End of Roe V Wade?

Sleepy

Originally Posted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4780522.stm

US state tightens abortion laws
South Dakota governor Mike Rounds
Governor Rounds said he expects the law to be challenged in court
A US state has signed into law a bill banning most abortions, in a move aimed to force the US Supreme Court to reconsider its key ruling on the issue.

The South Dakota law - approved by the governor on Monday - makes it a crime for doctors to perform terminations.

Exceptions will be made if a woman's life is at risk, but not in cases of rape or incest.

Many believe new appointments to the Supreme Court may have tipped the balance in favour of anti-abortionists.

Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are considered conservatives.

Justice Alito is thought to be more likely to rule against abortion than his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The supporters of the South Dakota law say they want to trigger a battle over the 1973 Roe-versus-Wade ruling, in which the US Supreme Court established that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota.

Under the law signed by South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, doctors could get up to five years in prison and a $5,000 (£2,800) fine for performing an illegal abortion.

Gov Rounds said: "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilisation is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society.

"The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," he said in a written statement.

The organisation Planned Parenthood, which runs South Dakota's only abortion clinic, immediately said it would challenge the new law.

Kate Looby, state director for the group, said the governor "cares more about politics than about the reproductive freedom of women in South Dakota.

"Our doors remain open. We will not be closing, hopefully never," she said.

Troy Newman, head of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue in Kansas said: "[The law] reflects the momentum the pro-life movement has today.

"It is a grassroots movement that is propelling the legislatures, the governor, the president, and ultimately the Supreme Court to nullify the permissive abortion laws."

Pro- and anti-abortionists recently marked 33 years of Roe v Wade

The abortion ban would take effect on 1 July but it is likely that a federal judge would suspend it during any legal challenge.

The law would therefore not take effect unless South Dakota state gets the case to the US Supreme Court and wins.

Gov Rounds said abortion opponents have already started offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge.

Lawmakers also said an anonymous donor has pledged $1m (£572,000) to defend the ban, and a special account has been set up to accept donations for legal fees.

The statement issued by Gov Rounds also noted the bill was written to ensure existing restrictions on abortion would be enforced during a legal battle.

State proposals to ban abortion are before legislatures in Mississippi, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Given the recent appointments to the Supreme Court it was only going to be a matter of time before someone made a move on this in the States. Personally, I'm still not sure where I stand on the ethics or moral issues surrounding the area of abortion however I do think it seems to be in society's favour to allow those that want them to avail of them in a controlled and hygenic environment where proper after-care and counselling can be provided.

Hobbes

This is only a state law though. I wonder what happens if the woman travels to another state to have an abortion?

Sleepy

Would probably leave the state in a position of sitting on the fence alright but if one state can pass laws contravening Rowe V Wade, you can be sure a large number of others will be joining...

MrPudding

Sleepy wrote:

Would probably leave the state in a position of sitting on the fence alright but if one state can pass laws contravening Rowe V Wade, you can be sure a large number of others will be joining...

Are you sure? Is it not the caser that the majority of Americans actually support the right of a woman to have an abortion?

I would presume that republican, right wing, fundamentalist christian states might pass the law but other states not dependent on that kind of voting block will not.

MrP

The_Minister

I agree with overturning Roe vs Wade. Individual states in America should have the power to make up their own minds about issues such as this. Each state is like a country with a different culture and this should be respected.

gilroyb

South Dakota legislators have said outright that they are passing this law in the knowledge that it will be blocked by the State Courts (on legal precident), meaning it will head towards the Supreme Court without being implemented.

Legal observers feel it is unlikely to make it all the way to the Supreme Court as it does not really cover a legal issue that has not been decided on. The issues it does contain have been voted on by at least 5 members of the current bench, and they decided that Abortion is legal due to privacy provisions felt to be in the US Constitution.

Those supporting the current bill have made clear they see little hope of success, and are trying to make a point for a future battle when yet another Justice steps down. They are also trying to get a number of the current Justices to outline their positions again, so as to craft the best case to appeal to them.

