South Dakota Bans Abortion

[In My Memory]

South Dakota House Approves Abortion Ban:

The South Dakota House has approved a bill banning almost all abortions in the state, and the state Senate is next to take up the proposed ban.

 

The measure, HB1215, cleared the state House by a vote of 47 to 22 Thursday after over an hour of debate.

 

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), believes the time is right to mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade, and supporters are hoping such a challenge would capture the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which could end up in a reversal of the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

 

Opponents of the bill were unsuccessful in trying to include exemptions for rape and incest and to protect the health of the mother.

This is unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade has a precedent which extends privacy rights to the protections of ones own organs, and says the government cannot compell anyone to give up or share any of their organs for any reason, even to save a life (otherwise, we'd be abducting people off the street to harvest their organs for use in others). Abortion is protected because the fetus doesnt have a right to use a womans organs, not even for its own life.

 

Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs? Especially if there no exemptions for rape, incest, or health. Theres no way this ban can be constitutional, but I'm not optimistic about the odds of the Supreme Court overturning this ban.

[Nevermore]

Oh my god! Why the hell was this not in the news??? This should be front page, breaking news, headline, and instead I'm getting f*cking entertainment reviews?

This is so wrong, words fail me. Doesn't federal law override this though?

[starbug1]

South Dakota House Approves Abortion Ban:

 

 

Are you sure this is a valid news site? ...Cause if it is then I totally agree with you...

[AL]

Well, apparently it has to pass the state Senate before being signed into law, which it has yet to do. Though I'm hearing about 1/3 of the state senators are sponsors of the bill.

[bascule]

This is unconstitutional

 

Yeah, but the evangelofundies are just itching to get an abortion case into the new Roberts/Alito augmented Supreme Court so they can try to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

[In My Memory]

AL,

Well, apparently it has to pass the state Senate before being signed into law, which it has yet to do. Though I'm hearing about 1/3 of the state senators are sponsors of the bill.

I would imagine it passes very easily, South Dakota is very conservative. According to South Dakota House Passes Abortion Ban to Instigate Court Fight, the House members know they cant enforce an abortion ban, but they are deliberately trying to get the measure through to Supreme Court:

While a number of states have laws restricting abortions rights or even banning abortion altogether, the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade prevents states from enforcing these laws. However, anti-abortion activists believe new state-level laws will force the issue through the courts, ultimately bringing the issue of reversing Roe before the Supreme Court.

 

If the issue makes it to the Supreme Court, do you think Roe v Wade will get overturned?

[bascule]

If the issue makes it to the Supreme Court, do you think Roe v Wade will get overturned?

 

I hope not, but I'm scared it could

[Dave]

Have to say that this is just going one step too far. My own personal opinions on abortion aside, women should have the right to choose whether or not to keep a baby. Banning abortion outright is just not the right thing to do.

[Aardvark]

This is unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Theres no way this ban can be constitutional' date=' but I'm not optimistic about the odds of the Supreme Court overturning this ban.[/quote']

 

I can understand you thinking that this is a bad law but what part of the constitution is it violating?

 

I can't find any section in the constitition that seems even vaguely relevant.

[In My Memory]

Aardvark,

I can understand you thinking that this is a bad law but what part of the constitution is it violating?

 

I can't find any section in the constitition that seems even vaguely relevant.

Right to privacy' date=' which has been recognized as a constitutional protection in several cases. See FindLaw: Fourteenth Amendment Annotations: Privacy:

Roe v. Wade and its progeny could have had significant effect outside the abortion area in the general area of personal liberties, inasmuch as the revitalization of substantive due process in the noneconomic regulation area, overlaid with the compelling state interest test, could call into question many governmental restraints upon the person. Roe's emphasis upon the privacy rationale seemed to presage an active judicial role in defining and protecting the interests of persons ''to be let alone.'' Those developments have not occurred, however, and the cases reflect the intention of the Court to curb the expansion of any doctrinal ramifications flowing beyond the abortion cases.

 

Privacy has in a number of cases been identified as a core value of the Bill of Rights, 250 but it was not until Griswold v. Connecticut 251 that an independent right of privacy, derived from the confluence of several provisions of the Bill of Rights or discovered in the ''penumbras'' of these provisions, was expounded by the Court and actually used to strike down a governmental restraint. The abortion cases extended Griswold many degrees in several respects. First, the cases removed any lingering possibility that the right is a marital one that depends upon that relationship. 252 Second, the right of privacy was denominated a liberty which found its source and its protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 253 Third, by designating the right as a ''fundamental'' right, the Court required a governmental restraint to be justified by a ''compelling state interest.'' Necessary to assessment of the effect of this development is a close analysis of the limits of the right thus protected as well as of its contents.

