The only question is how long it will take to get to the Supremes.

my bet is, that without ant-rape/incest provisions, it gets overturned, thus reinforcing Roe.

Under previous SCOTUS rulings, rape and incest provisions are not required.  An execption for the health of the mother is required.

And yes, this will be overturned by the first federal judge it gets to.  And the appeals court will uphold that ruling.  But the law's supporters expect that.  What they want is to get before the SCOTUS.

Frankly, the anti-abortion crowd really hasn't thought this through very well.  As soon as they get what they want, the 60%+ of the population who is pro-choice will be massively energized.  When they become single-issue voters, anti-abortion laws don't stand a chance.

But it becomes irrelevant regardless of how high the percentage. Why? SCOTUS has already been tilted back to 5-4 in favor of overturning Roe.
Its just a matter of time before that happens with the current makeup of SCOTUS.
We vcould be in for another round of battles, or we could just all wait for 2012 and see how the Biggending compares with the Beginning.

Could be.  It's possible that the court might overturn Roe v. Wade based on the 3 trimester reasoning but in a subsequent decision accept a straight "due process" 14th amendment argument, or a straight privacy argument [at least fer adults].

But I think it's claer that there will eventually be 50 different state laws governing abortion, from total prohibition [as in South Dakota as of the last week] to states with a web of "regulatory safeguards" [fer example, parental consent for minors, no partial birth abortions, no abortions beyond a certain period of viability, etc..].

I'd rather post about the Near East myself.

This should put an end to one of the greatest recent fallacies, where those on the right constantly say "liberal activist judges" legislate from the bench blah, blah..

First you had judge Roy Moore in Alabama disobey direct federal order to remove the 10 commandments ....Now, we have the S.D. powers that be basically say "F-you" to Roe V. Wade & decide to make abortions illegal in that state.....I know S.D. governor is democrat, but this is one of those "Democrat in Name Only" Zell Miller types from a state that is so red, probably 80% of its residents are registered Republicans....

Maybe this was somewhat an apples to oranges comparison, but it sure looks like certain republicans are the ones legislating as they see fit, completely disregarding the law...

Governor Rounds is a Republican, not a Democrat.

Yeah, i know. Abortion is such a complete black and white issue. You either believe that a woman has the right to choose, or you believe what religion dictates. whichever religion you are talking about.
If its Catholic, then its at the point the sperm penetrates the ovary I guess.
On the other hand, according to old Jewish legends, that little cleft we all have on our upper lip comes from the Angel of God chosen to imbue the abouttobeborn with its soul, by imprinting the first digit of the index finger under the nostrils. So the fetus does not have a soul until right before the moment of birth.
Guess thats another thing that can be spun into Jews being the devil or some such stupidity.
Meanwhile, here's a trick question. According to Islam, when does a fetus become a person?
In some sects, notably Wahabism, a male fetus does not become a human until the umbilical is cut. A female never really does.
Others believe as many Christians do, that life bregins at conception.
Its such a black and white, no wonder its such a polarizing issue.
But theres nothing political about it, it is the essence of church interfering with state.
As opposed to the Middle East, which is a 4 thousand year old clusterfuck.

That the laws against murder (of a walking, talking person) are also examples of the church interfering with state. Surely it was the church that got those laws passed?

Q. What the difference between a Republican and a Roman Catholic?

A. A Roman Catholic's interest in human life begins at conception and extends into eternity, while a Republican's interest in human life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Yes, I am a disgruntled Catholic.

independent life (to support a murder charge) began when the umbilical cord was cut.  

It wasn't until the 1920s & 30s that states began passing statutes to make death of a fetus into murder.

The Roe v Wade logic of independence of the fetus is about as pro-life as common law, without statutory provisions, will support.

The idea of separate life beginning at conception is a religious construct, no more logical than any other.  Roe follows a medical analysis.

It's a struggle for power - the churches want to exercise power over the direction of culture, and there are other forces - groups who claim to represent women's individual rights, and those who are libertarians / technocrats, ie respond to technology as a socially determinative force.

The problem I have with organized religion is that it is essentially mindless and authoritarian, and I don't think that it's best suited to lead humans.   The present issue of terrorism is essentially the reaction of religious traditionalists against being displaced by the forces of technology, which are smart enough to employ other religions as allies.

but I think the issue should come up.

When you make a person a supreme, they become remarkably independent, and their personal issues and fetishes come out.   I think that they may be willing to limit or chip away at Roe, but there's far too much there to overturn in a single decision.

I suspect that South Dakota may have bit off more than they can chew here.

conception by rape?

If you believe abortion is murder, then you must logically believe that a woman may be forced to bear a rapist's child.

