Atrios has an entry on the South Dakota abortion ban. (For those who don’t know, South Dakota recently adopted a law banning all abortions in the state. I believe there is an exception to preserve the mother’s life, but not to preserve her health.) He points to this article reporting that opposition to the ban has been stronger than anticipated and concludes by saying:
Elsewhere in the article you get the key lesson national Democrats should take from the South Dakota case: most voters don’t think Republicans are serious about banning abortion. Well, they are, and most people don’t like that very much. If this gets on the ballot in November, and the voters of that state vote to nullify the law, I hope people finally understand that choice is, in fact, a winning issue.
Abortion is a moral issue,therefore a personal one,and although people cant put it into words,the Government stepping in to make ‘social decisions’ smacks of fascism,and brings on immediate backlash. People just dont like to be pushed around by the Government on any level,especially family issues.Being against something for moral reasons surely doesnt mean we want it outlawed for everyone.
This is why the basis of american jurisprudence is SO important: does it come from legislated constitutional law based on precedents or does it come from the BIBLE based on moral absolutism? Maybe South Dakota will show us the way and bring some light.
they’re also serious about banning birth control, or seriously restricting its access and use. no one seems to see that coming, either.
However, it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. Often times when you hear conservatives criticizing Roe v. Wade, they’ll sneeringly refer to an activist judiciary that finds rights in “penumbras” and “emanations” to the Constitution.
The penumbra and emanation language finding a Constitutional right to privacy comes from the case of Griswold v. Connecticut which struck down a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.