Posted on 03/09/2006 10:06:36 AM PST by wagglebee
"They" ruled on Dred Scott too .. and later on ruled differently.
Damn pesky little facts ...
Please find me the section of the Constitution that indicates that there is a right to privacy.
Please find me the section of the Constitution that says that a state cannot pass new laws.
Do you also believe that segregation should still be "settled law" as it was ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson?
START
10 Law goes into effect.
20 "Clinics" defy law. Mild street protests.
30 State attorney orders "clinic" closed.
40 "Clinic" refuses. Noisy street protests.
50 Arrest warrant issued for "clinic" staff.
60 Police ordered in to arrest staff and shutter "clinic". Violent street protests, including property damage, arrests.
70 ACLU files motion to enjoin. in Federal Circuit Court.
80 Circuit issues injunction. "Clinic" reopened, staff released. Pro-abort publicity bonanza celebrates victory. State appeals to District Court.
90 Appeals travel up chain. USSC issues final ruling.
100 Appeal denied. "Clinic" reopens. SD legislature analyzes ruling, creates new abortion-ban bill avoiding legal pitfalls of first bill. GOTO10
110 Appeal upheld. Practical effect: Roe overturned. Bills to ban abortion introed in 32 states. GOTO10
END
No doctors in South Dakota preform abortions
**
Is that really true? How did this come about?
But God forbid if anybody should defy the Supreme Court's law by not allowing abortions. Which is more legitimate, laws written and approved by representatives of the people at large or laws issued by an unelected oligarchy? We shall soon see.
This will for certain wind up in federal court, it's just a matter of how. We NEED it to make it to the Supreme Court because we need them to overturn Roe and throw the matter back to the individual states (which is where it always should have been).
>>>I am not sure I understand your post, are you saying the Supreme Court can make laws? How has the Supreme Court ruling on this issue made it impossible for the SD State Legislature to pass laws?>>>
You need to go back to your government school for an edumication. No, the SCOTUS does not MAKE laws, but they do rule if a state law is constitutional or not.
A state cannot make a law that is unconstitutional (ie: Slavery, example of The Civil War) The Supreme Court (with RvW) stated that abortion is a woman's RIGHT to privacy and medical choice in having an abortion. Therefore South Dakota is going against the constitution in making the law in the first place, therefore the law is obsolete and illegal.
That being said, I do not agree with abortion, nor do I agree with abortion being a 'constitutional right', but until that decision is overturned, it is the law of the land. Period.
How can they have "already ruled on this issue," when it hasn't been brought before any court, much less the Supreme Court?
I think you're mistaken if you believe that a decision of the court in, e.g., Roe v. Wade enacts binding law on everyone for all time. It is technically binding only on the participants. Now it may be that the courts hearing this issue may view Roe V. Wade as applicable precedent they are bound to uphold, according to the doctrine of stare decisis ... or it may not. That is what courts will have to determine.
"We will continue chopping them into little pieces," she continued.
Close the diabolical place down. Then burn it down. Then have the remaining black spot exorcised.
It's precedent, not law. Courts don't make laws, legislatures do. Plenty of judges are oblivious to the difference, though.
Interesting issue for me...I am pro-choice, but I am also a strong states' rights advocate. I think that if the people of South Dakota want to ban abortions, then they should be allowed to do so. Women can just go to a neighboring state to get the abortion done, anyway. It seems the main reason for this law is to set up a challenge in the SCOTUS over Roe v. Wade in the new "more conservative" Court. The pro-lifers may be in for a rude shock, however, because both Roberts and Alito are Constitutional conservatives, and will likely NOT vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep the status quo, which is "let each state decide".
Ok, you've lost me....are you saying no South Dakota Doc's do not do abortions, or Doctors in general in South Dakota.
I mean, once a Doctor leaves Minn. for SD, he is after all a Doctor in SD...
An immoral law is no law at all.
Now they need the death penalty for anyone breaking the abortion law.
As I recall, that war was fought in part because of a Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott v. Sanford, that held that blacks were non-persons and had "no rights a white person was bound to respect". A lot like another so-called "law of the land" decision I know ...
I should have said "No doctors that "Live" in South Dakota". My mistake
I believe entirely on the Constitutions catch all, the items not addressed in the constitution shall be decearned by the states. Abortion is a State issue and our FED GOV needs to be out of it.
You are quite wrong. The status quo (due to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) is effectively that abortion is legal for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, and no state or locality can prohibit it.
The status quo before Roe v. Wade was "let each state decide". If Roe were overturned, that would be the case again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.