# Well that didn't take long. SD Senate votes 23-12 to ban nearly all abortions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712 "2006-02-23T00:47:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/21 "2006-02-23T14:33:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If this goes to the SCOTUS, it’ll be the most healthy thing we’ve done in years. As I said earlier, there is no way the SCOTUS will uphold this law, but it will require all the justices to go on record as to whether \*Roe \*deserves to be accorded _stare decisis_ status. No more guessing. Definitely. Get it all out in the open, and get it on record. Or, a they might say in SD, like totally fer sure, like OMG, totally awesome! Put me down on the list as a “part time” conservative (little C) who thinks the gubmint should stay out of a woman’s personal business. It is not the gubmint’s place to enforce someone’s religious baggage on everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/22 "2006-02-23T14:46:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s the more honest approach… changing it via judicial decision has a number of problems, and perhaps the one that is most evident now is that all it takes to change it back is five Supreme Court justices. That was the method used to swing it one way. How can you complain if the precise method is now used to change it again? Once in a long while, you surprise me. Sure I was expecting the usual “judicial fiat”, “will of the majority”, and “SDP is all made up anyway” stuff you always trot out, but the last sentence of your quoted paragraph surprised me in it’s banality. A person cannot complain about a bad judicial decision because it was part of the process? If this court re-adopts _Plessey_ and overrules _Brown_, there is no reason to complain because it’s all part of the process? Look, I know you hold the whole “it’s all about process” near and dear to your heart, but saying that you can’t complain about a judicial decision, simply because it is done according to process, is just patently ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/23 "2006-02-23T15:11:46Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > \ Furthermore, if it’s really true that there have been 40 million-odd abortions since 1973, I have to wonder how well we could handle the the pressures of 40 million more people populating this country. In Los Angeles, for instance, we’re barely scraping by with the schools we’ve got now. The possible effect on society of millions of more young people, mostly poor, whose parents didn’t want them in the first place, is not a happy thought. > \. Just picking up this one point - is it necessarily the case that this would have happened? Or would some, many or most of those 40 million have been born to women who would subsequently not have had the babies that, in the actual timeline, they did have? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/24 "2006-02-23T15:23:46Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Once in a long while, you surprise me. Sure I was expecting the usual “judicial fiat”, “will of the majority”, and “SDP is all made up anyway” stuff you always trot out, but the last sentence of your quoted paragraph surprised me in it’s banality. A person cannot complain about a bad judicial decision because it was part of the process? If this court re-adopts _Plessey_ and overrules _Brown_, there is no reason to complain because it’s all part of the process? Look, I know you hold the whole “it’s all about process” near and dear to your heart, but saying that you can’t complain about a judicial decision, simply because it is done according to process, is just patently ridiculous. I didn’t say you can’t complain. I asked how you could complain. And the answer, obviously, is you can complain about the result being not what you wanted… but not about the process by which the result arrived, since you (presumably) endorsed that process earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/25 "2006-02-23T15:45:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I didn’t say you can’t complain. I asked how you could complain. And the answer, obviously, is you can complain about the result being not what you wanted… but not about the process by which the result arrived, since you (presumably) endorsed that process earlier. I think judicial review has been pretty much an accepted “process” for awhile now, so I doubt you’ll get many people complaining about it. But to each their own, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/26 "2006-02-23T16:01:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think judicial review has been pretty much an accepted “process” for awhile now, so I doubt you’ll get many people complaining about it. But to each their own, I guess. Well, “judicial review” is the 50,000 foot look at the process. But cunningly concealed within “judicial review” are the particular analytical _methods_ used to accomplish that review. One may accept judicial review uncomplainingly as a process, while still objecting to particular analytical methods used in furtherance thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/27 "2006-02-23T16:30:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If this goes to the SCOTUS, it’ll be the most healthy thing we’ve done in years. As I said earlier, there is no way the SCOTUS will uphold this law, but it will require all the justices to go on record as to whether \*Roe \*deserves to be accorded _stare decisis_ status. No more guessing. Maybe. But I’d bet that this decision, while tossing this law out on its ear, will practically a step-by-step guide on how to ban abortion-on-demand. The next challange will do better. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/28 "2006-02-23T16:42:45Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Maybe. But I’d bet that this decision, while tossing this law out on its ear, will practically a step-by-step guide on how to ban abortion-on-demand. > > The next challange will do better. We don’t have “abortion on demand” right now, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. States are free to ban abortion in the 3rd trimester and to place restrictions on it in the 2nd trimester (as long as there is a provision “for the health of the mother”). There are at least 5 SCOTUS justices who absolutely will not agree to a ban on 1st trimester abortions. I don’t see how the next challenge we be any different. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/29 "2006-02-23T16:57:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, “judicial review” is the 50,000 foot look at the process. But cunningly concealed within “judicial review” are the particular analytical _methods_ used to accomplish that review. > > One may accept judicial review uncomplainingly as a process, while still objecting to particular analytical methods used in furtherance thereof. Ah, see, there it is. I just missed your usual, and unfounded, swipe at “judicial activists”. