S.D. abortion ban ‘might be the best thing that ever happened’ — to which side?

As readers have probably heard by now, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in the state, as part of a conservative drive to directly challenge Roe v Wade now that the composition of the Supreme Court has changed. For opponents of abortion rights in the South Dakota legislature, the timing is just right.

Their ideological allies outside the building aren’t so sure. As you’d expect, supporters of existing law were generally outraged by the bill signing yesterday, but there were some unexpected reactions. Consider what some opponents of abortion rights were saying yesterday:

“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.” […]

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.”

A few pro-choice advocates, meanwhile, sounded almost pleased by the developments. Democratic Party strategist Steve Hildebrand said the South Dakota ban may be “a huge benefit” for the left once the law is blocked and it works its way through the courts.

[Hildebrand] 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.

Indeed, reading over the reactions, there seems to be something of a consensus: the South Dakota initiative is a huge gamble for opponents of abortion rights, which they very well may lose. Politically, the pro-choice community will use it as a rallying cry, and legally, there are still five votes on the Supreme Court that support Roe’s precedent.

Susan Hill, president of the National Women’s Health Organization, which runs abortion clinics in five states, said South Dakota’s ban might, if abortion-rights advocates take advantage of the opportunity, “be the best thing that ever happened to the pro-choice movement.”

if abortion-rights advocates take advantage of the opportunity

Will they? A guy can dream…..

  • I think the legislation itself might help rally abortion-rights supporters, but I fear that if the Supreme Court overturns it before the election it will rally the opponents instead by making it clear that they still have some way to go to get a court that’s quite as extreme as the one they desire.

  • Another reason it might be a good thing is that now Bubba might get likkered up, have a roll in the hay and end up with 18 years of child support. See how pro-life he is after that.

  • Ignoring rape and incest … leave it to reich-wing to hang it all out there for the world to examine. “My way or the highway!” No way will the Court (even this whacko court) agree with what South Dakota did.

  • Timing is everything and this time it seems off… The right wingers usually try to screw us After critical elections not before them.

  • It’s just a ploy to divide people come November, which this seems well timed for.

    Those opposed to abortion but tired of the Bush status quo are the obvious targets of thise plot; a way to pull them back into the demented fold that is Republican.

    Divide and conquer: the Republican way.

  • This isn’t about pro-life. It never has been. It is about women who dare to show that they are sexual beings. If they aren’t virgins until marriage they are “sluts” and it serves they right if they get pregnant. Of course, men who aren’t virgins until marriage are just “guys, fooling around.” Boys will be boys, after all.

    In my opinion, the antiabortion bill should have been titled: “The Religious Right’s Crusade for the Subjugation of Women Act.”

  • have you heard about the state accepting private funding for the appeal process? it was discussed on npr yesterday.

  • One thing I haven’t seen anywhere is the reaction of ordinary South Dakotans to this insanity. Even many who might otherwise generally oppose abortion concede that this an extreme measure. Is the electorate of that state really that far away from mainstream American opinion? I mean, I know they dumped Daschle, but it wasn’t that long ago that they elected him. I wonder if this measure is likely to cost any of the radical anti-abortion legislators their seats. Anybody heard any informed opinion on that?

  • AYM,

    Yes an anonymous donor is ponying up $1million for the court fight.

    I just find it interesting that the South Dakota legislature apparently didn’t listen to Alito’s testimony at all. Precedent has been set. You can’t just turn over the court decision willy-nilly. He was basically saying that you have to chip away at the ruling over time, by coming at it sideways. Most anti-abortion supporters had already come to the conclusion that you can’t fight Roe in a head-on battle. So is the SD legislature just stupid or is the anonymous donor doling out campaign contributions to the legislature to get the (unwinnable) challenge he/she wants?

  • This is what happens when the wingnuts start to believe their own press releases too much.

  • I fear that if the Supreme Court overturns it before the election

    It’s just a ploy to divide people come November, which this seems well timed for.

    not really – it still has to work it’s way through the court system (Federal District and Circuit Courts of Appeals) before it reaches the Supreme Court. And each court that tries it will have to provide time for briefing and arguments, etc.. For example, the last time that the Supreme Court ruled on a “Partial Birth Abortion” case (Stenburg v. Carhart) in 2000, was the result of challenges to a Nebraska law originally filed with the District Court in 1997. These things take a good deal of procedural time – I would be extremely surprised if there is a Supreme Court ruling before the 2008 election.

  • If enough people leave South Dakota can we give it back to the Black Foot and the Sioux?

    I mean, they are down to one member of the House of Representatives. How much less consequential can they become? When every woman of childbearing age leaves the state, all that will be left are Brokeback cowboys 🙂

  • Here is an article in a the Rapid City Journal on thoughts to this legislation.

    http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/03/07/news/top/news02.txt

    One couple is leaving for a more progressive place to live. And check out Rev. David Cameron comments.

