Science > Abortion > South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"D-word" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 03:53:29 PM |
| Object: |
South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
--
Some abortion foes balk at S.D. law
WASHINGTON — South Dakota's new law banning almost all abortions is
creating a rift among anti-abortion Republicans during an election
year.
---------------
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, compared with 25% who
said they did.
--------------
The law bars abortions unless they're needed to save a woman's life.
The ban has underscored disagreements between the law's supporters and
those who favor exceptions for rape and incest. It has also exposed
Republican disagreements over how best to reduce abortions when most
Americans support keeping them legal.
State Rep. Roger Hunt, the Republican who sponsored the law, says
"this is the right time" to tackle the issue head-on. "Every year that
goes by, there are more and more unborn children whose lives are being
terminated."
Some Republican abortion opponents say they would prefer to continue
the incremental approach that has resulted in increasing restrictions
on abortion. They worry South Dakota's frontal assault could scare
away moderates, light a fire under liberals and even set back the
anti-abortion cause.
"I am very purely pro-life, and I would not have undertaken this
strategy," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway says. She says it
plays into "somewhat hysterical claims of extremism" by the left and
"seems to give a largely dying, discredited (abortion rights) movement
a little bit of gas."
Daniel McConchie, vice president of the anti-abortion Americans United
for Life, says taxpayers could be burdened with legal fees and state
courts could be provoked to create state versions of the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
"It's a very high-stakes tactic," he says.
Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand predicts the law will be "a
huge benefit" for his party as it wends its way through the courts. He
gives a preview of the case abortion rights supporters could make: If
a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have
his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to
have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are
going to be outraged," he says.
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, compared with 25% who said
they did.
Many Republicans who oppose abortion, President Bush and Arizona Sen.
John McCain among them, favor exceptions for rape and incest as well
as when a woman's life is in danger. "There is no consensus in the
Republican Party," GOP pollster David Hill says.
That has been apparent as the party's 2008 White House prospects
respond to questions on the South Dakota ban. Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and Virginia Sen. George Allen said they would have signed
it. McCain said last month on ABC's This Week that "my position has
been consistently pro-life but (with exceptions for) rape, incest and
the health of the mother." He meant to say "life" of the mother, his
longtime view and a much narrower exception than "health."
Deirdre McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the
law a chance to end Roe's "stranglehold" on legislatures and "open up
the possibility of people's values being reflected in their own state
laws."
Hunt says there's "national momentum" for the law he sponsored —
similar legislation popping up in other states and the elevation of
two new conservative Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel
Alito. He says it's likely liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, will
retire within the two to three years he estimates it will take the new
law to reach the high court.
South Dakota state Sen. J.P. Duniphan, who describes herself as a
"pro-life" Republican, opposed the law. "It is a very unnecessary,
expensive challenge," she says. "And it is dividing the party."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-abortion-side_x.htm
--
"The argument of flexibility...goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change.
It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break.
But you would have to be an idiot to believe that." -- Justice Antonin Scalia
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
09 Mar 2006 11:35:02 PM |
|
|
D-word <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
While I mostly agree, I'd like to add this ...
Democrat Firing squad:
..
.. .
..
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
24 Mar 2006 08:19:32 AM |
|
|
D-word wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
--
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1777
Help Sioux Challenge SD's Abortion Ban
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
09 Mar 2006 04:21:11 PM |
|
|
D-word wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
While the law might be premature unless Justice Kennedy were to reverse
field, I like it. It appears Justice Roberts has been extremely
persuasive with his fellow justices recently, with two 8-0 votes in
recent days.
Don't count on the law helping the Dems, though.
Some abortion foes balk at S.D. law
WASHINGTON - South Dakota's new law banning almost all abortions is
creating a rift among anti-abortion Republicans during an election
year.
---------------
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, compared with 25% who
said they did.
--------------
The law bars abortions unless they're needed to save a woman's life.
The ban has underscored disagreements between the law's supporters and
those who favor exceptions for rape and incest. It has also exposed
Republican disagreements over how best to reduce abortions when most
Americans support keeping them legal.
State Rep. Roger Hunt, the Republican who sponsored the law, says
"this is the right time" to tackle the issue head-on. "Every year that
goes by, there are more and more unborn children whose lives are being
terminated."
Some Republican abortion opponents say they would prefer to continue
the incremental approach that has resulted in increasing restrictions
on abortion. They worry South Dakota's frontal assault could scare
away moderates, light a fire under liberals and even set back the
anti-abortion cause.
"I am very purely pro-life, and I would not have undertaken this
strategy," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway says. She says it
plays into "somewhat hysterical claims of extremism" by the left and
"seems to give a largely dying, discredited (abortion rights) movement
a little bit of gas."
