Mississippi And South Dakota: Two Peas In The Same Pod
Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota just received this past Tuesday a bill that would outlaw abortions in South Dakota, save for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother; it would end all abortions "on demand." Governor Hayley Barbour of Mississippi is looking at similar legislation set to hit his desk soon. But in Barbour's case, rape and incest--as it stands right now--are out of the bill. The Sun Herald had the following news report picked up by the AP Wires:
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.
The state already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. The bill that passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.
Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."
The bill goes to the full House, which could vote next week. Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, said he believes it will pass the House and move to the Senate.
McCoy told The Associated Press that although he opposes abortion, he always has been willing to make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
"As I live longer and longer, the harder and harder it has become for me to accept abortion, period," McCoy said.
He said he'll listen to arguments on both sides of the issue. He said not allowing exceptions for rape or incest would be "pretty tough."
"It's also for those of us who don't believe in abortion to think about the taking of a human life, regardless of how it got started to be on this earth," McCoy said.
Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, a Republican, said she hasn't had a chance to read the House proposal.
"I think this body will look very strongly on pro-life issues," said Tuck, who presides over the Senate.
The lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, House Public Health Committee Chairman Steve Holland said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions each year.
Holland, D-Plantersville, said he has voted for some abortion restrictions and against others in the past.
Mississippi already requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure.
The state has one abortion clinic, in Jackson, and its leaders plan to fight if more restrictions are imposed.
Also, Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the American Civil Liberties in Mississippi, said her office had been contacted Wednesday by other abortion-rights groups that might sue Mississippi if the new restrictions become law.
"That's more of the state's legal resources going to something that didn't' have to happen," Lambright said.
Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi, said she hopes the state will outlaw abortion, but she's not certain whether there's a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to an abortion.
"We feel like we are still one justice short of being able to overturn Roe," Herring said.
The South Dakota legislation went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he's inclined to sign the bill into law.
For those that haven't picked up on this yet, I'm pro-life. This is as much a reflection of my religious beliefs as it is on jurisprudence. Simply put, Roe was decided wrongly, with very little jurisprudence involved in the decision itself. This issue is heated between both sides. To say that this issue was contentious amongst Americans is an understatement. Pro-abortionists are militant at times, resorting to the courts to limit pro-life people from protesting outside of clinics; a clear violation of the First Amendment. And we have the recent Supreme Court decision handed down that states that pro-life demonstrators don't fall under the racketeering charge that pro-abortionists claimed for twenty years.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used against protesters at abortion clinics, ending a legal battle that has gone on for 20 years.
The high court's 8-0 decision effectively bars efforts by pro-choice groups to bankrupt the pro-life movement by using federal anti-mob laws against protest groups, claiming that such organizations were violent criminal conspiracies.
But in his 15-page decision for the unanimous court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer ruled that "physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion," such as demonstrations by abortion opponents at clinics, "falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act," the federal extortion statute enacted in 1946.
"Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense ... the Hobbs Act defines 'extortion' as necessarily including the improper 'obtaining of property from another,'?" concluded Justice Breyer, who was appointed by President Clinton and usually supports the right to abortion.
He noted that pro-lifers demonstrating at abortion clinics "did not obtain property from women seeking to enter clinics to get abortions and so 'did not commit extortion.'?"
Bit-by-bit, the war against abortion is being won. However, the fight is far from over. Should both governors--Barbour and Rounds--sign the legislation that is being presented to them, it will most assuredly force a new battle over the issue of abortion. Now it used to be that pro-abortion advocates relished this sort of a fight. Not now. Now, these people are worried that their precious sacrament is about to be handed yet another defeat. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the argument over late-term abortions, or partial-birth abortions; a particularly gruesome procedure where the child is killed while during birth.
The largest argument presented by the pro-abortion crowd is the one revolving around the "rights of women." The problem with this convoluted logic is that there is no such right in existence. There is no right to abort, nor do women have the right to kill their children. This is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution in the worst act of judicial activism this nation had seen since 1973. (Then, Kelo occurred in 2005, which came close to trumping Roe.) Women do have enumerated rights within the Constitution, but abortion is not one of them--overt or otherwise.