    According to the Argus Leader it looks like there are some that are trying to get it on the ballot where someone s opinion that as much ast 75% would vote against the ban as is.
    http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060307/NEWS/603070303/1001

  • From Crooks & Liars:
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/06.html#a7412

    This is a link to a video of S.D. State Senator Bill Napoli’s rant on what would qualify a girl for an abortion… this is a must see to appreciate where the extreme right is coming from…

    ****
    FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls “convenience.” He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

    BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
    ****

    You really should watch the video to get the full effect… it is disgusting. Maybe abortions would be allowed, but only if she was religious, a virgin and though he doesn’t say it – white. Let’s face it – if a woman has sex, she is a harlot, and deserves what she gets. This bares the ugly snarl beneath the GOP mask and reveals what we’ve known all along – it’s about sex, not “saving a life”.

  • Now we’re going to find uot how many pro-choice poeple suddenly become “one issue voters” too.

    I had this discussion the other day with a friend when I was talking about the fact that I will NOT vote for Bob Casey in PA, assuming he becomes the Dem candidate running against Santorum this year. Ain’t. Gonna. Do it.

    When the friend asked why, I explained it was because Casey is anti-choice (not to mention he “endorsed” Alito, fer chrissakes). When he asked, “but how is Casey on the other issues?” I said “There ARE no other issues for me now.”

  • Sempar, I feel the same way. As much as I deeply loathe Santorum, Casey’s pro-life stance and his flip-flopping on gay rights does not add up to support in my book. We can do better than Santorum and Casey in PA.

    As for the SD law– classic overreach. Thanks to right-wingers we pro-choicers no longer look like hysterical chicken littles, warning everyone that Roe could be overturned. They’ve made the possibility of of the anti-abortion minority successfully outlawing abortion far too real.

    They’ve been using abortion as a fund-raising tool for far too long, now it’s our turn.

  • Yesterday I underwent one of those hours at the dentist which requires distraction — a CD and a Sony and earbuds. I chose a lecture by Chip Berlet on the origins of the religio-fascist right — a riveting lecture given several years ago. What brought SD to an abortion ban — the background to the ferocity with which anti-choice people have worked for a ban — has nuances and “dots” which I’d never put together. One of these days I’m going to transcribe bits of that lecture and post them at my place.

    In spite of the scare Berlet gave me, I’m convinced that the polarizing efforts of the anti-choice nuts is going to fizzle. In the meantime things are scary and we’re going to have to put up with a huge amount of frustration. But far more people in the US are to one degree or another ‘liberal” on the subject of abortion than those who are fiercely against it. What I do think, however, is that NARAL and others have tended to exacerbate the problem too often, even while they believe they’re working earnestly for freedom of choice. The hamfistedness and shouting on both sides may only serve to extenuate the problem rather than get us through this mess without having to wait for another millenium.

  • I think one of the more interesting short-term impacts of S.D. is the role it will play in Democratic primaries. Two that obviously come to mind are Pennsylvania should Michelman challenge Casey, and Iowa (obvious only because I’m from Iowa), where one of the two leading candidates for the D nomination for Governor is anti-choice. He had been able to minimize that, saying it was a settled issue, he wouldn’t try to change anything, and we need to stop being a one issue party and look at all of the economic developmetn skills he has. I think S.D. now forces people to pull back the curtain and ask, if the issue may be returned to the states, is that position really sufficient security for a woman’s right to medical and reproductive choices. I think this is a huge boost for Culver in Iowa, and may cause Casey to get a real primary challenge in PA. And likely alter many other primaries of which I am less aware.

  • Yes, liberalrepub. That is what I’m saying. I will sit this one out, and if that means that Santorum wins, so be it. Because if they’re both going to vote the same way on the issues important to me, why does it make any difference? Casey is another Lieberman – votes your way when it doesn’t matter, votes against you when it does.

    I’m done with that kind of Democrat.

  • Semper, I understand the frustration, but presumably Casey would vote the right way on what I consider the single most important vote — and this issue is particularly critical in Congress — and that is the opening day vote to organize the chamber. Casey is many times better than Santorum even if this vote was the only vote they ever differed on. Having a Democratic majority in a chamber, whether it happens in 06 or takes incremental steps in both 06 and 08 to happen, makes a real difference in how the country is run, and a real difference in peoples lives. Control over budget and oversight committees, a bigger and better “megaphone” for the party to speak with, some lever for counterbalance with Rs in the other chamber or the White House. . . anything to get back to some semblance of a check or balance. And Casey contributes to that while Santorum contributes to the R’s running everything. Even if Casey gets everything else wrong, the good he does by simply being a 2-vote swing in the balance of the parties means bunches of comittees he isn’t even on just got better for his election. Please – take one for the “team” on this one and hold your nose and vote Casey (in the general, of course. if you can beat him in a primary with a real progressive, more power to you!)

  • Please – take one for the “team” on this one and hold your nose and vote Casey

    Nope. Not gonna do it. If anyone needs to take one for the team, it’s Casey. Casey needs to take one for the team and withdraw, and let a real democrat run. No more Vichy Dems. And no more money and support to the DNC or the DSCC until they stop backing this kind of nonsense.

    You do know Casey came out with a statement supporting Alito before the confirmation vote, don’t you? He’s just as bad as Santorum. The Democrats are going to have to do a little better than this.

  • As Digby and Firedoglake has been saying, another thing these fanatics forgot – the last time abortion was illegal, DNA testing didn’t exist AND wasn’t affordable. Wonder how many men realize that their one night of drunken sex may lead to 18 years of child support.

  • Comments are closed.