« 13th Anniversary of the 1993 WTC Bombing | Main | Wackos Descending on the White House »

The Media's Abortion Hype

The media has been trying hard to get the American public into a fit about the South Dakota bill that would ban virtually all abortions. See these recent articles here, here, here, and here.

Each of these articles insists that a big supreme court battle will ensue after it is signed into law by Gov. Mike Rounds, especially since the bill says doctors who perform abortions in the state of South Dakota could face up to five years in prison.

As much as I would like to see Roe overturned, this bill won't do it for two main reasons.

First, pro-abortion groups will have the law struck down by the federal district court because the SD law conflicts with federal law which says that abortion restrictions can't place an "undue burden" on women.

Second, even when South Dakota appeals the ruling striking down the new abortion law, the state's timing is off. There is still a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court in favor of Roe. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy will all vote to strike down the SD law, leaving only Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito voting to support it. And that's if this law ever gets to the Supreme Court. There's a good chance the SCOTUS won't even agree to hear the case.

I admire South Dakota's legislature for attempting to wipe such an abhorrent law off the books, but it won't work just yet. But keep hoping. Justices Stevens or Ginsburg may retire before President Bush's term is up.

In case you forgot Kim Priestap blogs at Kim Priestap: A Conservative Blog in Flyover Country


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Media's Abortion Hype:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with S.D. gov. 'inclined' to sign abortion ban

Comments (7)

First, pro-abortion grou... (Below threshold)
mantis:

First, pro-abortion groups will have the law struck down by the federal district court because the SD law conflicts with federal law which says that abortion restrictions can't place an "undue burden" on women.

Which federal law is that exactly? I thought the Supreme Court invented that.

There is still a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court in favor of Roe. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy will all vote to strike down the SD law, leaving only Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito voting to support it.,

How do you know how the justices will vote on cases they have never even looked at, much less ones that don't yet exist?

Kim:One more piece... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Kim:

One more piece of information. Recall that the Supreme Court doesn't even have to touch this unless it wants to; if the law is challenged in state court, the state court is bound by Roe and its progeny. Same deal in the federal courts at both the district and circuit level.

And SCOTUS doesn't have to grant cert unless at least four justices decide to hear a case. One possible outcome: Lower courts toss out this law (and laws like it) as facially unconstitutional under Roe and the Supreme Court recognizes this law as a political stunt and lets lower court rulings stand w/o comment.

--|PW|--

I believe only an act of Go... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

I believe only an act of God will get Ginsberg off the Supreme Court during Bush's term. I think she is so liberal that she won't leave unless she knows the president at the time will nominate another ACLU love child.

This is going to take 2 yea... (Below threshold)

This is going to take 2 years to get through the court, at which point Stevens may very well be history.

Which federal law is tha... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Which federal law is that exactly? I thought the Supreme Court invented that.

Correct. There is no such "law". What we have here is yet someone else who has drunk the court-precedent-as-legislation koolaid.

1) While the court would li... (Below threshold)
yeatanothejohn:

1) While the court would likely go 5-4 today, who knows what the split will be in the 2-3 years it will take to percolate up to the SC.

2) It is likely to play a key role in the next confirmation hearing, but it won't affect anything because the nominee will just say they can't comment on a potential case.

3) Think about the political impact if the SC agrees to hear the case in October of 2008, but doesn't have the actual hearings until after the election. Or if they have the hearings but no ruling before the election. I suspect that there would be 4 to grant cert on the left just to have it be in the news during the presidential election.

Mantis: Ha! Good one!... (Below threshold)

Mantis: Ha! Good one!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy