Saturday, 11 Mar 2006
By Katelyn Sills
South Dakota recently passed a bill outlawing abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake. Many people may not think that this is the right time for such a law, including some pro-lifers. (Case in point: Going With Your Brain Over Heart by Andy Nevis) However, I disagree. I will examine the possible outcomes and the advantages and disadvantages of such a law, in terms of overturning Roe vs. Wade, the number of abortions, and the average opinion of abortion.
The first outcome is that the issue will be taken to the Supreme Court. As Andy (see above) wrote, “At the present time, there are just not the votes on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. At best, it is probably 5 to 4 in affirmation.” But if Roe vs. Wade is not overturned then, the issue may come to the Supreme Court again. All that is needed is 4 votes from the justices saying that the issue needs to be addressed.
The second outcome, and the most likely, is having a referendum. “A referendum would require 16,728 signatures. Those petitions would have to be filed within 90 days of the end of the Legislature, which is scheduled for a final veto day on March 20. If sufficient signatures were filed within the time allowed, the law wouldn’t take effect until after the November vote.”
So what would these two outcomes mean? First, no matter what the outcome, having a such a law against abortion undermines the legality of the act. I’ve found that a common response when faced with the truths of abortion is to say, “Well, it’s legal, isn’t it?” When it is debatable as to whether abortion should be legal, people can no longer allow law to do their thinking for them. And, when people are forced think about abortion, many people become pro-life. When they know when the heart starts beating (21 days after conception), the percentage of abortions done for birth control purposes (about 95%), the number of abortions done in our country every day (4,000), the vast number of un-planned pregnancy resources, and the option of adoption (about 40 couples are still waiting to adopt per every baby put up for adoption), they have no choice but to change their position. When more people become pro-life, there are less abortions.
So as you can see, there really are many advantages to such a law. Therefore, we need to keep pushing the envelope, and keep abortion in the public view. Sooner or later, they will come to their senses.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Katelyn,
The Supreme Court denies something like over 95% of the cases that it is asked to reconsider. It recieves way more cases than it can hear, so it will only hear a case if they feel it deals with an issue that has not yet been heard by the court. The only exception to that rule is if the court thinks it needs to reconsider the precedent becuase of a new law (in the case of Roe v. Wade, it would have to be a Constitutional amendment) or, in some instances, a general societal change.
If the court hears an appeal to overturn Roe v. Wade one year, it is not going to the next. Usually the Supreme Court will not reconsider a precedent for at least a decade, sometimes much more.
You correctly point out that it only takes 4 Supreme Court members to take a case. That is correct, however even the conservative jurists are likely to say, “Hey, we just talked about this last year. There is no reason to reconsider at this time.” Even if they may agree with our side, they will want to spend their limited time on issues that have not been heard.
So we need to be careful when we ask the high court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade. We do not have unlimited chances.
I do agree that we need to keep the issue of abortion in the spotlight. However, there are other ways to do that, such has the pro-life rallies in San Francisco and Washington in January. And even locally, events like Project 33 certainly stirr up debate.
BTW, I think this is the first issue that we have disagreed on. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing. After seeing what you have done to folks like Skeptical Catholic, I’m not eager to debate you.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
First, remember, the Supreme Court might overturn Roe vs. Wade, an action that potenially could save the lives of 1 million people a year. But even, if they don’t overturn Roe vs. Wade, your conclusion falters under careful examination:
When do you think the conditions will be right for overturning Roe vs. Wade?
In about 5 to 10 years?
Then the results of the two scenarios are the same. If the Supreme Court decides not to overturn Roe vs. Wade based on the SD abortion ban, then decides to re-examine it in 5-10 years, you get- the potential to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 5-10 years.
If SD had not passed such a law, but had waited for the Supreme Court to examine it when the time was ripe (5-10 years), then you get- the potential to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 5-10 years.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
“First, remember, the Supreme Court might overturn Roe vs. Wade, an action that potenially could save the lives of 1 million people a year.”
I totally agree. I think that we both share the goal of having Roe v. Wade overturned as soon as possible. But I am afraid this law will push it back even further.
