.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

I Hate Linux

Friday, November 03, 2006

Is HB 1215 nothing but a brilliant ploy?

I'm a chess player and as much as I like to win, I will also lose graciously when my opponent uses a series of moves to exploit weaknesses that I was unaware while keeping such a ploy from being obvious and when it's all over (or even midway through), I'll complement them on those good moves.

I am wondering if the pro-abortionists will be able to show a similar degree of respect to the South Dakota legislature and especially HB 1215's authors if a little theory of mine holds true.

I've said previously, the South Dakota abortion ban will never go into effect as written even if the voters uphold it on November 7th. While that might be seen as a loss for the laws authors and its supporters... what if it was nothing but a brilliant ploy? A ploy to force the pro-abortionists to play their cards early and solidify a platform... that would be worthless not long later.

One way or another, HB 1215 will not be the last attempt by South Dakota to restrict access to abortions and in any future attempt exceptions will be included whether they be as suggested by higher courts... the opposition of previous attempts.

Virtually all of the arguments I hear against the abortion ban are that it lacks exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother... a list which is quite specific compared to the more broad arguments one generally hears at the national level such as "a woman's right to choose," "my body, my choice," or "it should be between a woman, her doctor and her family."

What if a 2nd piece of legislation were to include those three exceptions and be passed and end up before the voters not unlike HB 1215? The pro-abortionists would no doubt oppose it... but their ability to do so would be significantly limited as their key points that they won on in past would no longer be valid. Instead, they would have to fall back on others and no matter what they are or how valid they might be, they would almost automatically be nullified by anti-abortionist advertising that might sound like this:

Last year the opponents of the abortion ban said that you should oppose it because it lacked exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother... exceptions which now exist in the new ban... and yet they now oppose a law that includes the very things they fought for. How can they expect to be taken seriously when they have to keep inventing new reasons to oppose a law that would respect and save life, both born and unborn alike.


Granted though, I could be wrong.

If this first attempt was just a ploy and the second ban were to be successful and go into effect, I would have to make it a point to drive out to Pierre and find the legislator who plotted this, shake their hand and say only: "Well played!"

I wouldn't do such a thing because I my side won or lost... but because I always appreciate a brilliant move whether it be political, social, militarily or even just on a chess board.

I am forced to wonder if the pro-abortionists could in their reeling from such a loss be able to do the same and recognize and appreciate how they were beaten, even if only to use the experience in their later work to repeal the ban... if my prediction is correct and they were to be beaten.

3 Comments:

  • They should amend the state constitution to say that a woman has a right to an abortion if any of those three exceptions apply. Since it would only be granting rights (and not banning any abortions), I would think that both sides would accept it.

    Then the anti-abortionists could draft a bill banning any abortions they don't like, provided it doesn't violate the state constitution. At the same time, the pro-abortionists could attempt to amend the state constitution further to say that all abortions are legal.

    Let the two camps meet in the middle somewhere.

    Here's a tie-in to Linux: there's a software design philosophy that says a routine should "do one thing and do it well". Trying to pass a law that simultaneously grants and restricts rights violates this philosophy.

    By Blogger DHofmann, at 2:37 PM  

  • An interesting thought... but incomplete and largely unworkable one I’m afraid.

    As nice as it would be to have precision laws that deal with specific areas and do so well... the law sadly doesn’t work that way and instead tends to be a blunt instrument to keep people in line.

    Rather than fully addressing your comment though (such as saying why your idea is largely unworkable) I must ask that you check by here again in a day or two as the part 4 of my abortion series (this post was just a side track) deals with some of the issues related to having the exceptions as desired by the pro-abortionists.

    Btw... are you by chance a lawyer?

    By Blogger Brendan, at 3:07 PM  

  • No, I'm not a lawyer, just a lowly programmer.

    By Blogger DHofmann, at 11:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home