And despite the views of pro-lifers, I am actually enthusiastic about this issue reaching the court again. Should the court actually address the jurisprudence of Roe in regard to both pieces of legislation, I'm almost certain it will rule in the proper context, and overturn Roe; that remands it back to Texas, and forces it into the halls of power within the States where it belongs.
The federal government never should have stepped on the states' toes regarding this issue. They had already spoken, loud and clear, that they didn't want this practice allowed. For the most part, a vast majority of the United States had banned the procedure unless in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. These are the only provisions I, myself, can come to grips with. And I would welcome laws that abandoned the feminist practice of abortions on demand, for any little whim that a woman would have at the time. Such abortions I would consider to be murder. Life is precious, and a gift to any mother. Only a cold, heartless individual could not be moved by the life created within the womb.
But, that is where much of this debate has strayed. All too often, the emotions clash, and little logic remains to continue the debate. This is one of the reasons why I removed the religious arguments from the debate. They only add fuel to the emotion. I'm sorry to say this, but only cold, hard logic will prevail, and that logic is rooted within the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the Supreme Court is not excused from abiding by it. They have to, and in 1973 they chose to ignore it.
If these bills become law (no "if" about it if you ask me) then a new showdown looms on the horizon. It is now time for the Supreme Court to do what Associate Justice Scalia chastises the court for every time the court examines the abortion issue. It is time for the court to be solid, logical, and definitive in it's decision, and said decision must be rooted within the jurisprudence that the Supreme Court relies upon. In short, it's time for the Supreme Court to right a wrong they not only brought into existence, but through convoluted logic, allowed it to prepetuate itself to the point it is at today. That being an act that is ultimately excused by so many because of precedent, but disliked by so many more because of a perceived miscarriage of justice; the latter justified simply by reading Justice Blackmun's original decision in Roe.
Publius II
Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota just received this past Tuesday a bill that would outlaw abortions in South Dakota, save for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother; it would end all abortions "on demand." Governor Hayley Barbour of Mississippi is looking at similar legislation set to hit his desk soon. But in Barbour's case, rape and incest--as it stands right now--are out of the bill. The Sun Herald had the following news report picked up by the AP Wires:
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.
The state already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. The bill that passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.
Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."
The bill goes to the full House, which could vote next week. Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, said he believes it will pass the House and move to the Senate.
McCoy told The Associated Press that although he opposes abortion, he always has been willing to make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
"As I live longer and longer, the harder and harder it has become for me to accept abortion, period," McCoy said.
He said he'll listen to arguments on both sides of the issue. He said not allowing exceptions for rape or incest would be "pretty tough."
"It's also for those of us who don't believe in abortion to think about the taking of a human life, regardless of how it got started to be on this earth," McCoy said.
Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, a Republican, said she hasn't had a chance to read the House proposal.
"I think this body will look very strongly on pro-life issues," said Tuck, who presides over the Senate.
The lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, House Public Health Committee Chairman Steve Holland said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions each year.
Holland, D-Plantersville, said he has voted for some abortion restrictions and against others in the past.
Mississippi already requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure.
The state has one abortion clinic, in Jackson, and its leaders plan to fight if more restrictions are imposed.
Also, Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the American Civil Liberties in Mississippi, said her office had been contacted Wednesday by other abortion-rights groups that might sue Mississippi if the new restrictions become law.
"That's more of the state's legal resources going to something that didn't' have to happen," Lambright said.
Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi, said she hopes the state will outlaw abortion, but she's not certain whether there's a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to an abortion.
"We feel like we are still one justice short of being able to overturn Roe," Herring said.
The South Dakota legislation went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he's inclined to sign the bill into law.
