South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds says he's inclined to sign an abortion ban into law if it looks like it can save lives.
“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”But Rounds said he didn’t necessarily agree with the “frontal assault” tactic the bill takes to overturning the decision that legalized abortion.
“Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe v. Wade,” he said.
The bill would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota. That’s unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the goal of the legislation is to force the high court to take a fresh look at its 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.
But the state director of Planned Parenthood is concerned that some voices aren't being heard.
“I have to say I’m disappointed in the news that the governor has indicated he would sign the bill,” Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said Thursday.“We’re still hopeful he’ll hear the voices of women and families in South Dakota that say, ‘Please don’t sign this bill; please protect the health and safety of the women in this state.’ ”
Maybe Miss Looby should listen to the voices of unborn children saying, "Please don't murder me."
Make no mistake about it - this bill is the pro-abortion lobby's dream. By forcing a pro-Roe majority to revisit the central holding in Roe, South Dakota will accomplish nothing more than to drive one more nail into the "settled law" coffin, and further reduce the likelihood of any future court (e.g., the more conservative we'll end up with next year if Stevens retires) ever revisiting it. I seriously have to wonder if Planned Parenthood's answer to Karl Rove had a hand in this bill.
Hmm.. let's see.. rather than let society continue to work on its own by continuing to reduce the number of abortions, the decision is to make laws and get the government involved again. Seems rather un-conservative.
The law of unintended consequences: Roe v. Wade is overturned, making abortion a state-by-state issue. Some states choose to ban abortions, some choose to keep them legal. The abortion rate, nationally, either remains the same or increases slightly. Abortion rates in individual states vary wildly, particularly in situations where abortion-legal states border abortion-illegal states. The bottom line: abortions continue to happen at or near the current rate. Is this scenario far-fetched? Nope.. not in the least.
X: Yeah, I tend to agree with you.
Mark: Probably true, though a national abortion ban isn't inconceivable. Pun intended.
A national ban would introduce a genuine constitutional problem under the Tenth Amendment. It will be interesting to see how (if) this pans out in the current challenge to the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
What are we all debating...
Let's cut the small talk and kill some babies!!!
X: I don't think that the point is to overturn Roe. The point is to stoke up South Dakota voters, so that they will continue to vote for the legislators who voted for this bill.
Mark: I love that form of liberal argument. It just makes me giggle! It goes: "You think you want X. But REAL conservatives don't want X. So you shouldn't want X." The punch line is that the speaker is not a conservative, and obviously doesn't have the slightest understanding of it.
Roe isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's a self-government vs. oligarchy issue. I think that it's a fine strategy to keep up a steady drumbeat of cases coming out of the US Sup Ct that say:
"You ignorant red-state hicks stay out of this. We make the law on this. It doesn't matter whom you vote for. Your opinion doesn't count. We know better then to listen to you."
Just keep slapping the voters in the face with that year after year, and let's see how long Roe stands.
BB: I love that form of reply. It makes me giggle too! "You're not one of us, and obviously have no understanding of what we stand for."
True or false: Conservatives generally believe in using government (laws, regulations, and programs) as infrequently as possible and sensible, particularly in addressing socioeconomic issues.
If the answer is true, then your criticism of my "liberal argument" (though I'm not sure if my argument was ever a "liberals-only" thing) is baseless.
Of course Roe is a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is because the person who holds the issue in their hands, the American voter, has a strong opinion on abortion (either for or against) and the American voter who is against abortion usually identifies themself as conservative, and the American voter who is for keeping abortion legal usually identifies themself as liberal or independent. They're not really concerned about federalism or this self-government vs. oligarchy thing you're talking about because that's not the principal issue in their minds. The principal issue, to them, is abortion.. and the average American voter wants the government to act, at any and all levels, to make it either legal or illegal. It's nice for people like you and MW to say that you object to both abortion and Roe v. Wade on principles of federalism, self-government, *and* on pro-life beliefs.. but how do you think the average middle-of-the-bell-curve American voter views the issue? Do you think they want what you want based on all of the principles you believe in? My sense of it is that they're reacting to and have opinions on abortion.. not federalism and self-government.
Mark, you're confusing conservatism with libertarianism, and then (I suspect) misconstruing libertarianism.
The libertarians can speak for themselves, but from a conservative perspective the government has many proper roles, and one of the most basic is establishing the government's monopoly on violence. You won't find many governments that don't enforce murder laws.
So it's just silly to pretend as if a law against murdering babies is somehow beyond the government's proper role, from a conservative perspective. And it's preposterous for you to pretend that you know what I believe better than I do.
Now you've brought out the liberal ESP argument: You somehow know that the pro-lifers don't really want to put the abortion issue into the democratic arena. They're just jealous that they didn't figure out how to corrupt the US Sup Ct to impose their will undemocratically, like the libs did. Given the chance, they would subvert democracy just as the libs have. (From here, if you want, we can jump to the "everybody is just like everybody else" argument, if you want.)
It's human nature to assume that everyone else thinks like you do. The liberals don't care about democracy, so they assume that nobody else does. But simple logic ought to tell you that you're in the worst possible position to try to read the pro-life mind, because you're so unlike them. I'm much closer to them, and yet you're sure that I don't understand them at all.
BB: In order for someone to consider abortion "murder", one must decide when life begins and determine that it begins at conception. Clearly you believe that it begins far earlier than many of those who identify themselves as pro-choice. And so I suppose it also makes sense that you'd think it silly that laws against "murdering babies" is beyond the government's proper role. There's a disconnect here, though: this discussion isn't about what *you* believe and it's not about what *I* believe. This is about what The Average American Voter believes, and the Average American Voter has been the subject of almost everything I've said on this page.
I don't need any kind of ESP to come to my conclusions because I'm surrounded by and live beside many of the people I'm talking about. Wisconsin is very much pro-life, especially in my area of the state. Many times I've heard people say that abortions should be banned.. and they didn't seem too concerned with how that ban came into place. If word came from the US Supreme Court on high that abortions are officially banned everywhere, they would be thrilled.
And for someone who decries ESP, you sure do use it a lot yourself. While I'm sure some of your views on "the other side" are rooted in your own personal experiences, just as some of my views are, you take it a step or two further.. putting words into my mouth like "jealous that they didn't figure out how to corrupt the US Sup. Ct." and "they would subvert democracy".
And actually, I'm in the best possible position to try to read the pro-life mind.. because I'm surrounded by them day in and day out.
I'm not "sure" you don't understand them, which is why I posed it as a question. What I am sure of, though, is that they're not thinking of this issue in the ways that you are. They're looking at the issue through the glasses of their opinion on abortion. You're looking at the issue through the glasses of federalism and self-government, buttressed by your pro-life beliefs. You're adding another dimension to the issue that they're largely indifferent to.