Roe v. Wade may be in danger no matter who becomes President. We must focus on South Dakota.

[Bjorn Against]

We are all well aware of where our Presidential candidates stand on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama has made it clear that he will appoint justices that will protect a woman's right to choose, while John McCain has made it clear that he will chooses justices who do not believe that a woman should be able to control her own body. There is no doubt a clear contrast between the candidates on this issue, and it is crucial that those who want to keep abortion safe and legal vote for a candidate who will appoint justices that will uphold women's rights. But while we can easily see which candidate would choose the better judges, it is important that we recognize that we are not talking about what our candidate would do to protect abortion rights we are talking about what the judges he appoints would do to protect abortion rights. This should remind us that ultimately it is not the President who is going to determine whether or not women have the right to choose, it will be the courts that determine that issue. While a new President can appoint judges to vacant seats, there are many judges who are already on the bench that believe that women should not be given the right to choose. Even if Obama wins there is nothing that he can do about these judges, if they decide to overturn Roe v. Wade Obama's hands are tied.

Right now there are four justices on the Supreme Court who would almost certainly vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, and there are four justices that would vote to overturn it. Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote on many Supreme Court cases, and he would be the swing vote in this case as well. Many people are confident that Kennedy would vote to uphold abortion rights, but given his past record do you really want to count on him as the single person who is holding a woman's right to choose in the balance? Can we honestly trust Kennedy on this issue as much as we might wish we could trust him? If an abortion case were to make it before the Supreme Court next year he would ultimately be the single person who would be able to determine whether or not women were able to maintain the rights to control their own bodies. If we truly value a woman's right to choose we need to do whatever we can to make sure that no state tries to outlaw abortion, because if this case were to go to the Supreme Court we can not be as certain of the outcome as we would like to be.

There is a ballot initiative in South Dakota this year that would criminalize abortion in most cases. A similar ballot initiative in 2006 was defeated, but this year could be different. The 2006 initiative was so strict that it did not even provide for exceptions in the cases of rape or incest, many people who voted against it said that they only voted against it because they thought it went too far. Many of these people indicated that they would have voted for the ban if it had not been quite so strict, and this year's initiative is less strict. This year's referendum does provide exceptions in the cases of rape or incest, and this is likely to help it win quite a few more votes. This is a case of putting lipstick on a pig, the referendum may look a little better than last year's, but it still poses a major threat to a woman's basic rights.

If the referendum in South Dakota passes it will very likely go to the Supreme Court, and Anthony Kennedy will be the person who decides the fate of women's rights in this country. We need to stop this referendum from passing, because we can not trust this Supreme Court to make the right decision.

I am strongly considering traveling out to South Dakota myself the first weekend in October to help those who are fighting this referendum. If you are near South Dakota please consider making a trip out there yourself, but if you are unable to make it there are still other things you can do to help. Right now the primary group opposing the abortion ban is the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which is a coalition that is supported by such prominent organizations as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU. Please visit their website to see what you can do to help on this issue, any support you could give would benefit women in South Dakota and across the nation.

[Bjorn Against]

1. Why are so few people paying attention to this?

In 2006 the South Dakota referendum was covered extensively by the blogs, this year it seems that hardly anyone is paying attention. If we don't fight this it is only going to make it easier for the theocrats to win.

[BlueIris]

3. People want to put their heads back in the sand re: choice.

It's much easier to just whistle and hope.

[Jennifer C]

2. kick

[galaxy21]

4. I've heard Roberts might not neccessarily be willing to overturn it

even though a lot of people automatically assume he will.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Well right now it is all speculation...

I would tend to strongly believe that Roberts would vote against abortion rights, but I can not prove that to be the case. I will acknowledge that there is a possibility that you could be right, but it is only a possibility. If we can't count on him to be on our side then we don't want this to get to the Supreme Court anytime soon.

[That Is Quite Enough]

5. Even here in SD, it seems like few are talking about it. Or maybe I haven't been paying attention.

[galaxy21]

6. the whole thing is crazy

they're talking about 'saving babies' if its banned....dont they realise all a woman will have to do is travel to another state? And if you're that desperate for an abortion, a few hours on a bus will hardly be a big deal?

Who are they supposed to be saving then?

[VeggieTart]

12. Travel to another state? Yeah, right

First of all, 84 percent (at least) of all U.S. counties have no abortion provider. Second, women trying to access one may have a long drive, if they can afford the time off work, the gas, and the hotel room. You're also making a big assumption they'll be able to get a bus when they need it and get from the bus station to the clinic and back. Third, many states have waiting periods in place, although men don't need a waiting period for fucking Viagra. And these waiting periods are in states where it's difficult to get an abortion. And in states that are large in area.

Conservative states can put all these restrictions on abortion--even first trimester--without outright banning it and then make it harder for women to get assistance if they end up having their babies. They can also make it harder for women to get birth control. There's a lot of crap they can do that doesn't violate Roe, unfortunately.

Another problem referenced in the original article is the justices most likely to retire are the ones who are most likely to protect our rights. It really is why we need justices who would not overturn Roe.

"South Dakota lost their minds today/and I'm feeling it down to my DNA"--Northern State

[ITsec]

7. Another Rapid Citian...

Cheers....

