Friday, February 10, 2006

Roe v. Rushmore

It's all happening: "The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion."

No commentary from this guy, since I will always live in a blue state and abortions will always be legal where I live, but I'm just pointing out that it's all happening. Emily Rugburn.

31 Comments:

At 12:37 PM, Blogger Trix said...

Hmm...They're going from invading foreign countries to invading my body. Seems like the logical progression of things.

Fuckers.

 
At 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crazy. Mr. TJ is convinced R v. W will never be overturned but, we all know that our special American version of the Taliban doesn't want these pushy women to have any power over their lives. Maybe next they will repeal our right to vote. Hell, maybe we shouldn't drive either, just sit in the back seat. And walk 3 paces behind our spouses on our way to the back alley.

On a serious note, this is the price of having something that should have been decided legislativly, not judicially.

I'm with Trix.

Fuckers.

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger Don Fiedler said...

Bullock: "I don't give a fucking care that that nefarious whore is quickening with child. Just because some shit-eating prospector blew his seed into her fucking erogenals don't give her no fucking cause for the scalpel. Yankton has proscribed any further terminations, Doc. Best you heed that fucking hortation!"

Doc: "I care only for the comfort and dignity that SHE deserves as a God-fearing creature. I shall do what is right in the bosom of compassion, not for some fucking magistrate!"

Al: "Fuck that cunt. With dozens coming by freight from here to Springfield, don't spare a thought on this trollop. Feed her to Woo's pigs. And FUCK Yankton."

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger MDS said...

Ace, what makes you think abortion will always be legal in blue states? What makes you think the Congress wouldn't just vote to ban abortion throughout the United States?

 
At 1:09 PM, Blogger ethan said...

i'm clearly pro-choice, but i've heard a convincing argument that roe v. wade had a terrible outcome: it took the right of the states (to decide whether abortion should be legal) and gave it to the federal government. this could in fact be a (huuuuge) problem for pro-choicers. if the federal gov't overturns roe v. wade and says abortion is illegal, no state will be able to decide for itself. so while ace may be able to live in a blue state, he may have to go to mexico for his abortions.

honestly, is there a good example of how taking power from the states and giving it to the feds has ever been a good idea? (noonans, i'm looking in your direction for a historical answer here)

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger MDS said...

Sure, there are plenty of examples of good outcomes from taking power away from the states. Nearly all the progress our country has made on civil rights for blacks, for instance.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger Don Fiedler said...

mds,

abortion is a traditionally state-governed health prerogative. congress would have a hard time constitutionally justifying a blanket ban on abortion, especially since the right pushing for such a ban also traditionally defends states rights. not saying its not possible, but an out and out abortion ban would be really really hard pressed to survive judicial review. individual states hold the reigns. the federal gov would probably need a constitutional amendment and that will never happen.

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger Ace Cowboy said...

"I go to law school." --Donnie Fiedler, 1:10 PM. That's my answer, MDS.

But, for real, let's leave logic and law aside for second. Could you ever in your wildest imagination envision a day when there won't be abortions in New York or California? Come on now.

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger MDS said...

"congress would have a hard time constitutionally justifying a blanket ban on abortion"

There's no way a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe vs. Wade would then go back and overturn a blanket abortion ban. The same justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade are the ones who think that if my doctor tells me I should smoke some weed to help with my glaucoma and I follow his instructions, Congress can stop me as part of its right to regulate commerce among the several states.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger ethan said...

good point on fed >>> states for civil rights.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Trix said...

Can of worms, meet Ace. He's the one who opened you.

 
At 1:59 PM, Blogger Ace Cowboy said...

I have no problem with an open can of worms...in fact, I like opening them sometimes.

I don't know of too many blogs with a smarter group of commenters than this one, so I'm totally okay with even heated debate. In all the many arguments we've had here, I can't remember a single incident of name-calling or childish behavior. Kudos bar to Slack.

On this issue though, I think everyone's on the same side...people are just playing devil's advocate and arguing different points about legality. That should be the worst thing in the world.

My favorite part of the abortion debate are the few extremists who like to kill or injure abortion doctors or blow up their practices. I mean, if that's not the saddest group of sorry-sacks out there, I'm not sure who is.

 
At 2:12 PM, Blogger ethan said...

which is sadder:

(a) blowing up an abortion doctor's clinic,

(b) blowing things up because a cartoon offended you, or

(c) the 2006 kansas city royals?

 
At 2:12 PM, Blogger Gypsy Rose said...

Woo: "Cocksuckaaas"

 
At 2:57 PM, Blogger Trix said...