Daniel McConchie, vice president of the anti-abortion Americans United
for Life, says taxpayers could be burdened with legal fees and state
courts could be provoked to create state versions of the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
"It's a very high-stakes tactic," he says.
Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand predicts the law will be "a
huge benefit" for his party as it wends its way through the courts. He
gives a preview of the case abortion rights supporters could make: If
a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have
his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to
have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are
going to be outraged," he says.
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, compared with 25% who said
they did.
Many Republicans who oppose abortion, President Bush and Arizona Sen.
John McCain among them, favor exceptions for rape and incest as well
as when a woman's life is in danger. "There is no consensus in the
Republican Party," GOP pollster David Hill says.
That has been apparent as the party's 2008 White House prospects
respond to questions on the South Dakota ban. Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and Virginia Sen. George Allen said they would have signed
it. McCain said last month on ABC's This Week that "my position has
been consistently pro-life but (with exceptions for) rape, incest and
the health of the mother." He meant to say "life" of the mother, his
longtime view and a much narrower exception than "health."
Deirdre McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the
law a chance to end Roe's "stranglehold" on legislatures and "open up
the possibility of people's values being reflected in their own state
laws."
Hunt says there's "national momentum" for the law he sponsored -
similar legislation popping up in other states and the elevation of
two new conservative Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel
Alito. He says it's likely liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, will
retire within the two to three years he estimates it will take the new
law to reach the high court.
South Dakota state Sen. J.P. Duniphan, who describes herself as a
"pro-life" Republican, opposed the law. "It is a very unnecessary,
expensive challenge," she says. "And it is dividing the party."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-abortion-side_x.htm
--
"The argument of flexibility...goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change.
It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break.
But you would have to be an idiot to believe that." -- Justice Antonin Scalia
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
09 Mar 2006 04:34:23 PM |
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1141942871.813839.148390@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
D-word wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
While the law might be premature unless Justice Kennedy were to reverse
field, I like it. It appears Justice Roberts has been extremely
persuasive with his fellow justices recently
If you had any clue how the Supreme Court works you'd
know just how ridiculous your claim is. Justices reach their
decisions individually, no "persuasion" is involved. If a vote
comes out 8-0 it simply means the particular constitutional
question was cut and dry.
As for South Dakota's abortion ban, it indeed is manna
from heaven for pro-choicers. There's literally no way the
Supreme Court can allow it to stand, given the lack of
exceptions for rape and incest, or for the health of the
mother (only for "life" of the mother). If you believe
otherwise you'll need to cite where in the Constitution
the state is given the power to forceably injure women,
and possibly render them incapable of further procreation,
who've committed no crime whatsoever. This will be the
case for e.g. victims of childhood sexual abuse, incest etc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
09 Mar 2006 04:31:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
D-word wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
While the law might be premature unless Justice Kennedy were to reverse
field, I like it. It appears Justice Roberts has been extremely
persuasive with his fellow justices recently, with two 8-0 votes in
recent days.
Don't count on the law helping the Dems, though.
Sure it will. Just the threat that Bush may have pushed the court in a
direction conducive to overturning Roe means a lot of moderates who are
on the fence will jump ship. You watch. There are a lot of
Republicans who would be terrified over the prospect of an even more
conservative court should Justice Stevens retire in the next three
years. Moderate Republicans don't want to see this country turned over
to the Taliban any more than Democrats do. Your right wing nutjobs in
SD just did the Pro-choice movement, and the Left, a huge favor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
10 Mar 2006 08:09:08 AM |
|
|
In article <rt8112luqu9g2ciks42sl3nc92l8tn0hea@4ax.com>,
D-word <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
You don't understand the anti-abortion wing of the Republican party. They
do not care about conservative politics. They have sided with the
Republicans ONLY because the Republicans promised to help them on the
abortion issue. If banning abortion in South Dakota is upheld, or even
partially upheld when it hits the Supreme Court, that's the goal. Once
that happens, they can move on to other issues that have nothing to do
with Republican politics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
10 Mar 2006 11:00:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:09:08 +0000, Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <rt8112luqu9g2ciks42sl3nc92l8tn0hea@4ax.com>,
D-word <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
You don't understand the anti-abortion wing of the Republican party. They
do not care about conservative politics. They have sided with the
Republicans ONLY because the Republicans promised to help them on the
abortion issue. If banning abortion in South Dakota is upheld, or even
partially upheld when it hits the Supreme Court, that's the goal. Once
that happens, they can move on to other issues that have nothing to do
with Republican politics.
The following issues are still outstanding. (These are calculated based
on taking the worst ideas of Libertarianism and the worst nightmares of
Democrats.)