“When do you think the conditions will be right for overturning Roe vs. Wade?
In about 5 to 10 years?”
When there are a majority of justices on the court who have expressed a willingness to overturn it. Hopefully very soon, but that isn’t certain.
And keep in mind that my 10 year minimum was just that: a minimum. It could very likely be much longer. And if this case does make it before the court, it won’t be for a few years. So you are actually talking more like 15 years.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Ok, when do you think the time is ripe for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned then?
March 11th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
“Ok, when do you think the time is ripe for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned then?”
Am I a physic? I don’t know. Hopefully soon.
But like I said, it will be when there are a majority of the justices willing to overturn it. ie. Not now.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
As an estimate, how many years?
March 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
This is purely an estimate, but since you insisted on one, I will say 5 years. I am predicting John Paul Stevens will step down the year after the 2008 elections and hopefully a pro-life president will be in power.
But by that time, this case will have been heard and most likely voted down. And as I said, the court wouldn’t hear it again for years.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Ok, so if the time is ripe in five years because Justice Stevens steps down, is that not a significant change?
March 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Yes, that is a significant change. I really don’t see what your point is though. Justice Stevens has not stepped down yet.
There has to be a significant change in either the constitution or the society for the court to reconsider a precedent. There would probably have been a big enough change in 2011 from 1992 to constitute a rehearing, but would there have been enough change from 2008 or 2009?
March 11th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Let’s assume that Justice Stevens does step down five years from now. Let’s compare “the Supreme Court not overturning Roe vs. Wade with the SD legislation” to “the Supreme Court examining Roe vs. Wade when the time is ripe (5 years)”.
Supreme Court affirms Roe vs. Wade now = potenial overruling 5 years from now when Justice Stevens retires
(Since you said that the court can re-examine when significant change occured, and said that the retirement of Justice Stevens constitutes significant change)
Supreme Court does not hear SD abortion law case = potential overruling 5 years from now when Justice Stevens retires
(The time would be ripe according to you)
Thus there is no difference between the Supreme Court affirming Roe vs. Wade now and having no SD abortion law. The SD abortion law does not push back the overruling of Roe vs. Wade.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
(Since you said that the court can re-examine when significant change occured, and said that the retirement of Justice Stevens constitutes significant change)
A significant change in the constitution or society is required. Was I not clear on that?
Justice Steven’s retirment would not be a significant change in society or the law, so it would not be ample reason to reconsider Roe.
Significant change to the court, yes, but not either of those two.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
You say that a justice resigning is enough significant change to overturn Roe vs. Wade in your earlier comment, but now say that “it would not be ample reason to reconsider Roe.” Your contradiction is evident.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Where did I say that?
March 11th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
You said the time would be ripe after Justice Stevens had resigned. Why would the time be ripe because Justice Stevens resigned? You explain that one.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
The time for us to challenge Roe v. Wade would be when a liberal Justice retires. I never said that the court would reconsider Roe simply because a justice retired.
If the court reviews this law in 2008, they are not going to review a similar case in 2011, legardless of membership changes. So it’s best that we not challenge it directly now so that it can review it in 2011 (or shortly thereafter).
March 11th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Ok, fine, replace “Justice Stevens’ retirement” with “a conservative judge replaces a liberal one”
Either way, your argument is sunk.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Let me explain this slowly since you don’t seem to get it:
You apparently think I was contradicting myself but it is quite clear that I am not.
I said that the time would be ripe for us to mount a challenge when there was one more anti-Roe justice. You then spun that statement and tried to say that I said the court could reconsider Roe when an anti-Roe justice was added.
In the first part of my “contradiction” I was speaking of when we should initiate a challenege. Then in the second part of my “contradiction” I said that the court could not bring up an old issue simply becuase of change in membership.
I was addressing two completely separate issues. The first time I was talking about under what circumstances it would be appropriate to challenge Roe. The second time I was speaking about under what circumstances the court could reconsider a precedent.