As separate subjects, how do you plan to provide for the child?   Or are you going to dump that on the mother, who probably shouldn't have been walking around in the street where she could have been raped, or staying at home, where her family might have raped her.

You want to start fitting 12 year olds with chastity armor to prevent this?   Or, of course, you could require segregation of men and women.

I'm presuming you're going to have some sort of draconian punishment for the rapist, which pretty much precludes the possibility of child support...

So what should we do, pray to Jesus for guidance?  And if the bitch pissed Jesus off, we can always burn her, I suppose.   We could always pretend it would never happen - that's always a good Republican/conservative solution to problems, "give us all your money, and we will tell you everything is fine, and if you don't stop bitching, we'll beat the shit out of you."   Good GOP platform.

Whoops, he is a Rep, you're correct...For some reason, I thought I heard he was a democrat...

Overturning Roe would make broad anti-abortion laws legal.  That doesn't mean such laws will be passed, or will remain on the books long.

If the overwhelming majority that are pro-choice toss the anti-abortion politicians out of the various legislatures, then the laws will reflect that swing.

Why do you think the US Congress wouldn't get into the act?  There's little reason for the anti-abortion forces in Congress to sit on the sidelines while the states "save millions of babies".

Three points!

I guess you must be, or you'd have answered.

It's probably her fault, anyway.  Shouldn't have been female.

just wait for 50 uindividual state political battles as well as the national political battle.

Both sides are led by incredibly committed mnorities who scruple no opposition, so the sound and the fury, like the stake ultimately involved, will be tremendous.

ie, assholes.

You're being very unfair to a modest, hard-working, and dare I say idispensible body part when you compare them to the religious right et. al.

My statement/question about the influence of religion on the laws against murder didn’t mention abortion at all. How could you reasonably think that I was equating abortion with murder? (I should have used a different crime I guess.) I was challenging Gonzo’s assertion that laws against abortion were an unreasonable influence of church or state. Or for that matter the crazy idea any influence of church in state laws was unreasonable. On a side note, actually the church today has zero influence over the state. Now, there are people that believe in church teachings and doctrine that also are involved in government (i.e. running for office or just plain voting), but it’s NOT any church that lobbies anyone (that would be illegal).

Where do you think that most of the morality giving rise to most laws originated? The only reason that laws restricting abortion are relatively new is that medically induced abortions were only possible beginning in the early 19th century. Before that there was only herbal and other oral methods that were not nearly as reliable nor effective as a doctor performing an abortion. Your statement about 1920 is actually off by 100 years. It was actually the physicians (not the church) that led the way for abortion restrictions beginning about 1820. So you see, before the 19th century advances in medicine (that allowed abortions on demand), there wasn’t the need for any large-scale anti-abortion movement. The Catholic church didn’t step up until 1869 with a total restriction.

Suppose for a moment that it was relatively impossible for one person to murder another. Do you suppose there would be any laws prohibiting or punishing murder?

isn't really either, is it?  What IS your statement/question?

One seems to be the idea that law originated with religion.   That seems like a pretty dubious proposition, but I think you could agree that in the earliest civilizations, church and state were usually indistinguishable - then as they started to separate, law (as we know it) became a function of the state.   In many cases, religion maintained some rule over some issues.

The function of religion is to maintain faith.  As such, it is essentially personal and authoritarian; most religions have no provision for negotiation of belief.  

The function of secular power is entirely different; it is charged with coordinating the community generally, and as such, some type of negotiation is required, even if it's at the point of weapons.

As long as people have beliefs of any type, those will influence politics.  Of course, the US carries a prohibition on mixing church and state in the establishment clause; the state shall not sponsor or subsidize any religious belief in any way.   You may disagree with that; but it's basic to our political culture.

To say that abortion is not a religious issue is disingenuous.   There is virtually no political opposition to abortion that is not organized and funded by the catholic or evangelical churches; and that opposition is rationalized entirely in terms of theology.  It's a religious issue, period.  To claim otherwise simply gauges your credibility.

You proceed from the assumption that morality can derive only from religion, and that is the origin of law.   I think that depends on a very parochial view of history and law.  

Eg, what morality is involved in kosher food practices?  Preference for pigs?  Or simply traditional food purity?   Doesn't that sound one hell of a lot like what the FDA does today?  Is that your idea of morality?

Etc etc.  Suffice it to say that the fundamental problem in mixing church and state is that the church depneds on faith, not facts, and so precludes itself from involvement in technology that drives modern economies; and churches do not  negotiate, as required in modern political entities.   As a result, faith - which is by definition unreasoning - is one of the most destructive forces in the modern world.

Not that there is anything wrong with that - there is a need to purge the community, especially of people who can't adapt, and religion is a good vehicle to rationalize war, and pestilence, and all sorts of problems that have the necessary function of thinning the population.