IT IS ALWAYS with us. Whether in the whispers of polite political conversations, in the shouts of protests or dressed in coy names like "reproductive rights" or "right to life," the abortion debate is always with us. It has taken center stage in the Federal government, defining party lines and inciting incredible debate and emotion. Last week, to challenge the validity of abortion's standard precedent, Roe v. Wade, the South Dakota legislature passed a bill outlawing abortion in almost every circumstance. The South Dakota legislation, with House Bill 1191, formulated the most politically savvy challenge the issue has seen in years. The timing, with recent appointments of conservative-leaning judges, its origin in a small state and its very restrictive provisions make the bill an extremely effective tool for the pro-life cause.
Many pro-choice advocates insist with a sort of religious fervor that Roe v. Wade is sacred and should not be overturned. Increased scientific technology, however, challenges the Roe v. Wade decision by bringing into question when life begins. The South Dakota bill offers the American courts the opportunity to decide again on the issue, armed this time with better, more current information.
It is no secret that the two most recent appointees to the Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, show signs of conservative leanings. In the last big case, Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a Nebraska law, very similar to the new South Dakota law, was unconstitutional. While these appointments are important, the court does not yet have a secure conservative majority. The court battle that will ensue could take years to reach the Supreme Court. Once it does and is allowed to be heard, there is a good possibility that between now and then yet more seats will need to be filled pending the retirement of older Judges. The timing of the South Dakota bill gives an appropriate challenge, while allowing the Court time to "grow."
Initiated in late January by South Dakota House Rep. Matt McCaulley, the bill saw a relatively smooth march through the House and Senate with a promised approval from Gov. Mike Rounds throughout. Because it was originated in a small, conservative state, the bill was able to be inflammatory and to insight nation-wide debate without incurring too many negative political consequences itself.
Currently, other similar bills are being drafted and proposed in smaller conservative states such as Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee. This is an important factor in garnering diverse pro-life support and demonstrating political cohesion. These pieces of legislation also offer another venue from which the debate over abortion can position itself.
Finally, the narrow provisions given only to a mother whose life is in danger signify a bold challenge. This necessarily requires that the courts decide on the precedent Roe v. Wade and allows pro-life proponents to gauge the political atmosphere in terms of restrictions. If other bills with such extreme restrictions can pass in many state legislatures, it will perhaps create an impetus for greater restriction, control and responsibility.
It is well noted that many Americans believe in some restriction on abortion. On the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, according to one CBS News/New York Times poll, 38 percent of Americans believe abortion should be available with restrictions and 22 percent believe it should never be available. Clearly, many Americans think that abortion laws could be more stringent.
Ultimately, it is important for future application that opposition to abortion law comes directly from a challenge to state legislation. That this newest challenge came from a state legislature signifies a move in the right direction. Few conservatives would concede that an abortion is a right protected by the Constutution. At the same time and for pragmatism's sake, the pro-life resolve must move in the direction of state-initiated bans and restrictions on abortion. In the case that Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, states would have greater control over formulating abortion law because of American federalism.
The opposition has definitely taken notice of the South Dakota bill. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Web site calls for generous donations to "fight terrible legislation like this, and to elect pro-choice candidates who will prevent it in the future." The battle lines have been drawn for years and here the fight begins anew.
It seems implausible that abortion will never be permitted in any instance in America; yet times are changing. A variety of factors: public opinion, scientific progress and a sympathetic court, are converging into a perfect storm. The South Dakota bill is a promising step toward overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing state legislatures to decide what restrictions are appropriate.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