This law will not have effect and will not reach the Supreme Court while John Roberts does not have the votes to support it.

Hobbes

Firespinner wrote:

I agree with overturning Roe vs Wade. Individual states in America should have the power to make up their own minds about issues such as this. Each state is like a country with a different culture and this should be respected.

But as mentioned how do you respect it on a person level? Lets say person A lives in State X. Now in state X it is illegal to have an abortion but right next door is State Y that says "Hey come on over and we will sort you out". How does State X enforce thier rules?

Answer is they can't unless they deny the person the right to travel, or to force the hand at a Federal level. If they get it at a Federal level then the person has to leave the country or risk an illegal abortion.

It doesn't stop the issue at all.

gilroyb

Firespinner wrote:

I agree with overturning Roe vs Wade. Individual states in America should have the power to make up their own minds about issues such as this. Each state is like a country with a different culture and this should be respected.

The United States of America has a constitution, in this constitution the Judiciary has found there to be a right to privacy. This right is the basis of any abortion rights, and many states have extremely stringent rules governing it (ie only to save the life of a mother). You say that each State is like a Country, but the problem in the 60's/70's was that some States were punishing those who got an abortion in another State. If they were acting like countries, they would not do this.

Each State might be LIKE a country, but the US is an actual country, and so is governed by its constitution. Whether people agree or not, the rules of the Country exist and have to be followed.

The_Minister

gilroyb wrote:

The United States of America has a constitution, in this constitution the Judiciary has found there to be a right to privacy. This right is the basis of any abortion rights, and many states have extremely stringent rules governing it (ie only to save the life of a mother). You say that each State is like a Country, but the problem in the 60's/70's was that some States were punishing those who got an abortion in another State. If they were acting like countries, they would not do this. .

Leaving to circumvent the law? The state has every right to punish someone to do this. Its like child sex tourism laws. The illegal activity happens in another country but they are punished upon return.

gilroyb wrote:

Whether people agree or not, the rules of the Country exist and have to be followed.

The supreme court had no right to make that law.

gilroyb

Firespinner wrote:

Leaving to circumvent the law?

The law exists in the Jurisdiction in which the action takes place. Show me where Sex Tourism laws have been enforced without the use of an international law. If it is legal to get an abortion in say, the UK, it is legal for an Irish person to travel there, get an abortion, and return home. The Irish government tried to have a law against this but it was deemed to be against the Constitution of Ireland, as it would be against legal principles in other Countries. If I travel to the US, shoot someone, and come back to Ireland, I will be extradited from here to there. I wont be punished here.

You can't leave to circumvent the law, you simply follow the law where you are, whether the issue is drug use in Amsterdam or abortion, the principles are the same.

gilroyb

Firespinner wrote:

The supreme court had no right to make that law.

Very true.

However, the Supreme Court does have the sole position as final arbiter of what the law actually says.

In the American system, if it is decided that the Court has oversteped its bounds, the legislature is free to produce a specific bill to change the law to the way they felt it actually was. If this is passed then the Court will follow it to the letter. The Constitution was put in the hands of the Judiciary, but the power to ammend it is in the hands of the States/people. If Americans want to stop abortion on the Federal level, then they can do it within their own system of government, just like any other issue.

Hobbes

gilroyb wrote:

You can't leave to circumvent the law, you simply follow the law where you are, whether the issue is drug use in Amsterdam or abortion, the principles are the same.

Don't think they are the same. For example anyone from Ireland can travel to Amsterdam to get all drugged up (legally) and can return home and not be charged. Abortion on the other hand a woman can get into trouble over it. Likewise with the kid trade. It is only about 10 years or so that it was illegal to have sex with minors in another country in the UK. Prior to that the tourist industry in this was booming.

gilroyb

Hobbes wrote:

Don't think they are the same. For example anyone from Ireland can travel to Amsterdam to get all drugged up (legally) and can return home and not be charged. Abortion on the other hand a woman can get into trouble over it. Likewise with the kid trade. It is only about 10 years or so that it was illegal to have sex with minors in another country in the UK. Prior to that the tourist industry in this was booming.

