The DCeiver: Fight SD Abortion Law Anywhere But the Courts

[mondo joe]

Of course, the world is talking about the recently-signed-into-law abortion ban in South Dakota. I feel for the women of SD, I really do, but I had hoped that this move on their legislators' part would remain a tacky political badge run up the flagpole, and nothing more. However, as I was driving home tonight from the 9:30 Club, listening to whatever BBC shit they have on NPR, I heard the news that Planned Parenthood is going to challenge the new law in the courts. This caused me to beat the steering wheel and shout, "Stupid, stupid, stupid!" several times.

Again. It's not that I don't sympathize with the citizens of SD who are going to suffer the deleterious effects of a law that flies in the face of Freakonomics and imbues rapists with special legal rights. It's simply that Planned Parenthood is embarking on the EXACT course the opponents of legal abortion WANT them to. Taking this matter to court is a fine way to make a big showy pageant of deeply held principles, but it's a trap--the path inevitably leads to showdown in the SCOTUS against a panel of judges that are, in all likelihood, not predisposed to rule in favor of abortion rights. It's the one battlefield where victory is certain to be denied and it should be avoided at all costs.



What should Planned Parenthood do? Rather then expend money in effort in a shameless waste that will, in all likelihood, end in total defeat in one fell swoop (or, in all fairness, bring that possibility a step closer*), abortion-rights advocates should take the sensible step of making the anti-choice winners pay the price for having won. They should bring as much pressure as they can afford to bear on the legislators who gave this abortion ban its life and chase them from office. Barring that, they should simply let South Dakota twist on the withering vine of their tax base, letting the state buckle under the weight of having to care for unwanted children and all of the malicious consequences cited by Steven Levitt.

More at: http://dceiver.blogspot.com/

I'm somewhat inclined to agree --- but at the same time, I think the anttichoice forces don't aactuallly WANT Roe overturned. It means too much to them politicallY AND economically.

[bryant69]

1. Well

I think there are some on the Anti-Choice side who are cynically using the issue to manipulate the base, and it's easy enough to imagine them not wanting it to go away. That said, the base clearly does want it gone, and the leaders who are more sincere (wrongheadedly) also want it to go away. Which will lead to an interesting internal dynamic.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mondo joe]

4. For years I've had acquaintances who are pro-choice but anti-Roe because

they think Roe was a poor case from a purely legal perspective. As you can imagine, any time they said such a thing they would be savaged by others who interpreted them to be anti-choice.

But what they were saying was that the isssue should be legislated, rather than teeter on the Roe case.

They may have been right.

[seeminer21]

7. I know this won't go over well...

But I'm not thrilled with Roe as a legal decision either.

Now, before anyone goes all psycho on me, let me shore up my credentials. I am 100% pro-choice, even when it comes to partial birth abortions. I'm against parental notification and I do believe there should be public funding of abortions for people who can't afford them. OK?

I just have a hard time finding all that written into the constitution.

[dmkinsey]

2. You raise some interesting points

letting the state buckle under the weight of having to care for unwanted children

I've seen a couple posts mention this theme, but what would make anyone think that the state of South Dakota has any intention of caring for any children?

Maybe they believe that all the citizens of South Dakota will abstain from sex. Maybe they just don't give a damn about poor people or their poor children.
Maybe they think the babies will all be adopted by loving families and everyone will live happily ever after.
I doubt that there will be any new social program in SD.

[drm604]

3. Someone, somewhere will fight it in court.

I think it's unavoidable. Whether it's Planned Parenthood or the ACLU now, or the parents of an adolescent rape victim later. Someone in SD will want an abortion and will claim their constitutionally protected right. We do need pressure on the legislators and economic pressure on the state, but I don't think we can keep it out of the courts.

[sallyseven]

5. I think the writer is right.

Go after the legislators. Get them out and then the law will be changed. They want a fight but are scared that if the abortion rule stays in effect that people all over will make sure it doesn't happen in their state. It was the dopey leg that passed the bill vote them out.

[shoelace414]

6. lets see

Alito Born 1950 (55 years old)
Roberts born 1955 (50 years old)
Thomas born 1948 (58 years old)
Scalia born 1936 (70 years old)

So.. we're stuck with three of them for at least 30 years. when shall we fight this?

[mondo joe]

8. DCeiver wasn't arguing TIME to fight but LOCATION.

Her point was to fight it in the legislature rather than the courts.

Did you read the post?