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:
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:
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.Read the whole thing here.
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.
and..
The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
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."And you read that HERE at the SDWC. (Now, go ahead and have at it.)
"There is still a lot of work to be done, but mark this one as a great victory for the pro-life movement."
Comments
(I think someone had better send Kate Looby a box of kleenex to wipe her tears today though!)
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
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.
Either that, or laughing like an evil Santa in the back room of the Short Stop.
How is it that think PP is in favor of this. I do believe that you are wrong.
At least I hope...
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.
Sorry for my mistake.
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.
Kate Looby has never shed a tear for anything. When you live a life like she does there is little room for emotion.
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.