[clawrence3]

Well, it's not really that simple - let's say you knew in advance that 5 Justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as long as a rape / incest exception was in your State's law, would you have signed this into law?

[Old_Mil]

Well, it's not really that simple - let's say you knew in advance that 5 Justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as long as a rape / incest exception was in your State's law, would you have signed this into law?

Of course not - but we don't know that. If the justices do turn this issue over to the states (as they rightly should), they know that some states - like SD did - won't make exceptions for rape and incest. Other states will. Still other states, like California, New York, and others will allow all abortions - including partial birth abortions - to continue. So the actual wording of the specific law in question isn't all that important.

The issue at hand isn't whether or not the SD law makes exceptions for rape and incest, but rather whether abortion is a constitutionally protected right under federal law or whether states are free to regulated as per the wishes of their own residents.