Deceits in the Referred Law 6 debate: Part 3
While yet I have not been successful with any, most people I have tried this on came to agree with the arguments I was making, but still felt it important to vote the way they were planning to for the election.
Let's face it. The South Dakota abortion ban will be upheld in the November 7th election. It will not because the people of South Dakota want this specific law to be enacted, or even because they want most abortions outlawed. In large part it will be because of the people's desire for choice.
No... not the "woman's right to choose" sort of choice... but the right to choose their own representatives who in turn enact laws that are more in line with the views of the average South Dakotan voter.
While many in this debate decry the concept of the government interfering in the personal lives of citizens, one has to admit that *if* there is a government interfering in the personal lives of its citizens, it's far better to have it be a local government than a national government as a representative from Buffalo, SD sure knows more about what a person living in Aberdeen, SD wants than someone from Boston, MA, San Francisco, CA, or even Minneapolis, MN.
Remember, this is the state that threw a hissy-fit all the way to the Supreme Court when the Federal government tried to force us to raise our drinking age from 19 to 21. Sure we lost, that's not the point.
The point is that we were willing to fight for our freedom to choose for ourselves without compulsion from faraway lands and I suspect that one of these years... we might just be successful at it, but then this will not be the case that causes that to happen.
So once again... this law will be upheld, at least in this election and quite quickly it would be challenged in Federal court and an injunction demanded... which would be granted.
Hopefully a short time later, hearings would begin and eventually the judge would rule that the law is unconstitutional as it conflicts with established precedent (ie Roe vs Wade)... at which point South Dakota would appeal the decision to the Appellate court... who too would rule against the law.
Finally, with no other option the state would ask The US Supreme Court to hear the case, who (should they agree to hear the case) would almost certainly rule that the law is unconstitutional because it lacks provisions for x, y and z.
I say almost certainly as the remaining doubt in my mind would require a call from the Pope to the 5 Catholic justices and threaten eternal damnation for them, ex-communication for their children and an extended stay in Purgatory for the rest of their descendants should they not accept the law. Not likely... but... still possible.
This is why I've tried to convince those pro-abortionists I know to change their vote, to help get the law into the courts who would throw it out at every step of the way.
Of course... the part I leave out is that should SCOTUS hear the case, it would list reasons why the law is unconstitutional, reasons that South Dakota and other states would immediately draft into new legislation that is based on previous attempts such as this.
In fact, I would fully expect that this second round of legislation to be a collaborative effort between multiple states who would try to enact virtually identical legislation on this issue so as to have a more common front when once again such a law it would make its way up through the courts, where it would likely be accepted (in some large part) by The Supremes, which is quite likely given the current makeup of the court.
Of course... if they did rule in favor of the new law(s), a big question remains... would they apply ruling (and the law) nationwide... or would they turn laws like this regarding abortion back into a 'states rights' issue and allow each state to decide for themselves (within the rules laid down by the court) how they can restrict (if at all) a woman's access to an abortion.
Personally, I would hope they would go the second route. Not because I'm that big on the idea of abortions getting outlawed here or there, but because I am a big person for local government and allowing the feds as little power as possible over the general populace.
What do I tell the anti-abortionists in order to try to convince them to change their vote? Virtually everything that I said above, pointing out the cost and time involved in going through the courts and instead how much money and time could be saved if the voters defeated the law and forced the legislature to draft new legislation that would include a few other exceptions in order to make it more palatable to the voting public.
What I wouldn't tell them though is that such a rejection of the first law would be a major victory for the pro-abortionist side and embolden them just as much as Roe vs Wade did and reduce the likelihood of another piece of legislation having any possibility of success for quite a few years.
As you've seen, both cases I describe the first half of events that greatly benefit their side... but leave out the other half that would bring ruination to it in the end.
Sadly as yet I haven't had much success in swaying anyone, but luckily no one has surmised (or stated) anything like the second half's I do not mention.
Oh well, it's still fun trying!
Of course... most of those I have had this conversation with derive their beliefs from something less tangible, because its woman's body, because God thinks it is wrong, because it could be rape, because it's killing babies. Pick your argument; neither side seems willing to spend the time to try to sway their audience (or me) with a good and rational discussion and attempt to sway their target(s) with reason instead of emotion or faith.