Oh the places you'll go...

I'm thinking one of them won't be South Dakota. At least, if I ever need an abortion. Because they (as anyone with a TV and news watching abilities knows) have passed a law to banish abortion in South Dakota. Now, granted, you could only get one in one place in the entire state (Sioux Falls) and they don't even have a full time doctor. But banish they did, except for harm to mom (apparently rape and incest exclusions were too radical for them...)

What I found most "impressive" (read: amazing) is the comments by the Governor (quoted from the NY Times):

"In his message, Governor Rounds noted that the Supreme Court has reversed decisions before. He cited the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that said states could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities were "separate, but equal." That ruling was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case.

"The 1954 court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong," Governor Rounds said."

Amazed. Baffled. Slacked Jawed. and then just a shocked laugher. Sure, the Supreme court occasionally directly overturns itself. I can think of a ripping TWO times this has happened: Brown v. Board of Ed and Lawrence v. Texas (which directly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick). Both times the court EXPANDED peoples rights. The Supreme Court is not exactly known for saying "Yup, we were wrong." Many many decisions have come very close to overturning prior decisions, but they usually fall short of a "Yup, we were wrong" moment. They carve holes, or they distinguish in such a way that the results of both cases, seemingly contradictory cases, are in fact, correct. While this may seem illogical (and as a first year law student in Constitutional law, beyond frustrating) this is how the court works. The court can change with the times (it can, and it should.) But to ask the court to go back and say that the South Dakota law is constitutional and should be somehow compared to Brown v. Board is a bizarrity that I hope I NEVER see.

Now I am a newbie in the legal practice, but I think that if this case reaches the supreme court, I don't think they will uphold it. Biggest reason (sadly) is that South Dakota's law does not protect the right to an abortion in cases of incest or rape. This exclusion is common in the abortion laws, for seemingly obvious reasons. And the lack of this exclusion has been noted by a number of anti-abortion groups who are not thrilled with South Dakota's law (but who will rally around it anyway because they are all in this together.)

All and all, I think I may keep an eye on this case. It has the potential to cause a lot of trouble, not necessarily in the court, but in the court of public opinion. Hopefully this legislative strong arm backfires and actually hurts the cause, but that might be a bit too much for me to hope for.