Do you know of any cases against those who have sex with a minor while abroad being prosecuted at home? I know there are laws against it, but that doesn't mean the cases would actually stand up in court when they are challenged by other legal principles.

You also say the tourist industry in this was booming, I think this is the sort of assertion that you'll have to try and back up with some form of support.

Why can a woman get in trouble over it? In Ireland the courts have decided she can't get in trouble due to constitutional rights to freedom.

SteveS

I had a Constitutional Law seminar a few years ago and we discussed Roe v. Wade at length. Though I haven't read the case since then, I believe that it is bad law. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law and not establish law. In interpreting it, they are bound by the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, they basically said that an abortion was a privacy issue that the individual states could only prohibit them and regulate them up to a point.

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention privacy and the Sup. Ct. was forced to manufacture this right and say it was part of the "penumbra of rights" that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Many pro-choice legal scholars believe this was a bad decision and that it was one that could allow to Sup. Ct. to have tremendous power to make policy that was delegated to the legislature.

Another bad effect that this case had was that it prevented any compromise on the state level and forced many people to be either for a complete ban or any kind of abortion at any time during the pregnency. I believe that most states would have allowed some type of choice.

I ahve no problem with there being a privacy component to the Bill of Rights, but it should be done through the amendment process.

gilroyb

I agree that it would be best for the constitution to clearly outline the rules of a nation, but there is a strong arguement to be made for infered rights. Rights such as the right of free association, freedom of speech, the need for officers of the state to have a warrant to enter ones house etc, all would seem to be based on an underlying right to privacy. Anglo-American constitutions outline certain broad principles, whereas Continental constitutions tend to outline specifics. This leads to more of a living document, which guards rights that are felt to be obviously secured by the document. The more extensive constitutions cover so much that if they don't guard a particular right, it's because the crafters of the document don't want it covered.

There are a lot of people who say that the court misinterpreted the Constitution, but if so, why has it not been overturned by an altered bench/ replaced by an ammendment? Is it not possible that some of those who disagree with the issue on principle refuse to accept that it is an accurate understanding of the law as it stands?

Just to be clear, I'm not putting forward my position on abortion, whatever that may be, but I do think that those who see the Court as an evil power grabbing institution don't grasp its role in the machinery of the State

Sangre

The right to marital privacy is the reason why contraception is legal in this country. Roe v Wade featured stronly in the case (Ryan v AG) and was probably the reason why it was decided the way it was.

Basically I know that a fully constituted supreme court could overturn this but I think it would be a legal farce it happened just because of conservatice judges. Although I would like to have faith that people who climbed so high in the ranks of the judiciary wouldn't changed precedent based on personal convictions.

sceptre

Sangre wrote:

Roe v Wade featured stronly in the case (Ryan v AG) and was probably the reason why it was decided the way it was.

Ryan v AG happened eight years before Roe v Wade and concerned flouridation of water. The notion of the unenumerated rights in the Irish constitution first came up in this case.

You're presumably thinking of McGee v AG, which came up a year after Roe but featured Griswold v Connecticut which was also extensively referenced in Roe (also influenced by Eisenstadt v Baird which is worth a read).

Sangre

Sorry of course I meant McGee v Ag (actually paused for a minuted when posting because I knew it was one or the other ).
Well its been 2 years since I've looked at the case but I thought Roe was mentioned a fair bit, maybe its another case or the actual counsel submission

MrPudding

Sangre wrote:

Sorry of course I meant McGee v Ag (actually paused for a minuted when posting because I knew it was one or the other ).
Well its been 2 years since I've looked at the case but I thought Roe was mentioned a fair bit, maybe its another case or the actual counsel submission

I guess you can update your sig to two times now.:D

MrP