Two totally separarte issues.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
That would be great, if it wasn’t for the fact that Roe is already a precedent.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
ACYU Family Feud…
Over at the ACYU Katelyn Sills and I have been going at it over the new South Dakota law banning abortion. It is probably pretty entertaining to read two extremely close friends go at it like that!…
March 11th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
“Roe is already a precedent.”
Exactly. Which is why the court can’t review it unless their is a constitutional change or a significant societal change.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
So why would the court not review it before “one more anti-Roe justice” is appointed, but it would afterward?
March 11th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
They would probably review it at any point, but once they do, they will not again for some time.
So it would be best for us to wait so that we have a chance to get the case heard before the anti-Roe court.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Andy, you still haven’t answered my question.
“So why would the court not review it before “one more anti-Roe justice” is appointed, but it would afterward?”
March 12th, 2006 at 11:53 am
“So why would the court not review it before “one more anti-Roe justice” is appointed, but it would afterward?”
I never said that the court would not review Roe vs. Wade before another anti-Roe justice is appointed. In fact, they probably would.
But once they do review it and most likely uphold it, they won’t rehear it again for years or decades. Not until there has been a significant constitutional or societal change.
It comes down to this: They will either hear it before or after another anti-Roe justice is appointed, but not both. Which would you rather have?
March 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Let me get this straight once and for all:
You predict that it is most likely that Roe will be overturned after another anti-Roe justice is appointed. You do not think it is likely that Roe will be overturned before that time.
Correct?
March 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Yes. You are finally correct.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I’m not sure why that was so difficult to understand. You could have just asked instead of attacking him and freaking out.
Not that I agree at all, though. It seems to me that “waiting for a conservative justice” implies that the only way to rid the country of abortion is through judicial activism.
March 13th, 2006 at 6:22 am
I glad we’ve finally got that settled then.
Ok, then, why do you think “that it is most likely that Roe will be overturned after another anti-Roe justice is appointed.” but “do not think it is likely that Roe will be overturned before that time.”? Wouldn’t that mean that a significant change other than “a constitutional change or a significant societal change” would have to occur? I mean, think about it. If they will not hear the case and overturn it before “another anti-Roe justice is appointed”, but will afterwards, that means that a significant change has occured, because by your own admission, a significant change has to occur before a precedent can be heard and overturned.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Katelyn,
First of all, I never said they wouldn’t hear the case before another Anti-Roe justice is appointed. In fact, I said the opposite. They would hear it, but probably decide 5-4 against us.
Snce your whole comment is based on that false statement, I don’t need to respond to the rest of your comment.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Andy, believe me, I realize that. If you read it again, you will notice that I always used the statement you agreed on, saying “heard and overturned”. Did I miss something?
If I am not missing something, then in summary, it doesn’t really matter what the significant factor is. Because Roe is already a precedent, anything that will overturn the original Roe ruling (”significant factor of change”: in your case, you said, “another anti-Roe justice is appointed”) will also overturn a more recent ruling on Roe. As is shown here, the time for Roe to be overturned will be the same with or without an “early” challenge to Roe:
1. Supreme Court does not hear SD abortion law case, but is likely to overturn it when there is a significant change in x years (your statement).
If the significant factor of change is not affected, then…
2. Supreme Court affirms Roe vs. Wade now, but overturns it when there is a significant change in x years.
Now, it often happens that once a court reviews something, they will not review it for some time (and therefore don’t have the chance to overturn it). However, that is only because they have to wait for a significant change, and a significant change does not usually happen right after the review occurs. But, the time that this change occurs is not directly influenced by the reviewing process. For instance, Justice Stevens’ replacement with “another anti-Roe justice” will not change just because the court has reviewed SD’s abortion law.
Do you get what I’m saying, or am I just “freaking out”?
March 14th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
South Dakota has taken a step in the right direction, in my opinion, in outlawing this morally repugnant disgrace within their appropriate jurisdiction.
March 20th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
South Dakota and Roe vs. Wade…
From American Conservative Youth Union: South Dakota recently passed a bill outlawing abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake. Many people may not think that this is the right time for such a law, including some…