For fans of the abortion debate, startling news:
“PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) — Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage. The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.
“It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill’s main sponsor.”
Why now?
“Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade. President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said…
Other state legislatures are considering similar measures.”
An abortion showdown in the Supreme Court might actually bode well for Roe v. Wade supporters; I don’t think the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade and by so-called pro-life supporters losing in the Supreme Court, so-called pro-choice advocates would not have to worry about it anymore.
What about community standards? What if the democratically elected representatives of the state of South Dakota were, by signing an abortion ban, doing the will of the people? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about?
Instead, say, of a small group of unelected philosopher-kings finding rights to all sorts of things in the Constitution.
This is a tricky issue. One of the assumptions of the community standards argument is that there is a community standard on this issue to which all can agree. Another assumption is that women, who are disproportionately impacted by this law, have their interests adequately represented by the South Dakota state legislature. Another assumption is that the state legislature represents all the communities equally and therefore has license to make any law they see fit, even if it goes against the wishes of some communities.
I understand that this is democracy, but to pass such laws, we can’t assume that legislators always have the interests of all the citizens. We hope they take all things into consideration, but this isn’t true for many cases (I don’t know how this bill got formed, so I can’t say for this case). Legislators frequently legislate to subsets of citizens and, I think, in this case they are catering to a subset on the life-impacting issue of abortion and a woman’s right to control her own destiny.
Do firearms enthusiasts have their interests adequately represented in places like Washington D.C. and New York City? In a democracy, isn’t everyone a special case?
As for a woman controlling her own destiny, nobody’s taking that away from her. How’s that possible with an abortion ban? Outside of cases of rape, women just don’t get pregnant through no fault of their own. Shouldn’t women exercise control over their own destinies BEFORE they become pregnant with children they never wanted?
Tell me a community standard that the entire community ANYWHERE agrees with. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good (he said in a Schwarzenegger voice). On this issue, we’re dealing with varying levels of shittiness; I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that the matter is extremely complex. It doesn’t mean, however, that it can’t be addressed, and in a more substantive way than by judicial fiat.
For the record, my problem here isn’t with women getting abortions in general, but the broader legislative issue.