And there was that little court decision on that abortion thing today....
With comments from the Executive Director of SD Right to Life

One of my commenters under a prior post was giving me the business for not being johnny-on-the-spot on the SCOTUS decision upholding the banning of the partial birth abortion procedure.

Guys, I work for a living, OK? For as long as I can remember, I've taken my lunch from 11:30 to 12:30 with occasional deviations (there's better parking at 12:30 than 1). I was back at work by the time the decision was publicized, so I had to wait until now to unleash the topic on unsuspecting commenters.

So, as reported by the Associated Press in the Rapid City Journal:
The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.


The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
Read the whole thing here.

With a court demonstrating that they're willing to put restrictions on abortion, I'd agree that we're likely to see it back at the ballot box.

I wasn't sure I'd catch him on his cell phone, but I did manage to get ahold of State Senator Brock Greenfield, Executive Director of South Dakota Right to Life for his opinion on today's decision:
"The decision confirms what we thought was going to happen as discussed in the 06 session with regards to proposing a partial birth abortion measure. It's certainly progress, giving pro-life individuals reason to be optimistic."

"There is still a lot of work to be done, but mark this one as a great victory for the pro-life movement."
And you read that HERE at the SDWC. (Now, go ahead and have at it.)


Anonymous said…
Partial birth abortion is barbaric, inhumane, and unjustifiable. How can one justify sticking scissors in a living being's body and sucking out the brains? And yet Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and of course PP and NARAL do. All in the name of women's rights. Well, in this case there is a second living being to consider that is capable of feeling pain who is literally killed. Hopefully this is the start of the end of abortion on demand in this country.

(I think someone had better send Kate Looby a box of kleenex to wipe her tears today though!)
Anonymous said…
Beware of unintended consequences when it comes to Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions.

Almost everytime the Supreme Court rules on a polarizing political issue (abortion, gays, racial minorities) there is a strong political backlash from those on the "losing" side of the decision. Consider a few examples:

(1) Dred Scott v. Sanford: SCOTUS ruled that blacks could never be citizens of the USA. This energized the aboliitionist movement and led them to political gains.

(2)Brown v. Board of Education: This decision striking down segregation in public schools actually helped lead segregationists to political victories across the South. Governors like Wallace and Faubus gained national followings based on their opposition to this decision.

(3)Bowers v. Hardwick: This decision upheld the legality of a law criminalizing oral and anal sex. Anti-gay activists considered it a major victory. But it energized the gay political community and led to several state legislatures repealing their sodomy laws.

(4) Regents of CA v. Bakke: This case upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action programs in college admissions. The case has energized those opposed to racial considerations and has led to a poltical movement in several states to end the practice.

This is not a political post. I just believe it is important to note that SCOTUS decisions most often energize the "losers" rather than the "winners". That may be good news for the pro-choice movement in the next cycle. I'm sure their fundraising appeal is already in the mail and they will make millions, much as the pro-life movement did after earlier SCOTUS defeats.

Just my thoughts,
-Hank Rearden
Anonymous said…
This is a time to be thankful for the small steps toward protecting the lives and rights of all people- today the very young.

At the same time we must regroup and redouble our efforts until every live is valued, including the old, disabled, handicapped, and those who are an inconvenience to others.
Anonymous said…
I'll be you that the 31-yr-old virgin is quivering like a bath tub or two full of jello as he considers Hank's comment.

Either that, or laughing like an evil Santa in the back room of the Short Stop.
Jana said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
7:35, i think yo had best re-think your list of thoe who support this horrific act!

How is it that think PP is in favor of this. I do believe that you are wrong.
Anonymous said…
Ever think about buying a bike and not having to worry about parking spaces. Just a thought about turning the concern away from politics that will not exsist in a few years if we do not take action on just as important issues such as our vanishing planet
Anonymous said…
10:22 - Are you seriously using this ABORTION thread to criticize PP for driving to work? Wow.
PP said…
I think 7:35 is referring to planned parenthood. Not me.

At least I hope...
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:00 PM. I knew the use of the initials PP would be confusing sometime, and now it has.

When I used the initials "PP," I did not refer to our esteemed host here; I referred to Planned Parenthood.

I am sure also that our host PP would not support partial birth abortion.
Anonymous said…
Poster 7:35p and again at 12:57a.

Sorry for my mistake.
Anonymous said…
This ruling does nothing to change the fact that the people of South Dakota overwhelmingly voted down the Greenfield/Hunt/Unruh effort to criminalize all abortions.

If they're going to bring up a bill to ban partial birth abortion in the state, fine. That'll likely pass. But if they're going to try, again, to force their total ban on abortions down the throats of voters, it will have the same outcome. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did on partial birth abortion changes nothing.
K said…
We already have a law banning "partial birth" abortion. Geez louise. Nobody pays attention to anything that happens in this state. No wonder the legislature runs wild.
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:35 p.m.
Kate Looby has never shed a tear for anything. When you live a life like she does there is little room for emotion.
a_big_liberal said…
I can't believe that they upheld a ban with no exception for the life of the woman, with Kennedy's logic being that "the procedure is always unsafe."

Yes, a late term abortion does pose more health risks than one performed earlier, but there's usually substantially different circumstances surrounding the two. Late term abortion might not be 100% safe, but in many cases, it's safeer than continuing the pregnancy. Either way, that's a decision that should be made with a woman, her family, and her doctor...not SCOTUS.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long