[1] Abortion and all related issues such as transport of minors across
state lines and/or country lines. (Status: Pending.)
[2] Minimum wage. The minimum wage must be abolished or the Republicans
will not have succeeded in proper fair market system implementation.
(Status: Stalled.)
[3] Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid elimination-- not reform.
The free market will decide, and families should be taking care of their
own. Of course, given [2], [4], [6], [7], [8], there might be some issues
as to how they could pay for their families' health care, but never mind
that. (Unknown.)
[4] The elimination of all business taxes for those that meet a means
test...probably around $10M/year in profits. (The amount will have to be
defined more rigorously than that.) The flip side, of course, is the
raising of the tax rate to about 50%, if not 90%, on those who are
employed, regardless of wage. In order to avoid this partly punitive tax,
of course, the individual is expected to innovate a new business, but will
still be required to pay this tax until he reaches that means mark.
(Unknown.)
[5] The elimination of all tariffs and suspension of all pending "dumping"
actions relating thereto. The free market, again. (Unknown.)
[6] Elimination of all safety-related regulation (e.g., OSHA). Of course
general restrictions such as "thou shalt not murder" will still apply.
Criminal negligence may fall into a gray area. (Pending.)
[7] Elimination of all immigration restrictions. There will of course be
a processing fee, on the order of $50 or so. (This in addition to any
payments to mules.) (Unknown.)
[8] Elimination of all job-offered insurance, except for those who pass a
means test. (This would probably be $150K-$200K/year, though it depends
on tax structures. It is also possible that this insurance would be
offered to chief officers only. Note that this test value would be
*after* taxes.) (Unknown.)
[9] Elimination of all term limits, once Republicans are in office. Also,
elimination of all finance reform; there's nothing really wrong with the
current system, after all, since it allows Republicans to stay in office.
Democratic and/or reform attempts, of course, will be overspent 100:1.
Can't be too careful with al Qaeda out there; it might lead to dancing.
(Unknown.)
[10] Heavy increase in military, internal police, and border patrol. We
must nation-build. We must nation-protect. We must ensure that illegal
immigrants, despite [7], are processed properly. (Pending.)
[11] Elimination of torts against businesses which pass a means test,
similar to (but not necessarily identical to) [4]. Basically, one is
granted virtually unlimited immunity from nuisance (or other) suits. This
may include criminal suits. (Unknown.)
[12] Enforcement of a new set of country-wide blue laws; abortion is only
one of a fair number of strictures that would be taken from various
locales (the Bible would be one of them but would not be explicitly
referenced, for obvious reasons). These include:
- no spitting, vomiting, incontinence, defecation, or bleeding in
public; those who do so will be fined, even after they're dead. (Shooting
lead bullets is OK if done in self-defense.)
- no sex except between a man and his wife, and only for the purpose of
procreation, and only in their home; all other sex would be subject to
heavy fines or incarceration.
- required attendance to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. on Sunday.
(Never mind the inconsistency in Sabbath requirements; just make it
Sunday.)
- required clothing of all indecent parts of the body at all
times. While not quite as restrictive as the classical burqua (sp) [*],
which might be described as a sack over the woman with a peephole for the
eyes, the general notion would be vaguely Victorian, and would be not to
display anything that might affect a gentleman's thinking, or a woman's.
In short, no shorts, midriffs, ankles, and such -- and no all-body
skin-clinging body suits, either. Fines will of course be used for
enforcement, with incarceration if the clothing is blatantly aggressive.
Note that women will get the worst of this affair; women don't ogle men
nearly as much as men watch women. The regulation will not specifically
stipulate anything such as a nun's habit or a burqua, though.
- required decent behavior at all times. The behavior would also be
vaguely Victorian, although it would probably translate into "we make it
up as we go along". An entire series of politeness restrictions would be
developed and implemented, as new technologies go online (e.g., when is it
polite to listen to a new song on one's iPod?) they will be added as
quickly as conditions permit.
(Unknown.)
[13] Elimination of the United Nations. (Unknown.)
[14] Elimination of bankruptcy. In short, once one incurs a loan, one is
required to pay it. (Partial.)
[15] Elimination of efforts such as the Endangered Species act. (Unknown.)
[16] Elimination of the USA as we know it, the land of the free, the home
of the brave. In its place, a plutocracy will be constructed, designed to
be stable for the indefinite future -- at least until the Earth clouds
over and becomes Venus II, if we don't all choke to death on the fumes or
radioactivity first. (Pending.)
Be happy out there.
[*] variants of this dress, which show the full face and hug the figure,
can actually be quite attractive, although these are probably
modifications that would not be sanctioned by the most conservative imams.