 

''The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. . . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

 

In Roe v Wade, the right to privacy was extended to include ones own organs, so the state cannot regulate how women must use their organs. So, the right to privacy protects a woman from being compelled to carry her pregnancy to term if she doesnt want to use her organs that way.

[pcs]

This is unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade has a precedent which extends privacy rights to the protections of ones own organs, and says the government cannot compell anyone to give up or share any of their organs for any reason, even to save a life (otherwise, we'd be abducting people off the street to harvest their organs for use in others). Abortion is protected because the fetus doesnt have a right to use a womans organs, not even for its own life.

 

Here's Roe v. Wade. Find whatever part of the decision you need to that gives personal sovereignty over ones organs. [1].

 

Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs?

 

Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark' date='

 

Right to privacy, which has been recognized as a constitutional protection in several cases. See FindLaw: Fourteenth Amendment Annotations: Privacy:

 

 

In Roe v Wade, the right to privacy was extended to include ones own organs, so the state cannot regulate how women must use their organs. So, the right to privacy protects a woman from being compelled to carry her pregnancy to term if she doesnt want to use her organs that way.

 

When i look at your constitiution i can find no mention to a right to privacy.

 

It seems that a right to privacy has been 'discovered' where it wasn't written and then from this 'discovered' right more rights extrapolated. That seems like a clear warping and misinterpreting of the constitituion.

 

These rights are invented by courts and then held up as demanding absolute obedience. It all seems highly undemocractic.

 

Surely it would be better to argue against a law on the grounds that it is wrong rather than it is 'unconstituional' and to use democracy rather than recourse to lawyers to establish and protect peoples rights?

[pcs]

In Roe v Wade, the right to privacy was extended to include ones own organs...

 

In Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy was extended to ones "health," not one's organs.

[Aardvark]

re pcs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

(he was amusing, but now he's getting pretty dull)

[Severian]

Aardvark: While pcs is a dreadful troll a lot of the time, I think in this case, he has a point. I don't know whether it would hold up in a court of law, but it is a valid point. Which means in this case, you are the one who is trolling.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark: While pcs is a dreadful troll a lot of the time, I think in this case, he has a point. I don't know whether it would hold up in a court of law, but it is a valid point. Which means in this case, you are the one who is trolling.

 

No.

 

Arguing that a womans right to control of her internal organs can be overuled on ''Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.''

 

is obviously mendacious. It is a clear act of trolling, attempting to disrupt a serious discussion, with irrelevant pedantitic, semantic asides.

 

I'm surprised that you can't clearly see that.

[john5746]

When i look at your constitiution i can find no mention to a right to privacy.

 

It seems that a right to privacy has been 'discovered' where it wasn't written and then from this 'discovered' right more rights extrapolated. That seems like a clear warping and misinterpreting of the constitituion.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

 

There are many precedents in Court rulings and the newly appointed Supreme justices agreed they should have some weight.

 

These rights are invented by courts and then held up as demanding absolute obedience. It all seems highly undemocractic.

 

Surely it would be better to argue against a law on the grounds that it is wrong rather than it is 'unconstituional' and to use democracy rather than recourse to lawyers to establish and protect peoples rights?

 

Democracy doesn't gaurantee rights, only majority rule. The Judiciary can protect the minority more than any other branch of government. Expecting the legislative branch to amend the constitution for every strange case could be problematic, however, I would like to see an amendment to the constitution for abortion proposed.

[Severian]

No.

 

Arguing that a womans right to control of her internal organs can be overuled on ''Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.''

 

is obviously mendacious. It is a clear act of trolling' date=' attempting to disrupt a serious discussion, with irrelevant pedantitic, semantic asides.

 

I'm surprised that you can't clearly see that.[/quote']

 

The point I think pcs is making is that the baby doesn't have a right to damage the mother's health but abortions should not be made unless the health of the mother is at risk. The point of the comment on the handling of human tissue was (presumably) to demonstrate that it is not the organs per se which are important but whether their use will affect the health of the doner. (I disagree with this line of argument, but I think it is a valid point.)

[Aardvark]

The point I think pcs is making is that the baby doesn't have a right to damage the mother's health but abortions should not be made unless the health of the mother is at risk.

 

If that was the point that he wanted to make then let him come out and say it. He doesn't make clear points, just snipes away with irrelevant semantic diversions.

