. They say now is the time to pass it, because other states are considering similar bills and because with new Chief Justice John Roberts, and possibly Samuel Alito, the US Supreme Court is changing.
I think the time is ripe for change, and as other pundits have pointed out overturning Roe v. Wade will actually be a political boon to the Democratic Party because it will reduce the impact of an issue that has dominated their party for decades, to the detriment of their political fortunes. When abortion is back in the democratic, state-level political arena, Democrats will be able to free themselves from the vice-grip that the far-left abortion industry has on them at the national level and begin to turn some attention towards other matters that are more attractive to the median voter.
I think passing an abortion ban now is good red meat for red states, but at the national level, it's politically suicidal. The last thing we need is to give the Dems another excuse to filibuster Alito or thwart the next nomination. Until there are five confirmed Justices who can be expected to overturn Roe, passing a law that won't survive under Roe is a fool's errand.
It may be a fool's errand, but it may also be good local politics in North Dakota, and many other states.
Call me old fashioned, but I shake my head in wonder at the political recipe that has to be just perfect before we consider doing the right thing by unborn children.
Shame on all of us smart, politically savvy, educated fools.
JP: If the politics of this aren't played "just perfect", the consequences for unborn children could be considerably more disasterous.
And, for the most part, I'm pro-choice.
What could be worse than the way it is right now? Is it possible to make legal abortion more legal than legal?
Why do we place great importance on "choice" for a woman to end life, but withold "choice" of life from those who are defenseless? And furthering the insult, we then label the suporters of that dribble "pro-choice".
A six year old could see right through that charade, and hence my earlier point. We grown ups are far too "educated" to see straight anymore. We just have to go make things so complicated that right and wrong all but disappear into a haze of intellectuall B.S.
That's why Jesus was so fond of children. Their exposure to a thousand shades of gray hadn't happened yet, and so they were far more capable of pure honesty.
JP: What could be worse than the way it is right now.. with abortion rates steadily declining over the last decade or so? Much could be worse: People move to states where abortion is legal and continue to have abortions, undoubtedly increasing the abortion rates in those states while not serving to reduce the national abortion rate whatsoever.
Upsetting the trend of reductions in the abortion rate to suit some black-and-white moral directive in a society that, like it or not, isn't black-and-white, is not wise.
Abortions can be (and are being) prevented without government action. It's working.. let it continue to work. If the goal is reducing or eliminating abortions, and social trends are already heading in that direction.. effectively accomplishing the goal at a rate that society as a whole can manage.. why is further action, particularly on the part of any level of government, necessary at all?
You keep reinforcing my point. That's refreshing.
As to why government intervention is necessary, you're smart enough to figure that one for yourself. Give it a whirl and let's see if you can do it without help.
JP: Your point escapes me. *My* whole point is that government intervention *is not* necessary.
I know what your point is. If I've been unclear, let me clarify a little: Your point is wrong.
To be simple:
1.Government stepped into it. Whether necessary or not, intervention's already occured.
2.Government now needs to step out of it, requiring their intervention all over again.
3.Concluding that they have no duty to intervene is way off the mark in light of #1.
I look forward to another response that will further bury and cloud these simple facts into a situation of hopeless impossibility.
I don't think the government should've ever stepped into it.. in the past, the present, or in the future.