THE SANCTIMONY OF LIFE

I've blogged about this one before:

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 23, 8:38 AM ET
PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota moved closer to imposing some of the strictest limits on abortion in the nation as the state Senate approved legislation that would ban the procedure except when the woman's life is in danger.

The bill, designed to spark a courtroom showdown over the legality of abortion, passed 23-12 Wednesday. On Thursday, it was headed back to the House, where lawmakers already approved similar legislation.
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on an abortion ban if it would "save life."
Under the measure, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion. The only exception would be for women who need abortions to save their lives.
"In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling (D-Spinster), the bill's main sponsor.

The legislation targets, Roe v. Wade 'the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Opponents say it is too extreme and unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure if it become law.
"South Dakota's ban is the most sweeping abortion ban passed by any state in more than a decade," Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawyer Eve Gartner said in a written statement. She said the organization would do everything it could to ensure that women and their doctors, not politicians, made their health care decisions.
Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.
The recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade now, Bartling and other supporters said (nice to know the bill was passed for "humane reasons," not political ones).

"It is a calculated risk to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, a Republican who also is director of South Dakota Right to Life.

Some senators, including Republicans, were concerned that the legislation did not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein said it would be "a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota" to make a woman bear a child if she becomes pregnant as the result of rape. (Apparently, incest in South Dakota is still the opposite of savagery- perhaps that is the purpose of this bill - to encourage incest!)

The Legislature passed a similar bill two years ago, but Rounds issued a technical veto because it would have wiped existing restrictions off the books while the bill was involved in a court challenge. (:-)

*******************************************************************************

Listen, you fucking morons! You only have one abortion clinic on the whole state, and only one doctor licensed by that clinic.

Hey Planned Parenthood, here's an idea: do the reverse of what the abortion doctors in Poe v. Ullman did. In Poe v Ullman (the case that eventually became Griswold v. Connecticut), the Court held that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the law banning contraceptives had not been enforced for years, and that there appeared there was no reasonable chance that it would be.

So, Planned Parenthood, start a pledge drive, collect some money, and use that money to help fund the abortions of the ten or so women who have an abortion in S.D. each year, only make sure that they have it in another state, in a Planned Parenthood facility at that state, ensuring their travel expenses are paid for. (Keep the S.D. facility open, but don't use it to provide abortions).

Guess what will then happen if this scheme works? South Dakota will have no one to apply its law to, and if someone attempts to challenge it, the person will lack standing, since there is no reasonable chance the law will be enforced against anyone. Thus, no case, no conotroversy. Even if someone wanted to get an abortion in S.D., she couldn't and thus she has no standing (to have standing, one must have intent and capability). (Also, the only person against whom the law could be enforced who wouldn't otherwise be guilty of a crime already is that one single doctor; PP, if it was really serious about making sure no court ever heard this case, would make sure that this doctor found some other kind of gainful employment - which could easily happen, especially if he is an OB/GYN).

And, of course, South Dakota can't seek a declaration from a court that the law is constitutional, unless it does so in the context of another party. The result: a useless law, left on the books, created by a useless state, for a pointless purpose. If the state hadn't already bent over backwards to make abortion illegal, who knows? The law may have gotten to the Supreme Court.

But no. S.D. had to have its cake and now, eat SHIT, too.