EDITORIAL – South Dakota bill forgets precedent

There are plenty of people in South Dakota criticizing the state’s legislators. After all,… There are plenty of people in South Dakota criticizing the state’s legislators. After all, they did recently approve a bill that bans all abortions except those performed to save a mother’s life.

The governor, Republican Mike Rounds, has not yet signed the bill, which makes no allowances for victims of rape and incest. Although the senators overwhelmingly supported this piece of legislation, no one is quite sure if the governor will sign.

Is this because Rounds respects a woman’s right to choose? Is this because he thinks South Dakota’s only abortion clinic serves a legitimate, valuable role in the community?

Nope. The governor is undoubtedly anti-choice; he just isn’t sure if now is the right time to launch a “full-frontal attack” on Roe v. Wade.

Ultimately, South Dakota’s proposed law is designed to be sued. Many of those who want abortion to be made illegal are eagerly awaiting lawsuits by groups like The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Naral and hoping that these lawsuits will land in the Supreme Court. This way, the bill can be used to set precedent for the whole country.

Of course, many others who are just as opposed to abortion are worried that the bill might be too little and too soon. The Supreme Court is in a state of flux; Justices Roberts and Alito have indicated to some extent that they consider Roe v. Wade to be set precedent. If the governor signs the bill and a lawsuit lands in the Supreme Court, there is no clear-cut indication that the justices would rule in South Dakota’s senators’ favor.

This bill has the potential to be very, very damaging to those who support the right to abortion. Not only would it severely affect the approximate 800 people who get abortions in South Dakota every year, but if the Supreme Court were to uphold it, that would set the beginning of life at conception.

There is potential, then, for states to restrict the movement of pregnant women – invoking custody laws in the name of the fetuses – and keep them from crossing state lines to access legal abortions. The thought of being trapped in-state and forced to carry a child to term is terrible; it flies in the face of every idea of freedom that this country was founded upon.

Is a situation this drastic likely to happen? Probably not – at least no time soon, given national public opinion and the makeup of the Supreme Court. Still, South Dakota’s lawmakers should not be permitted to purposely manipulate policy in such a way as to affect not just their own citizens but those of the country’s other 49 states. There are plenty of people in South Dakota criticizing the state’s legislators. After all, they did recently approve a bill that bans all abortions except those performed to save a mother’s life.

The governor, Republican Mike Rounds, has not yet signed the bill, which makes no allowances for victims of rape and incest. Although the senators overwhelmingly supported this piece of legislation, no one is quite sure if the governor will sign.

Is this because Rounds respects a woman’s right to choose? Is this because he thinks South Dakota’s only abortion clinic serves a legitimate, valuable role in the community?

Nope. The governor is undoubtedly anti-choice; he just isn’t sure if now is the right time to launch a “full-frontal attack” on Roe v. Wade.

Ultimately, South Dakota’s proposed law is designed to be sued. Many of those who want abortion to be made illegal are eagerly awaiting lawsuits by groups like The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Naral and hoping that these lawsuits will land in the Supreme Court. This way, the bill can be used to set precedent for the whole country.

Of course, many others who are just as opposed to abortion are worried that the bill might be too little and too soon. The Supreme Court is in a state of flux; Justices Roberts and Alito have indicated to some extent that they consider Roe v. Wade to be set precedent. If the governor signs the bill and a lawsuit lands in the Supreme Court, there is no clear-cut indication that the justices would rule in South Dakota’s senators’ favor.

This bill has the potential to be very, very damaging to those who support the right to abortion. Not only would it severely affect the approximate 800 people who get abortions in South Dakota every year, but if the Supreme Court were to uphold it, that would set the beginning of life at conception.

There is potential, then, for states to restrict the movement of pregnant women – invoking custody laws in the name of the fetuses – and keep them from crossing state lines to access legal abortions. The thought of being trapped in-state and forced to carry a child to term is terrible; it flies in the face of every idea of freedom that this country was founded upon.

Is a situation this drastic likely to happen? Probably not – at least no time soon, given national public opinion and the makeup of the Supreme Court. Still, South Dakota’s lawmakers should not be permitted to purposely manipulate policy in such a way as to affect not just their own citizens but those of the country’s other 49 states.