Ethan, I'm tentatively going with option C, but if Sosa accepts the Nationals offer, can I do a "write in" vote for them instead?

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger hoobs said...

I agree with your comment about the anti-abortionists who injure abortion doctors or blow clinics up, Ace. People get so fierce about their opinions that they don't even think about the irony of the situation. I mean, you're against abortion because it's "killing" someone, but you will blow up a clinic and stand behind the death penalty? Same goes with those Schiavo-ists.

 
At 3:03 PM, Blogger Ace Cowboy said...

Are you trying to say that all the Pro-Schiavo Lifers have no brains?

I also go with the Royals. Reggie Sanders? Really, Reggie? Why?

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger Ace Cowboy said...

And Gypsy...I love you for that.

 
At 3:08 PM, Blogger Mr. Underhill said...

Don's right on a very important point, though, which cannot be overlooked. The concepts of state's right and an abortion ban are usually aligned - and both are championed-for by the Right. For the Court to overturn Roe, and then for Congress to pass a Federal law making abortion illegal would not be congruous with the right-wing agenda. Although admittedly, I wouldn't put it past them.

This also, is a non-thinly-veiled dig at the Right, albeit in a more appropriate forum.

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger ethan said...

trix - beware the nats. i don't think they have the depth in their rotation to make the playoffs, but they do have a strong lineup (though admittedly worse with sosa, unless he plays with a "prove people wrong" attitude due to an incentive-laden contract).

as a chicagoan, are you for (scuba?) the cubs or chisox?

 
At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This bunch of Originalists/Textualists we gots sittin' on the High Court would be hard pressed to justify a Congressional ban on abortion via the Commerce Clause.

Do unborn feet-eye move in interstate commerce? Do the moms? Maybe the scalpel and the coat-hanger do.

I still need a name.

 
At 4:09 PM, Blogger Alex Fritz said...

Hey! I will not sit here idely and let you get away with your Reggie Sanders bashing!

Reggie's a pimp. End of story.

(but i wouldnt have paid for him, either.)

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Ace Cowboy said...

No, Al, I was doggin' Reggie for signing there, not KC for signing him. I like Reggie. Why KC?

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Trix said...

Ethan,

I'm a glutton for punishment. Go Cubbies. Can you feel the enthusiasm?

 
At 4:32 PM, Blogger dhodge said...

From what I've read, there is one place where you can (legally) get an abortion in S. Dakota, and the doctor(s) who work there don't even live in South Dakota, they come over from a neighboring state on every fifth Tuesday or something like that. So while South Dakota outlawing abortion would be a huge deal from a legal standpoint, the lives of South Dakotans would not be much different than they are today.

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger Alex Fritz said...

I think Reggie was sick of having to play baseball in October. Hence, KC was a logical choice.

The man loves his down time.

 
At 4:48 PM, Blogger offpeak34 said...

a federal ban on abortion could only take place through a constitutional amendment, no other way it could happen. an amendment would require a super-majority in the legislature and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. no way that happens.

 
At 4:53 PM, Blogger MDS said...

" a federal ban on abortion could only take place through a constitutional amendment, no other way it could happen."

I vehemently disagree. Like any other ban on anything else, it would merely take a simple majority in each house of Congress and the president's signature. The notion that the Supreme Court would first overturn Roe v. Wade, then come back and say that Congress had no right to ban abortion, is absurd. I ask again: How does a ban on abortion violate the interstate commerce clause if a ban on medical marijuana doesn't?

 
At 6:18 PM, Blogger Don Fiedler said...

pot moves in interstate commerce (according to the court and decades of federal regulatory tradition) and the people who live in a state traditionally don't. the health and welfare of the citizens is a state prerogative. giving pot (a substance) to alleviate pain (a health issue) maybe be fantastic. i love pot. but, when you couple an interstate drug trade with the criminal nature of marijuana and the, whether you like it or not, entrenched social justifications for that criminality, it's easy to see a distinction. pot is a tangible thing. "abortion" is not. congress may say that you can't give pot to alleve someone's cancer but, absent a constitutional amendment, it can't pass a law that says a state can't permit the treatment of cancer at all. only a state legislature could pass that law.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger offpeak34 said...

prohibition had to be done via constitutional amendment. even more so with abortion, since it's not a matter of commerce, but rather one of medicine.

 
At 5:54 AM, Blogger MDS said...

The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. Any Supreme Court that would overturn Roe vs. Wade would also uphold a total ban on abortions. Of course I agree that the Supreme Court would be wrongly interpreting the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't rule that way.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home