 

The point of the comment on the handling of human tissue was (presumably) to demonstrate that it is not the organs per se which are important but whether their use will affect the health of the doner. (I disagree with this line of argument' date=' but I think it is a valid point.) [/quote']

 

His comment seemed to mean that as the State can regulate trade and this trade can include human tissue that the state can control and regulate a womans body.

 

An obviously bizare and nonsensical comment which can only be attributed to pcs being a troll.

[Aardvark]

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

 

There are many precedents in Court rulings and the newly appointed Supreme justices agreed they should have some weight.

 

That's the problem. In effect laws are being made by judges. That' not agood thing' date=' when policitical arguments are being abdicated to the courtroom rather than the ballot box.

 

 

 

Democracy doesn't gaurantee rights, only majority rule. The Judiciary can protect the minority more than any other branch of government.

 

This is the judicary that repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional?

 

I can't see any reason or principle which would automatically cause the Judiciary to be more protective of minority rights than the other branchs of government. Why do you have such confidence in these political appointees?

 

Expecting the legislative branch to amend the constitution for every strange case could be problematic,

You don't need to change the constitution to make a law.

 

however, I would like to see an amendment to the constitution for abortion proposed.

 

That would make more sense. If people are going to appeal to the constitution as if it were a secular version of the 10 commandments it would be helpful if it actually did state something about the rights which it supposedly upholds.

 

My basic point is that political arguments should be settled by votes, democracy, not by lawyers and judges. If this new law is wrong then it should be overthrown because the voters reject it, not because it suppossedly contradicts some rights that have been discovered, in a document that makes no actual reference to the matter anyway.

[In My Memory]

Aardvark,

When i look at your constitiution i can find no mention to a right to privacy.

 

It seems that a right to privacy has been 'discovered' where it wasn't written and then from this 'discovered' right more rights extrapolated. That seems like a clear warping and misinterpreting of the constitituion.

Not at all' date=' see Things not in the Constitution:

In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

A right to privacy has existed in the constitution since the Bill of Rights was written. The constitution doesnt have to use the words "right to privacy" explicitly, all that matters is the right to privacy as an actual constitutional principle (its exactly the same case where the words "separation of church and state" dont appear in the constitution, but its a valiid constitutional principle nonetheless). The right to privacy as a constitutional principle is recognized by Roe v Wade:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

 

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Notice in the quote above, the basic rights to privacy were recognized as constitutional principles long before Roe v Wade.

 

Surely it would be better to argue against a law on the grounds that it is wrong rather than it is 'unconstituional' and to use democracy rather than recourse to lawyers to establish and protect peoples rights?

You're probably right. There are lots of legal protections that people have in this country that I think are positively immoral and disturbing.

 

However, if this goes to the Supreme Court, they wont care whats morally right or wrong, only thats consistent with constitutional principles. However, while you said this system was bad because it "repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional", I dont think democracy really solves the problem (keep in mind that 11 US states unanimously voted away the rights of gay couples to get married).

 

 

PCS,

Find whatever part of the decision you need to that gives personal sovereignty over ones organs.

Oh my, your right. I've been arguing about abortion so for many years, and I've always emphasized particularly strongly on what it means to have privacy rights protecting your own decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've always called it having a right to ones own organs, and over the years I've inadvertantly incorporated the terminology I use into my understanding of Roe v Wade.

 

So, I unintentionally misrepresented Roe v Wade, my apologies

 

Abortion opponents recognize the fetus is a distinct human being with all the protections as an adult, but on what basis can they say anyone has the right to use another persons organs?

 

Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.

You cant be serious.

 

*IMM waves good-bye to the Ninth Amendment*

[Aardvark]

Aardvark' date='

 

Not at all, see Things not in the Constitution:

 

A right to privacy has existed in the constitution since the Bill of Rights was written. The constitution doesnt have to use the words "right to privacy" explicitly, all that matters is the right to privacy as an actual constitutional principle

 

Thank you for the link, it's very informative. It does however, confirm me in my opinion. A lot of the so called constitutional 'rights' are rights that are not in the constitution and have been, in effect, invented by courts.

 

That means that courts are making laws which is not their correct function and ia an abrogation of the rights of the elected branchs of government.

 

 

Notice in the quote above' date=' the basic rights to privacy were recognized as constitutional principles long before Roe v Wade. [/quote']

 

Yes, despite that principle not actually being in the constitution. Proof that courts are making laws.

 

However' date=' if this goes to the Supreme Court, they wont care whats morally right or wrong, only thats consistent with constitutional principles.[/quote']

 

It would be nice to believe that. But the Supreme court is made up of political appointees and the decisions that it makes often seem to follow political prejudice.

 

Might your feelings about the court acting to protect your rights change if the President succeds in tilting it to the religious right with his new appointees?

