South Dakota now has an anti-abortion law in effect. What do you tink about making a similar law in the state of Oklahoma?

Here we go...

Why waste the taxpayers money when it will just get thrown out by the feds like many have before? The South Dakota one is nothing more than politics.

I don't know. What do you TINK about it, Patrick?

Suddenly I feel like I'm watching The Sopranos.

Frankly, I hate to even respond to this thread because I'm sure I'll get called out for something...I don't know what, probably for having my own ideas or something. But of course, the open-minded (some might call me liberal, whatever) me wants to say no, I do not want any anti-abortion laws in our state. Do that, and women will travel to other countries where they are legal and much more dangerous. I also do not like the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body and my life. Leave my uterus alone, thank you.

I'm feeling flames at my feet...

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

LOL! Hey, seems like the debate is going strong here. Just trying to promote healthy debate.

BTW, I say leave it up to the Supreme Court.

"Healthy debate" on this forum? Sure

I don't trust leaving a decision like this up to the Supreme Court...I don't know, I guess I just don't trust most politicians.

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

Because abortion is the killing of a human being, I would support a state law banning abortion.

In every instance? Even rape or forced incest?

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

Depends on your definition of healthy. I think you do a mighty fine job!

I's gots skillz, what can I say?

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

Hey, as long as you got a brilliant personality, what else do you need?

Oh god...it's like that old commercia...

"Can you type?" "Well, no, but I have a BRILLIANT PERSONALITY!!!!!!"

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

That's the response I get frequently. I would personally say that there is no excuse to kill a human baby, even if rape or incest was involved.

However, if THAT is what it takes to pass the law, then I will concede. Rape and incest represent such a small percent that the vast majority of lives will be saved.

This thread doesn't matter. The law is unconsitutional. The SCOTUS needs something new to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't think that even guys like Alito believe that there's enough difference between this case and the former to even entertain hearing it.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

roe v. wade affirms that state laws banning abortion violate a woman's right to privacy. it does not address nor does it attempt to address whether or not a fetus has rights and protection under the law. south dakota's hb 1215 is worded in such a way as not to ban abortion itself, but to ban any procedure that purposefully terminates "the life of an unborn human being." when this law is challenged it will force the court to weigh the rights (if any) of the unborn. the law is intentionally designed to force the court to make this decision. -M

m, I don't think that the justices will be receptive to that sort of reasoning. The purpose of the law was to wiggle around the intent of Roe v. Wade which is binding precedent. In any event, the law is effectively aimed at overturning a Supreme Court ruling, and to allow it would be to set a terrible precedent allowing state courts to overturn Supreme Court decisions by using wiggle language.

I don't believe that the Court will see it in the way that you suggest. It is not for the Court to look at the morality of their decisions, just the legality.

Some interesting commentary on the Bible thumper movement though -- they bitch and moan crying about liberal courts writing the law, not interpreting it when a court considers and overturns a gay marriage law or something to that effect. However, when it's a subject they're in bed with, the court is liberal if it DOESN'T write new law.

Hypocrisy? Oui.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I really enjoy hearing from those who know what's best for other people...most of us just aren't enlightened enough to manage our own lives and need guidance from those that wish to force their own beliefs....err I mean advise people that just don't know any better

My point is just take care of yourself and your family and let everyone else do the same

Easy, to them, it's about saving life. The problem is that the majority of people don't believe that there's life at those early stages. If life at conception were a commonly held belief in this nation, (by common, I mean most everyone thought so) then the Bible thumpers would have no trouble getting federal law passed, or constitutional amendments passed, or whatever they needed.

Trouble is, the majority of people do not believe this tripe, or at least the numbers aren't great enough to support legislation. That means that they must use alternative means. In this case, North Dakota passes legislation which directly challenges the Supreme Court's verdict in Roe v. Wade (go on, someone try and argue it doesn't). They would rather a panel of 9 write their laws than for elected officials to do so.

