South Dakota bans Abortions..

Kansas City, Denver, Minneapolis, and Coast to Coast

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Locked
Guest

South Dakota bans Abortions..

Post by Guest »

The only legal abortions after the governer signs are the ones that will save the mothers life..
Doctors performing abortions there will face 5 years of prison

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=54&u_sid=2123300

If this were to happen in nebraska not only would I never return, (or leave when I move back) but ill never look back on the backwardness, anti-progressive attitudes of the state... I think the people of Nebraska would pass something like this... I just hope that they dont do something so stupid..
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

I am NOT attempting to start or become involved in a pro/con argument here, and please LOCK this thread down if it turns into one.

That being said:

Can someone enlighten me as to how this is even remotely Constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?

-Big E
Stable genius.
adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2303
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Post by adam186 »

It won't pass, it will for sure go to the supreme court where...umm, it could be ruled unconstitutional. I don't know now, with the swing vote in Alito's hands. We'll have to see if this challenged or not first, which I'm sure it will be.
User avatar
UNMCStudent
Home Owners Association
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:19 am
Location: Midtown

Post by UNMCStudent »

Big E wrote:I am NOT attempting to start or become involved in a pro/con argument here, and please LOCK this thread down if it turns into one.

That being said:

Can someone enlighten me as to how this is even remotely Constitutional in light of Roe v Wade?

-Big E
While IANAL....I'll try to recall some of the Constitutional History courses I took in undergrad...

There is no enumerated right to privacy w/in the Constitution, rather, in Griswold v. Connecticut it was ruled that the right to privacy was implied by the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights as well as the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. I believe that Griswold was the primary basis for the privacy of abortion that Roe claims.

Roe was nearly overturned in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (in fact, my prof said that Rheinquist had begun to write up the majority decision overturning), At the last minute, Justice Kennedy changed his mind and voted to uphold Roe. However, in O'Connor and Kennedy's decision, they cited an 'essential holding' of Roe under the the 14th Amendment alone, rather than the general right to privacy in the Bill o' Rights as had previously been held. There is speculation that Kennedy and O'Connor provided such wording to lay the future groundwork to overturn Roe (by invalidating it under 14th Due Process) without undermining the right to privacy created in Griswold.

At least that's how I remember it - please correct me if I'm wrong. (BTW, I'd highly recommend taking Dr. Simmons' Constitutional History series at UNO - he's a remarkable prof)
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Post by MTO »

Is this a good excuse to send that guy that stands outside of plan parent hood holding the fetus sign up there to join the fight?
15-17, 26, 32
Guest

Post by Guest »

eomaha
County Board
Posts: 4200
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:29 am
Location: West Omaha

Post by eomaha »

While I have strong feelings on this subject (let's just say, I'm in the minority in this part of the country)... I don't want to host these kinds of political discussions on this forum. There are many other forums on the web which encourage debate on this subject in particular... and hot button political topics in general.

Thanks,
Jeff
Locked