 

I can imagine a scenario where the supreme court rules that embryos have constitiuonal rights which have been previously hidden and undiscovered in the constitution. I don't think that is far fetched but i'mguessing it would change your viewpoint on the role of the court in protecting your rights.

 

 

However, while you said this system was bad because it "repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional[/i']", I dont think democracy really solves the problem (keep in mind that 11 US states unanimously voted away the rights of gay couples to get married).

 

You're right that democracy can lead to bad outcomes but on the whole i'd prefer to rely on democractic argument than on an unaccoutable court. Other countries don't have Wade vs Roe, just look at Canada. Would it really be so bad without it?

 

 

 

 

You cant be serious.

 

Just check any of his recent posts. A troll who just likes confusing and obfusticating for the sake of it.

[john5746]

That's the problem. In effect laws are being made by judges. That' not agood thing, when policitical arguments are being abdicated to the courtroom rather than the ballot box.

 

I think it is impossible to have a literal law that will cover every situation, but you of course have a point that possibly the Judiciary is being to liberal. I can understand Abortion, but to say no rights to privacy is being too literal IMO.

 

 

This is the judicary that repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional?

 

I can't see any reason or principle which would automatically cause the Judiciary to be more protective of minority rights than the other branchs of government. Why do you have such confidence in these political appointees?

 

Every political and religious group has failed to 'do the right thing' at some point in history. That doesn't condem the whole group past' date=' present and future.

 

I have more confidence in the Judiciary, because they are the 'experts' in regards to the Constitution and Law. They shouldn't bend to political pressure. Just as I have more confidence in scientists when it comes to scientific questions - they are fallible, but on the whole will make better judgements on scientific issues.

 

You don't need to change the constitution to make a law.

 

That is true, but for something basic as human rights, I think an amendment is appropriate.

 

 

My basic point is that political arguments should be settled by votes' date=' democracy, not by lawyers and judges. If this new law is wrong then it should be overthrown because the voters reject it, not because it suppossedly contradicts some rights that have been discovered, in a document that makes no actual reference to the matter anyway.[/quote']

 

We are in a republic, so our representatives, who have lobbyists and other interests at heart, make the laws. We don't vote on the laws.

 

The constitution defines the powers of the federal government. It can be read literally or be interpreted. If the people want to make a law that is against the constitution, that is wrong.

[pcs]

re pcs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

 

(he was amusing' date=' but now he's getting pretty dull)[/quote']

 

Maybe you should take a break, then.

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

Arguing that a womans right to control of her internal organs can be overuled on ''Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.'' is obviously mendacious.

 

Now that's what I call a gigantic strawman.

 

It is a clear act of trolling, attempting to disrupt a serious discussion, with irrelevant pedantitic, semantic asides.

 

So full of hate.

 

I'm surprised that you can't clearly see that.

 

I'm surprised you've managed to complete butcher a simple, three sentence post.

 

His comment seemed to mean that as the State can regulate trade and this trade can include human tissue that the state can control and regulate a womans body.

 

How in the hell did you pull that out of an objection to IMM's characterization of Roe's foundation? The magic of paranoia? More importantly, if I had made the case you attributed to me, then how stunted, dishonest, and touchy does somebody have to be to get pissed off when an alternative legal construct for regulating abortion is presented? Not you of course.

 

An obviously bizare and nonsensical comment which can only be attributed to pcs being a troll.

 

Anti-social today, eh?

[pcs]

PCS' date='

 

Oh my, your right. I've been arguing about abortion so for many years, and I've always emphasized particularly strongly on what it means to have privacy rights protecting your own decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've always called it having a right to ones own organs, and over the years I've inadvertantly incorporated the terminology I use into my understanding of Roe v Wade.

 

So, I unintentionally misrepresented Roe v Wade, my apologies [/quote']

 

From a legal perspective, you did. If Roe had concerned itself with tissue rather than health, the state presently would be unable to regulate commercial tissue transfers. Fortunately, for you I'm assuming, we live under case law that accords special status to human tissue while affording women an absolute right to make decisions regarding their own health.

 

So...perhaps you've been in the amateur leagues of the abortion debate so long you can't help but read strawmen into other people's posts. Don't worry. Aardvark's there with you.

 

You cant be serious.

 

Yes I can. Fortunately, for you anyway, Roe was decided on entirely different legal ground. If it weren't, then case law would either permit Congress to restrict abortion in the first trimester under the Commerce Clause or restrict them from regulating the commercial transfer of him tissue. So why don't you stop moaning and groaning about it and find another word besides organs?