There is also the Dance of the Seven Veils, which is probably not
mentioned at all in polite society in the Middle East. I'd have to look.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
11 Mar 2006 08:24:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:53:29 -0700, D-word <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
Sadly, it won't be since the Demos and Indies are spineless wankers who
couldn't find their way out a paper bag open at both ends.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
12 Mar 2006 07:06:34 AM |
|
|
In article <7e17125mqhcappf7m7e6op1jnn2ps9m5e0@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:53:29 -0700, D-word <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
Sadly, it won't be since the Demos and Indies are spineless wankers who
couldn't find their way out a paper bag open at both ends.
Too true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puke-lick-can Diaries" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Abortion Ban a huge tactical misstep for the Right-to-Life movement, and the Right. |
09 Mar 2006 04:52:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:53:29 -0800, D-word wrote
(in message <rt8112luqu9g2ciks42sl3nc92l8tn0hea@4ax.com>):
Just when you think the Right has nothing more to give, conservatives
reach into their "Big Bag of Stupid" and pull this out. Amazing. The
Republican base is shrinking, divided, and reeling from the most
corrupt and incompetent Administration in history. Conservatives are
literally shooting themselves in the face on defense, selling ports to
terrorists -- manna from Heaven for Democrats in an election year --
and along comes some out of touch conservative fringe elements in SD
to further split the party along apolitical arguments about human
rights that will carry straight to the High Court. You can't buy this
kind of leverage. This November is going to be a slaughter.
--
Dems will have to spend the next 12 years undoing the medieval backwards
movement pulled-off by the 'Puke absolute power infection thrust upon what
used to be a world leader on so many fronts...we've just about caught up to
Afghanistan in time we've gone so far backwards...
Some abortion foes balk at S.D. law
WASHINGTON =97 South Dakota's new law banning almost all abortions is
creating a rift among anti-abortion Republicans during an election
year.
---------------
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, compared with 25% who
said they did.
--------------
The law bars abortions unless they're needed to save a woman's life.
The ban has underscored disagreements between the law's supporters and
those who favor exceptions for rape and incest. It has also exposed
Republican disagreements over how best to reduce abortions when most
Americans support keeping them legal.
State Rep. Roger Hunt, the Republican who sponsored the law, says
"this is the right time" to tackle the issue head-on. "Every year that
goes by, there are more and more unborn children whose lives are being
terminated."
Some Republican abortion opponents say they would prefer to continue
the incremental approach that has resulted in increasing restrictions
on abortion. They worry South Dakota's frontal assault could scare
away moderates, light a fire under liberals and even set back the
anti-abortion cause.
"I am very purely pro-life, and I would not have undertaken this
strategy," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway says. She says it
plays into "somewhat hysterical claims of extremism" by the left and
"seems to give a largely dying, discredited (abortion rights) movement
a little bit of gas."
Daniel McConchie, vice president of the anti-abortion Americans United
for Life, says taxpayers could be burdened with legal fees and state
courts could be provoked to create state versions of the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
"It's a very high-stakes tactic," he says.
Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand predicts the law will be "a
huge benefit" for his party as it wends its way through the courts. He
gives a preview of the case abortion rights supporters could make: If
a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have
his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to
have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are
going to be outraged," he says.
Two-thirds in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in January said they did not
want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, compared with 25% who said
they did.
Many Republicans who oppose abortion, President Bush and Arizona Sen.
John McCain among them, favor exceptions for rape and incest as well
as when a woman's life is in danger. "There is no consensus in the
Republican Party," GOP pollster David Hill says.
That has been apparent as the party's 2008 White House prospects
respond to questions on the South Dakota ban. Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and Virginia Sen. George Allen said they would have signed
it. McCain said last month on ABC's This Week that "my position has
been consistently pro-life but (with exceptions for) rape, incest and
the health of the mother." He meant to say "life" of the mother, his
longtime view and a much narrower exception than "health."
Deirdre McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the
law a chance to end Roe's "stranglehold" on legislatures and "open up
the possibility of people's values being reflected in their own state
laws."
Hunt says there's "national momentum" for the law he sponsored =97
similar legislation popping up in other states and the elevation of
two new conservative Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel
Alito. He says it's likely liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, will
retire within the two to three years he estimates it will take the new
law to reach the high court.
South Dakota state Sen. J.P. Duniphan, who describes herself as a
"pro-life" Republican, opposed the law. "It is a very unnecessary,
expensive challenge," she says. "And it is dividing the party."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-abortion-side_x.htm
--
"The argument of flexibility...goes something like this: The Constitution is
over 200 years old and societies change.
It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become
brittle and break.
But you would have to be an idiot to believe that." -- Justice Antonin Scalia
--
"Brainscrub some Christinsanity out today - save a nation tomorrow"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
