Could the SD Abortion Law challenge Roe v. Wade??
The 1973 the landmark case, Roe v. Wade, made it illegal to ban abortions in all states. This ruling caused such upheaval, that a series of grassroots movements were created to either contest or uphold this law. Ever since the 1970's there have been many cases that fought Roe v. Wade.. but none turned out successful.In light on today's changes, (i.e. the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both conservatives), the pro-life movement and/or conservative parties feel this law can be overruled if taken to the Supreme Court. This is something of huge interest because it affects (directly and indirectly) the life of every American.
I refuse to state my opinion in this matter, and those know me well, know my thoughts on this issue.
But the true matter at hand is the newly instated law signed by the Governor Rounds that bans almost all abortions in the state of South Dakota. With this law, all doctors who are found guilty of practicing abortions will face up to 5 years of encarceration. This could be another start of pro-life cases that will challenge and may even overrule Roe. v. Wade.(Gov. Rounds signing abortion ban, photo courtesy of CNN.com)
The valid points on both sides are as followed.
The pro-life movement believe in the rights of the unborn child as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. They believe that the Constitution should be interpreted on a literal basis, in by which abortions would have been banned and deemed unethical during the time this amendment was created (1868). This literal understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment is an intrical part to the understanding of what constitutes a 'person'. In their view, a fetus is a person, a unborn human being who derserves a voice and the right to a life. Furthermore, they are afraid that allowing women to abort may lead to using this procedure as a method of contraception.
The opposing view, pro-choice, believe that the right of an abortion is a right of women's privacy. They believe that banning abortion is not a strong state interest, and to outlaw a 'woman's right to choose' would be unconstitutional. Another little fact is that before this case, women in the higher economic tiers had an advantage in getting abortions (having the ability to travel either out-of-state or abroad for these procedures), thus leaving the women facing economic strife with no other choice than receiving abortions from incompetent doctors, or doing this procedure themselves. This posed a great threat to the health of these women, and as a way of leveling the field, lobbyists/supporters believed that legalizing abortions would serve as a benefit for minorities.
As known, the Supreme Court ruled (with a 7-2 vote) that the privacy issue emcompasses the right of a woman's choice in receiving an abortion. In addition, the justices found no general concensus regarding the constitutional intrepretation on the definition of a 'person' having the same meaning as a 'fetus'. Hence, Roe v. Wade was enacted into law....
This is of great interest to me, not only because I studied this case thoroughly in college, but because it is such a delicate subject and every opinion is valid and justifiable.
posted by Maria @ 9:10 PM
1 Comments:
Assessing privacy rights is a question of balance. Does one person's right to be free of government intrusion outweigh the interest the government is striving to protect, or vice versa? In the case of abortion, the question is whether a woman's right to medical and reproductive self-determination (i.e., her right to privacy) outweighs the government's interest in protecting future generations.
In my view, the less viable a fetus, the less significant society's interest. That's where most pro-lifers and most pro-choicers disagree (obviously). The closer the fetus gets to being able to sustain itself, the greater society's interest.
I don't think most pro-choicers look at a fetus as being equivalent to an appendix. Rather, I think they recognize there are circumstances where a woman's right to decide whether to carry a baby to term (a process that is FULL of risks and consequences) is more important than an inchoate being's "right to life."
A 12-year old girl who is pregnant from the rape of her father should not be forced by the government to carry that baby to term--even though it's not the baby's fault she was raped. US society, IMO, will NEVER find its right to protect future life outweighs that girl's right to an abortion. And so long as that girl can have an abortion, there's really no logical bar to letting every woman have an abortion as well, whether she was raped or not (so long as the abortion is done within the allowable period).
Post a Comment
<< Home