Some of us are paying attention. As you know Elli Schwiesow is running for State Senate, and she's a rabid anti-choice extremist. It is imperative she is NOT elected this fall, or any other future election.

Re-elect Tom Katus, 2008

[Bjorn Against]

14. Let's hope you hear a lot more...

If those South Dakota residents who do not go to the right-wing churches never hear about this measure they won't show up to vote against it. We know that the right-wing churches are going to be spending a lot of time talking about this referendum though, and they will get their people out to vote. I really hope there is more talk about this before election day, because I would hate to see this pass.

[ITsec]

8. Already done...

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has already received my support and donation.

Thank you! :-)

[patriotvoice]

9. Roe v. Wade is case law. The SD initiative will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down.

Case law is rarely reversed; it is usually supplanted, sometimes superceded, and very rarely overturned owing to technical issues. The SCOTUS is bound to respect and uphold Roe v. Wade unless and until an issue presents itself that is somehow different than the scope of the existing decision. In this case, I do not see that the SD referendum is outside of Roe v. Wade, and so there is no opportunity for a decision that would supplant or supercede Roe v. Wade.

I repeat: it's not about "trusting" the SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade is case law. SCOTUS must uphold that law unless the SD law is in someway outside the scope of Roe v. Wade. The SD law doesn't appear to be.

[Bjorn Against]

11. Remember this is the same Supreme Court that elected George Bush...

Alright maybe it is not the exact same Supreme Court, with the additions of Roberts and Alito the Supreme Court is actually even worse now than it was when it selected Bush. I don't believe this court has a great concern for legal precedent, and I certainly don't think we can trust that they would rule our way on this.

[patriotvoice]

17. Well, the President can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

So a sitting president can only "stack" the SCOTUS so much; the next president may increase the number to undo the "stacking".

[Bjorn Against]

19. That is not quite as simple as you make it sound...

Any attempt to add additional justices to the Supreme Court would be met with enormous political opposition, and the Senate would have to confirm any additional judges that Obama was trying to add. Even if we got a normally filibuster proof Senate, I don't think it would be filibuster proof in this case. Many Democrats would not dare vote for the confirmation of a tenth Supreme Court justice. I can guarantee you Bush would like one more judge on his side as well, but even that arrogant asshole has not attempted to add another Supreme Court judge. He knew it was a battle he could not win even when he seemed politically invincible right after 9/11, it is not an easy battle to add justices to the Supreme Court.

[patriotvoice]

20. Why do you feel many Democrats wouldn't give consent for a 10th justice? EOM

[Bjorn Against]

21. Because it would be seen as a power grab...

There are several Democratic Senators from red states, if they were to vote for a tenth Supreme Court justice that would be used against them in their campaigns for reelection. Any Supreme Court appointment will bring controversy, but creating a brand new seat on the Supreme Court would be extremely controversial and there would be enormous political consequences.

[patriotvoice]

23. Let's wait until after the election, but I think a nation-wide blue-shift is underway, which...

would mean adding a justice wouldn't be seen as a power grab. Additionally, the nature of the justice would drive whether that confirmation would be used against in a reelection, not just the act of confirming. A "moderate" would likely be less controversial than a hard left justice.

[Bjorn Against]

25. The blue shift is not nearly strong enough to create the political capital it would take for this

Court stacking is not popular among voters, I don't think you realize the level of opposition you would be dealing with here. And not all of that opposition will come from Republicans either, there are many Democrats who would be opposed to stacking the courts. Even a "moderate" justice would be extremely controversial. It would set a bad precedent that could come back to bite us in the future, the risks are not worth it.

[Jim Lane]

26. The Supreme Court has the power to change its mind.

From the majority decision by Chief Justice Roberts, sometime in 2010: "Accordingly, Roe v. Wade is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with today's decision."

You're right that a direct overruling is rare, but it does happen. Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.

Beyond that, the Court can become more and more permissive about upholding state laws that aren't quite so drastic as the one proposed in South Dakota.

[alarimer]

13. How old is Kennedy anyway?

Would he be one of the ones to be replaced?

[Bjorn Against]

15. He is 72, he probably has a few years left in him I would guess

[ismnotwasm]

16. Thank you

This is important, and taking choice for granted has gotten measures like this the support it needs to be taken seriously.

The illogic and danger of abortion bans attempts gets hidden in stupid "when does life begin" rhetoric and base knee jerk emotionalism.

It's not pro-life, it's forced birth, forcing women to carry a fetus to birth, without choice, without thought, without recourse.

[VP505]

18. Anyway you look at it,

from now on its going to be a battle. When Obama gets elected its guaranteed that the Reptilians will fight tooth and nail to keep anyone appointed by Obama off the court. Parliamentary maneuvering, secret holds whatever they can think of I am sure they will try. I just hope we can pick up enough Senate seats to make it very difficult for the Reptilians to obstruct.

[bamacrat]

22. If roevwade were overturned can you imagine the protest.

It would almost be worth it to forever kill the republican party.

[Bjorn Against]

24. There would be a lot of protest, but that would not make it worth it.

If abortion were outlawed there would not be an end to abortions, abortions will just go underground and will not be nearly as safe. Women will die from botched abortions if abortion is outlawed, and our protests would not stop that. Sure this may damage the Republican Party, but it would damage many others as well.