For those that haven't picked up on this yet, I'm pro-life. This is as much a reflection of my religious beliefs as it is on jurisprudence. Simply put, Roe was decided wrongly, with very little jurisprudence involved in the decision itself. This issue is heated between both sides. To say that this issue was contentious amongst Americans is an understatement. Pro-abortionists are militant at times, resorting to the courts to limit pro-life people from protesting outside of clinics; a clear violation of the First Amendment. And we have the recent Supreme Court decision handed down that states that pro-life demonstrators don't fall under the racketeering charge that pro-abortionists claimed for twenty years.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used against protesters at abortion clinics, ending a legal battle that has gone on for 20 years.
The high court's 8-0 decision effectively bars efforts by pro-choice groups to bankrupt the pro-life movement by using federal anti-mob laws against protest groups, claiming that such organizations were violent criminal conspiracies.
But in his 15-page decision for the unanimous court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer ruled that "physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion," such as demonstrations by abortion opponents at clinics, "falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act," the federal extortion statute enacted in 1946.
"Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense ... the Hobbs Act defines 'extortion' as necessarily including the improper 'obtaining of property from another,'?" concluded Justice Breyer, who was appointed by President Clinton and usually supports the right to abortion.
He noted that pro-lifers demonstrating at abortion clinics "did not obtain property from women seeking to enter clinics to get abortions and so 'did not commit extortion.'?"
Bit-by-bit, the war against abortion is being won. However, the fight is far from over. Should both governors--Barbour and Rounds--sign the legislation that is being presented to them, it will most assuredly force a new battle over the issue of abortion. Now it used to be that pro-abortion advocates relished this sort of a fight. Not now. Now, these people are worried that their precious sacrament is about to be handed yet another defeat. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the argument over late-term abortions, or partial-birth abortions; a particularly gruesome procedure where the child is killed while during birth.
The largest argument presented by the pro-abortion crowd is the one revolving around the "rights of women." The problem with this convoluted logic is that there is no such right in existence. There is no right to abort, nor do women have the right to kill their children. This is a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution in the worst act of judicial activism this nation had seen since 1973. (Then, Kelo occurred in 2005, which came close to trumping Roe.) Women do have enumerated rights within the Constitution, but abortion is not one of them--overt or otherwise.
And despite the views of pro-lifers, I am actually enthusiastic about this issue reaching the court again. Should the court actually address the jurisprudence of Roe in regard to both pieces of legislation, I'm almost certain it will rule in the proper context, and overturn Roe; that remands it back to Texas, and forces it into the halls of power within the States where it belongs.
The federal government never should have stepped on the states' toes regarding this issue. They had already spoken, loud and clear, that they didn't want this practice allowed. For the most part, a vast majority of the United States had banned the procedure unless in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. These are the only provisions I, myself, can come to grips with. And I would welcome laws that abandoned the feminist practice of abortions on demand, for any little whim that a woman would have at the time. Such abortions I would consider to be murder. Life is precious, and a gift to any mother. Only a cold, heartless individual could not be moved by the life created within the womb.
But, that is where much of this debate has strayed. All too often, the emotions clash, and little logic remains to continue the debate. This is one of the reasons why I removed the religious arguments from the debate. They only add fuel to the emotion. I'm sorry to say this, but only cold, hard logic will prevail, and that logic is rooted within the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the Supreme Court is not excused from abiding by it. They have to, and in 1973 they chose to ignore it.
If these bills become law (no "if" about it if you ask me) then a new showdown looms on the horizon. It is now time for the Supreme Court to do what Associate Justice Scalia chastises the court for every time the court examines the abortion issue. It is time for the court to be solid, logical, and definitive in it's decision, and said decision must be rooted within the jurisprudence that the Supreme Court relies upon. In short, it's time for the Supreme Court to right a wrong they not only brought into existence, but through convoluted logic, allowed it to prepetuate itself to the point it is at today. That being an act that is ultimately excused by so many because of precedent, but disliked by so many more because of a perceived miscarriage of justice; the latter justified simply by reading Justice Blackmun's original decision in Roe.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home