The onslaught begins...

The Republicans certainly haven't wasted any time--not even a month after being sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito is now sitting on a Supreme Court that has agreed to hear a case involving the federal ban on late-term abortions. In another story,
South Dakota's lege just passed a sweeping ban on abortions
within the state, essentially outlawing any abortion not immediately required to save the mother's life--note the terminology there. "Save a mother's life"--not just her health. In other words, if the pregnancy won't kill you, you're having a baby--it doesn't even matter if you were raped or molested by a relative.

The magnitude of these cases is enormous. In the first case, I fully expect the court to overturn the federal law--but not for the reasons you would expect, i.e., a respect for a woman's right to privacy and to make her own medical conditions. No, this one will be overturned because Roberts and Alito are both federalists, and a federal ban on abortion procedures is a violation of states' rights. In a way, I agree with the emphasis on states' rights, but I believe that would be a bad decision because this is a question of the civil rights of an individual and their right to privacy, and how far into that the state should be allowed to intrude.

This decision merely sets the stage for the battle that is about to ensue over the South Dakota law. This law is pretty blatantly in violation of constitutional case law and, i believe, in violation of the Constitution proper. The only reason for a state legislature to pass something like this is because of the conservative bent of the newly appointed justices. Roberts seems to have a certain grudging respect for precedent, regardless of his disagreement with the original decision, but Alito will almost certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, should this law come across his desk.

What's interesting to me is the wording of this law:

"The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota 6 Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited." [emphasis added]

Firstly, it makes the bold statement that "life begins at conception"--a belief I'm sure many in the anti-abortion crowd espouse, but ultimately unsupportable without resorting to religious rhetoric. Then there's the brilliant observation that each human being is totally unique at conception. If genetic uniqueness is the only requirement here for "life" beginning at conception, then every sexually reproducing organism on the planet is also a "life" that should be protected. And I'd love to know exactly what "scientific evidence" they have that life starts at conception.

Then there's the lines dealing with the mother's relationship to her child--if ever there was a clear indication that the South Dakota legislature is interested less in protecting the rights of their constituents and more in forcing the so-called American Dream on everyone, that's it. What gives them the right to protect ANY relationship?

The question isn't "when does life begin?" but "when does human life begin?" And there's nothing "human" about a developing embryo until at least the second trimester, and even that's arguable. The strategy here is clear, however. The goal of this law is not just to ban abortions but to assign the full status of a citizen to a collection of developing cells.

There's an important biological question to consider: is the life even viable? As many as 80% of micarriages are due to genetic abnormalities that are incompatible with life, so we're talking about assigning rights to entities which not only aren't clearly human, they're not even clearly ever GOING to be human life.

The next interesting portion of the law is this gem:

"Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

So now its all the fault of the Big Bad Gyno. I don't really have strong feelings about this particular portion, since i'm fundamentally opposed to the bill in its entirety, but I did think it was interesting logic, since these laws usually do as much to penalize the mother as the doctor.

This is one of the few campaign promises Bush has actually made good on--appointing USSC justices that will support his and his cronies' outright assault on women's rights in this country. What kills me here is that in poll after poll, well over 60% of Americans support legal, available abortion in some form or under most circumstances. The lawmakers involved in these laws are clearly not acting in the interests of the public desires here, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.