The battle begins:
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - Abortion rights supporters planned to launch an attack on Friday on a new South Dakota abortion law designed as a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 33 years ago.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, signed the law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation, about two weeks ago. The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.
An abortion rights coalition, South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, said it would lay out its strategy to take down the law in mid-morning news conferences in Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
Abortion opponents have been counting on a legal challenge to the law and hope that the case could eventually take the intensely divisive issue all the way back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
My prediction: the law will be overturned. Will it hit the Supreme Court? Perhaps. And that's the point. I can't decide where to stand on the issue. While such laws may reduce the number of abortions, I fear the possibility of a substantial black market side effect. The only advantage to cut back on this possibility is you can leave the state and get an abortion somewhere else (which appears to be the case anyways since it's extremely hard to get an abortion in this state anyways).
However, we tend to be stuck with absolutist arguments which doesn't contribute to any sort of democratic solution to the problem. Roe v. Wade basically shrugged the issue aside and, for the three-plus decades it has been around, we've polarized the debate on this issue. Our law, if it makes it to the Supreme Court, could certainly challenge this polarization since a responsible solution must be found. A major public debate would be a healthy consequence.
Ultimately, however, I think the decision should be left to the states to decide whether or not to allow abortions. For me, life begins at conception and that's why I stand against abortion. However, if abortions are to be carried out I'd prefer it be done safely by a medical professional. Perhaps the best solution is to simply make it hard (or harder) to get an abortion without actually outlawing it.
More thoughts may come later as I ponder this. What do you think?
UPDATE: I'm not one to usually do this, but dare I recommend a European model? This seems like a fair compromise:
The [German] legislature implemented a system of mandatory counseling which has as one of its goals to present the case that the developing unborn child is an independent human life. However, no legal sanction is applied in the first 3 months of pregnancy if the counseling is completed and the abortion is performed.... Some abortions are therefore de facto legal. A significant number still occur, but the incidence per capita is about one-fifth that of the United States.
HT to Instapundit.
Recent Comments