I find it hilarious that people who are doing this on principle are violating their very own claimed principles in order to do this. We conservatives bitch and moan about activist judges all the time. This measure is simply a prayer that just such an activist judge will favor the side of the Bible thumpers for once.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a federal court overturn the law, and for the Supreme Court to not grant certiori.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

mid,
i think that you're getting yourself hung up on morality and religion such that you fail to see the legal process going on here. perhaps you fall back on these things since you don't have a firm grasp of how our legal system works. no big deal, law can be a complex subject and isn't for everyone. it's south dakota's legislature that passed this law, btw. i'm not making a moral argument one way or another. you see, in the early 70's roe v. wade made no attempt to ascertain whether or not an unborn child had the same rights and protections as a normal citizen. this wasn't by accident, but by design. read the decision for yourself sometime. hb 1215 focuses on the other half of the abortion equation by asserting that the unborn are "human beings" and therefore have rights and protection under the law. i'm not saying that's right or wrong, i'm just saying that's how it's worded. because of the way that it's worded, when this law is challenged (and it will be challenged) the court will have to decide whether or not an unborn fetus is, by law, alive and has these rights and then whether or not its rights outweigh the rights of the pregnant mother. -M

Seeing as Midtowner is a law student, I would think he would understand the legality of what's going on, mmm. Just my 2cents.

I fail to see how an unborn fetus could ever have more rights than the mother. Why should we place the life of the fetus over its mother?

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

m -- I think I'm doing just fine at understanding the law.

I think I understand the legislative process just fine as well. Do I need to explain to you the effect that a decision affirming this law by the Supreme Court would have? That the state legislature from one of the smallest and least educated (statistically speaking) states in the union could allow the floodgates to be opened in terms of similar 'carefully worded' laws?

Do I personally think that this is right or fair? Nope. I tend to be a state's rights advocate, but here is a rare exception where I'm fine with the status quo. My internal dialogue goes something like states' rights vs. individual rights. In such dialogues, individual rights trump states' rights. On to greater matters though....

When the court examines the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, one of the main things it looks at is legislative intent. This is divined from the examination of legislative history, memoranda, etc. Legislative intent is usually not used to show that the legislators had some sort of nefarious plot aimed at overturning binding precedent, but in this case, I certainly see where that argument is going to carry a lot of water.

I don't have my lexis or westlaw accounts handy right now, so I cant obtain any quotes or direct references to the opinions unless I want to go digging on findlaw, and I don't. However, in its opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Court did examine the rights of the fetus. It determined that if the fetus was found to be a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment, then it would have a right to life thereunder. However, the Court found that the fetus was not determined to be a person under the 14th amendment. It would therefore be apparent that this legislation, and the rights of the fetus have in fact been addressed in prior binding precedent.

A lawyer for the state of S.D. might try and call that dicta, but it seems to me that the language (which I'll go find if you really, really want me to) would be directly supportive of the holding, and thus be binding as well.

Like I said, I will be very surprised if the Court grants certiori, but if they do, it could really go either way. A Writ of Certiori would tell me that the court wants to reexamine this 14th amendment issue (which is really what S.D. is trying to press), and it would signal that the decision could swing either way.

Based on statements by Justices Roberts and Alito, they apparently hold precedent in high esteem. It would go against their prior judicial philosophies to even consider overturning this. That's in the extreme hypothetical though, I don't think this thing even goes that far.

-- and FWIW, there's an initiative petition drive in S.D. to put the issue on the ballot to see if they can't overturn it by a vote of the people. Those kind of things have a difficult time picking up steam unless the feeling is that there is a chance that such measures will pass.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

mid,
heh. i figured if i stung you just a bit you'd come back with something better than whining about 'bible thumpers.' that's much better.


you're right (and i was wrong) that the roe v. wade decision weighed the rights of the fetus and determined that some constitutional protection begins at the second trimester. as you say, the court found that the original intent of the 14th amendment did not include the unborn. it didn't, however, legally define the point at which life begins whereas the south dakota legislation determines it to be the time of conception. that'll make the new law difficult to stand in of itself. i definitely agree that it could go either way. i'm pretty certain that the intent for introducing this legislation is the biggest issue against its constitutionality. one thing's for sure, i can't wait to see how it plays out. good post.


just so nobody has any preconceived notions about which side i stand, i don't think a law similar to this would be good for oklahoma. first, it defines life at conception which, to me, is questionable. it would make something such as 'the morning after' pill illegal. second, south dakota's law makes no provision for rape or incest. personally, i think that it's not an exact science in determining when a mass of cells becomes a living person with rights and that the current laws protecting early term abortions and regulating later term abortions adequately do the job.


-M (btw, isn't the correct term 'writ of certiorari'?)

-- cert, certiori, and certiorari are both right.

They all refer to the same thing as far as I know the terms are interchangable.

Also, it would seem that if the court used the word "fetus" in referring to the unborn being, they pretty much covered their bases in terms of the 14th amendment rights of the unborn. I would think that this would pretty much trump anything a state legislature could come up with, so again, I don't think this will even make it to the Supreme Court.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!