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/30 "2006-02-23T17:36:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, what does “self-government” mean? Is it not our expression of common will through the legislative process by our elected lawmakers ? > > Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land. However, I - and many others - do not believe that the supreme law of the land should be interpreted to have any voice on the issue of abortion. The supreme law of the land should be correctly interpreted as being silent on the issue of abortion. By what criteria should we decide what issues “the supreme law of the land” should be silent on? Why on abortion and not, say, slavery? > [@Der Trihs](#): > > The “supreme law of the land” should preserve people’s civil rights, or there’s not much point in having law at all. This is a good point, though it could be used by both sides in the abortion debate (those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the woman and those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the fetus). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/31 "2006-02-23T17:43:35Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > By what criteria should we decide what issues “the supreme law of the land” should be silent on? Why on abortion and not, say, slavery? Well, for one thing the Consitution is not silent on the issue of slavery: > [@](#): > > Amendment XIII > > Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > > Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/32 "2006-02-23T17:56:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, for one thing the Consitution is not silent on the issue of slavery: My bad; I was making a somewhat different point than the one I was responding to; maybe I didn’t read clearly enough. The consititution isn’t silent on the issue of slavery because we amended it, and we _could_ amend it to say something about abortion—should we? But as it stands currently, you are correct. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/33 "2006-02-23T18:07:01Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > My bad; I was making a somewhat different point than the one I was responding to; maybe I didn’t read clearly enough. I thought that was a little too easy. 🙂 > [@](#): > > The consititution isn’t silent on the issue of slavery because we amended it, and we _could_ amend it to say something about abortion—should we? But as it stands currently, you are correct. That’s what a lot of folks think. Or, just leave it up to the states like it was before _Roe_. It all depends on how you think the constitution should be interpreted. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/34 "2006-02-23T18:07:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Once in a long while, you surprise me. Sure I was expecting the usual “judicial fiat”, “will of the majority”, and “SDP is all made up anyway” stuff you always trot out, but the last sentence of your quoted paragraph surprised me in it’s banality. A person cannot complain about a bad judicial decision because it was part of the process? If this court re-adopts _Plessey_ and overrules _Brown_, there is no reason to complain because it’s all part of the process? Look, I know you hold the whole “it’s all about process” near and dear to your heart, but saying that you can’t complain about a judicial decision, simply because it is done according to process, is just patently ridiculous. I think his “_how can you complain_” remark was more directed at your “_Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land, unless I disagree with the supreme law of the land_.” Before Roe, the supreme law was to allow the state to legislate abortion. _If_ Roe were overturned, would you complain about those trying to make abortions a constitutional right again as flouting the supreme law of the land? If not, the only hypocrit I see aint **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/35 "2006-02-23T18:20:17Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > This is a good point, though it could be used by both sides in the abortion debate (those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the woman and those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the fetus). Except a blob of flesh does not deserve civil rights. If the death of a few cells is murder, then I murder every time I scratch myself. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/36 "2006-02-23T18:37:21Z")
This legislation is clearly calculated to present a challenge to _Roe v. Wade_ to the new SCOTUS ASAP. And it will happen. And the new Court will almost certainly overturn _Roe v. Wade._ And that will be the worst thing, electorally, to happen to the Republican Party since Watergate. It’s going to do them a **lot** more damage than the gay marriage controversy did to the Dems in 2004. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/37 "2006-02-23T18:39:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And the new Court will almost certainly overturn _Roe v. Wade._ Wanna bet? I say they won’t. > [@](#): > > And that will be the worst thing, electorally, to happen to the Republican Party since Watergate. It’s going to do them a **lot** more damage than the gay marriage controversy did to the Dems in 2004. Yep! (If it happens, which it won’t this time). ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/38 "2006-02-23T19:08:41Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Except a blob of flesh does not deserve civil rights. If the death of a few cells is murder, then I murder every time I scratch myself. That’s why I put “civil rights” in quotation marks: part of the issue in question is whether or not a fetus does/should have any civil rights at all. Certainly a newborn, or just-about-to-be-born, baby is more than just a “blob of flesh”—but at what point does it become more than just a blob of flesh? Any hard-and-fast line you draw (conception? birth? viability? one of the trimesters?) is problematic, but the laws have to draw a line somewhere. And that’s all I’ll say, because (1) I myself don’t know where the line should be drawn, and (2) to go any further would just take us over the same arguments that have been argued over time and time again in GD. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/39 "2006-02-23T19:26:56Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > By what criteria should we decide what issues “the supreme law of the land” should be silent on? Why on abortion and not, say, slavery? Well, we could try reading the text of the supreme law of the land. I think that should be the sole criteria on what it says, myself. The supreme law of the land is silent on abortion. It forbids slavery because in it, in black letters on white paper, under heading “Thirteenth Amendment,” it clearly says that slavery is forbidden. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/40 "2006-02-23T19:32:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, we could try reading the text of the supreme law of the land. I think that should be the sole criteria on what it says, myself. The supreme law of the land is silent on abortion. It forbids slavery because in it, in black letters on white paper, under heading “Thirteenth Amendment,” it clearly says that slavery is forbidden. Fair enough, then you believe that all laws pertaining to libel, slander, indecency, prosecution for revealing classified documents, etc. should all be tossed out, as well? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712.md?page=3)