South Dakota Abortion Ban
Some of you will probably have seen this story. South Dakota is attempting to ban all abortion, save for that which is necessary to save the mother's life (ectopic pregnancies, for example). What's Fly's take? Well, I have several thoughts.
First, I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd take it a little more seriously if the bill allowed abortion in cases of incest and rape; I about wrote "mutiny" instead of rape, and I don't know why. At any rate, while I believe in theory that abortion should only be performed in cases in which the mother's life can be incontrovertibly proven to be in danger, I'm personally willing to make a couple of exceptions in what I consider to be extreme circumstances. So, basically, if I were writing the bill, I'd write it just a smidge differently.
Second, I think the whole thing is outstanding. No matter what you think of abortion, support it, condemn it, we should all be able to acknowledge that it should be a federalist issue, just like most other laws. Liberals and Conservatives alike should be able to acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is a legal travesty, just like the stupid unconstitutonal federal legal action surrounding the Teri Schiavo fiasco. Basing a "woman's right to choose" on a judicial decision revolving around the already tenuous "right to privacy" (which basically exists nowhere in the Constitution) was bad law to begin with; doing it as a judicial decision instead of a legislative one was even worse. If abortion is going to be legal, it should be legal on a state by state basis, just like gay "marriage" or euthenasia. Massachusetts has gay "marriage", a couple of other states have civil unions, Oregon has euthenasia laws; was that so hard? If the American public support abortion, then abortion advocates should have no fear of getting the majority of votes they need in order to pass laws making abortion legal. Our system of government is supposed to represent the will of the people, not the view of unelected judges with no accountability or oversight based on open-ended interpretations of the Constitution.
No matter what folks think of abortion, any educated person should recognize that Roe v. Wade is a bad way to accomplish a goal. The way that South Dakota is going about banning abortion, whether I agree with the overall scope of the law or not, should serve as an example of how both pro- and anti-abortion groups should go about trying to get their policy of choice established. And, for the record, I would say the same thing about laws about conservative causes (for example, the aforementioned Teri Schiavo work in Congress which I also opposed); American law should be based on the will of the people, not cagey legal wrangling and tricks.
I will never support the murder of innocent babies, but if it's going to happen, I think we should at least agree to use the preestablished framework of Constitutional law in order to determine its legality on the federalist principles this nation was built around.
First, I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd take it a little more seriously if the bill allowed abortion in cases of incest and rape; I about wrote "mutiny" instead of rape, and I don't know why. At any rate, while I believe in theory that abortion should only be performed in cases in which the mother's life can be incontrovertibly proven to be in danger, I'm personally willing to make a couple of exceptions in what I consider to be extreme circumstances. So, basically, if I were writing the bill, I'd write it just a smidge differently.
Second, I think the whole thing is outstanding. No matter what you think of abortion, support it, condemn it, we should all be able to acknowledge that it should be a federalist issue, just like most other laws. Liberals and Conservatives alike should be able to acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is a legal travesty, just like the stupid unconstitutonal federal legal action surrounding the Teri Schiavo fiasco. Basing a "woman's right to choose" on a judicial decision revolving around the already tenuous "right to privacy" (which basically exists nowhere in the Constitution) was bad law to begin with; doing it as a judicial decision instead of a legislative one was even worse. If abortion is going to be legal, it should be legal on a state by state basis, just like gay "marriage" or euthenasia. Massachusetts has gay "marriage", a couple of other states have civil unions, Oregon has euthenasia laws; was that so hard? If the American public support abortion, then abortion advocates should have no fear of getting the majority of votes they need in order to pass laws making abortion legal. Our system of government is supposed to represent the will of the people, not the view of unelected judges with no accountability or oversight based on open-ended interpretations of the Constitution.
No matter what folks think of abortion, any educated person should recognize that Roe v. Wade is a bad way to accomplish a goal. The way that South Dakota is going about banning abortion, whether I agree with the overall scope of the law or not, should serve as an example of how both pro- and anti-abortion groups should go about trying to get their policy of choice established. And, for the record, I would say the same thing about laws about conservative causes (for example, the aforementioned Teri Schiavo work in Congress which I also opposed); American law should be based on the will of the people, not cagey legal wrangling and tricks.
I will never support the murder of innocent babies, but if it's going to happen, I think we should at least agree to use the preestablished framework of Constitutional law in order to determine its legality on the federalist principles this nation was built around.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home