South Dakota Matters, Who Knew?
February 25, 2006

Editor's Note: PurpleThink is proud of its lighter approach to the news. It’s hard to make abortion “light,” so please bear with us as we try to interject some comedy into this epinion piece.

South Dakota is known more for snow coverage than media coverage, but the big-city news joints need to take notice. The South Dakota Senate recently passed, resoundingly, a ban on nearly all abortion procedures in the state. If signed by the state’s pro-life governor, the only legal abortions will be where the life of the mother is at risk.

Right now, this story is B-material for the media. Everyone knows it could take years for this to wind its way through the court system. PurpleThinkers are on both sides of the overall abortion debate. However, we are unified in seeing where this is going. This is going to get very nasty, and fast. Here’s why we think so.

If the bill becomes law, pro-choice advocates will line-up to be the first to violate the law to get into the court system as quickly as possible. Picture this: A poor, unwed 19-year old becomes pregnant and wishes to have an abortion. Pro-choice advocates corner her in neighboring Iowa and ask that she return to her native South Dakota where a Doctor, sympathetic to the cause, stands ready to perform the procedure – for free. Instead of a private affair, pro-choice advocates “leak” the event to the media in order to publicize the event. Suddenly, this troubled teenager becomes the new Roe. Her identity gets out and her life is ruined. Meanwhile, the doctor, a 71-year-old respected local physician is arrested.

Three strings walk into a bar even though a sign clearly states, “No strings allowed.”

What will follow is complete and utter bedlam. Politicians will try to avoid this like the bird flu, but we will have passed the point of no return. Political identities will have their legacies tied to the abortion debate – from local judges, to the governor, the appellate courts, and finally, the Supreme Court. Because abortion law is mostly case law, it wouldn’t surprise us if a maverick liberal House member ignores party leadership and sponsors new legislation to negate South Dakota law, making this a full-fledged national abortion meltdown.

The first string walks in, but the bartender says, “we don’t serve strings here.” The bartender picks up the string and whips him out the door.

For 30 years, politicians have found ways to avoid taking hard-line stands on abortion. The media generally gives politicians a pass on the topic. After all, there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. Where’s the fun when you can’t pigeon-hole ideologies into one camp or the other? Thus, the public generally frowns upon an abortion litmus test for candidates. Unfortunately, this looks like it’s going to change. Americans take their political queues from the media, and the media will not be able to resist sensationalizing this story. Rational debate will succumb to human interest stories about Roe, the doctor, Planned Parenthood, evangelical Christians, NOW and others. Thus, expect those with lukewarm opinions on the issue – on both sides of the debate – to man battle stations in unprecedented numbers.

The second string takes a more aggressive stance, saunters in doing his best John Wayne and demands service. The bartender, unimpressed, picks up the string and whips him out the door.

If this one makes it to the Supreme Court, we PurpleThinkers have a feeling what will happen. Again, we are not advocating a position here, but we can see this freight train coming, fast. Don’t get too bored here – this is pretty important stuff.

1) First, the least likely scenario. If the lower court hands the Supreme Court a decision that upholds the South Dakota law, our nation’s highest court will find it all too easy to simply affirm that decision by refusing to take the case. The wild card would be the language of the lower court ruling. If the lower court simply affirms the right of South Dakota to set its own laws, that’s it. However, if the lower court ruling is threateningly broad, the Supreme Court may be forced by popular opinion to take the case. Our prediction is that the Supreme Court would NOT outlaw abortion nationally, but rather rule that the constitution does not guarantee abortion rights. Thus, the decision would be left to the states. Bush’s court appointees are strong advocates of strict constitutional interpretation, and as such, would leave it to the states (convenient, isn’t it).

2) Now, the more likely scenario. If the lower court hands the Supreme Court a decision that overturns the South Dakota law, all bets are off. In this case, we find out very quickly how conservative the court really is. The court decision to hear or not to hear suddenly becomes an earth-shaking decision all in itself. The circus around Supreme Court hearings will be bigger – much bigger – than Bush v. Gore. Our prediction? They do NOT take the case in favor of less direct abortion cases (partial birth abortions, parental consent, etc.).

The last string knows it’s best to be clever. He twists and turns his body, ruffling-up one of his edges. Then, he walks in and calmly sits at the bar. The bartender asks, “Hey, ain’t you one of dem strings?” The string calmly looks up and says, “no, I’m a frayed knot.”

But look on the bright side. We at PurpleThink foresee a lot of “blue state” vs. “red state” talk as early as this November for the mid-term elections (driving our own site traffic is pretty selfish, but cool). Now, every politician's invitation for an interview will come with abortion stings attached.

 

Home|epinion|Purple People Eater|Comment

Feedback@PurpleThink.com

©2006 PurpleThink.com