Of course they did because they hate birth control, which encourages sex, and they hate sex because they are sexually repressed fascist. Thank God I am not religous.

...and coathanger sales go through the roof.

At this point the significance of the new South Dakota statute outlawing abortion (save for few exceptions) remains to be seen. To start let me disclose that I fall into the seemingly rare category of one who is generally "pro-choice" yet respects and recognizes the reasonableness of the "pro-life" position. (Note that I hate these commonly used "pro" terms, but I'm using them for this comment.) With that caveat made and as one who is generally pro-choice, I've tried for many years to convince those on that side of the fence to abandon the sinking ship that is Roe v. Wade. This landmark decision is simply not based on any logical or defensible legal analysis (as other comments have noted), and pursuing gains in the political, public policy arena (i.e. the state legislatures) is the proper long-term approach. In the specific case at hand, South Dakota smells the proverbial blood in the water and has taken a shot. While this shot may eventually miss the mark via the appeals process, some such shot will eventually hit, and when it does those that are pro-choice will find themselves years behind in swaying public policy makers. The bottom line is the significant event will be when (and not if) the court overturns Roe due to the South Dakota or other statute. (Note that the significance will also be affected by the number of jurisdictions that ultimately ban abortion since overturning Roe would only pass the decision back to the states.)

Good for them. Bold move standing up for the rights of children.

I am 100% pro-choice. Regardless of one's opinion....the government has absoulutely no right to tell a woman what she can do w/her body. You suck South Dakota!

This will take on some more significance if the Supreme Court decides to weaken the precedents that have been established protecting this right since Roe v. Wade. At this point, the SD abortion law is more symbolic than anything else because the top court protects the right to have an abortion; that overrides state law. At most, the question of abortion will be decision that will be left up to the states, should Roe be overturned. Then at that point, the South Dakota law will be significant.

Significant? Of course. The ban is a bold affirmation of the resistance to Roe v. Wade and if nothing else, a reality check on the seemingly unending arrogance of the pro-abortion movement. Yes, it will be made void in a courtroom but South Dakota has made its point and sent a thunderous warning to those who underestimate the power of those "redneck, Jesus loving, Dubya supportin' hillbilies." (Last time I checked that's what conservatives were being called...)

Bring it to the court and see what happens. . .I'm not worried. . .the backlash will happen. . .

With the recent Supreme Court additions, it may finally happen. Won't affect my state of California, as privacy is incorporated into our Constitution. But I feel sorry for women in the deep south and rectangular states. But hey, the "liberal" wing of the right wing fringe might have a say! The following was posted at the delphi Reasonable Women forum. Abortions available to sodomized virgins only A Broadsheet reader forwarded the following excerpt from Friday's edition of "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," but I've been unsure of how to post it without actually vomiting. I think it's time to just bite the bullet. During a segment about South Dakota's bill to ban most abortions, which offers no exceptions for cases of rape or incest unless the pregnant woman's life is in danger, state Sen. Bill Napoli (R) was asked if he could conceive of a scenario in which the exception might be invoked. Indeed he could. "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged," he said. "The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." There are so many things to point out about this assertion, from the sticky sheen of fantasy clinging so repulsively to Napoli's imagined scenario, to his linked fetishizations of virginity and anal sex, to the basic notion that a unpure woman wouldn't suffer enough to get messed up by forced sex. And then there's just the phrase "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it." I want to scrub my eyeballs with bleach in the hopes that I can erase the memory of having read those words coming from the mouth of an elected official. The reader who forwarded these comments to Broadsheet could not give her name for professional reasons, but she's a native of South Dakota. Her response was more composed than anything I've been able to come up with. "It makes me sad to think that the people I grew up around think that women who choose to have sex when they are not married, don't attend church with the regularity Sen. Napoli and others would wish, and are over a certain age would not be 'messed up, physically and psychologically' by rape," she wrote. She continued that she believes the prevailing philosophy in her home state is that rape victims are asking for it, and that "women are not supposed to enjoy sex and the real purpose of intercourse is procreation, so the ones who get pregnant when they don't want to be are sluts who should keep their legs together next time." She added that she and her boyfriend had been discussing a return to South Dakota to raise their family, but that despite her love for her state she is "thinking twice and three times about the wisdom of raising children in a place where women are so devalued." -- Rebecca Traister

There is more to come people, when John Paul Stevens dies or resigns here soon.

There are lots of challenges to Roe vs. Wade around and this is just another. This is an example of the media getting the vapors and running around yelling "the sky is falling."

One small step for Christian Provincialism, one giant leap for Outright Stupidity.

As a national event this is simply meaningless. This bill is going to be voided by a federal district court on an immediate challege and that won't be overturned on appeal. Furthermore the Supreme Court won't even hear it primarily because there aren't enough votes to overturn the constitutional abomination that is Roe v Wade- just yet. I've repeatedly posted on the illogical and impeachable usurpation of authority reached in Roe and simply don't want to be redundant here but this does bring up an interesting issue: The truly interesting decision this coming year regarding abortion is the Gonzales v Carhart case that was just granted cert. At issue is the federal partial birth abortion ban. It is believed by some on the conservative side that the ban will be upheld and in the process Stenberg v Carhart that codified the right to an abortion up until the day before birth will be overturned. The interesting aspect to this case is how both Roberts and Alito (who replaced OConner who voted with the majority in Stenberg) will decide and whether Kennedy will stick to the principles of his dissent (along with Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist) in Stenberg or pull a "Casey" when he reversed his decision in Webster when realizing the his vote would over turn Roe. Or will Roberts and Alito both craft decisions ammenable to Kennedy's position (that there is a valid state objective in protected the right of the unborn's life in the last trimester but not the first two) and not tip their hand completely on the abortion issue leaving the nomination of another anti-Roe vote open to the Snowes, Collinses, Spectors and Stevenses in the Senate.

It may be a bit premature to call it an "event" of 2006. I believe South Dakota is one state, I'll have to look it up. Planetary's dour tone makes it funnier than it really should be, I don't think this is exactly a national event. There are those of us who believe it appropriate that this issue be decided on a state by state basis, I was never able to ascertain where the Founding Fathers specifically delineated abortion of a fetus as a federal issue in the constitution or the Bill of Rights. I believe they did specifically state, contrarily, that any issue not specifically addressed in the Constitution should be left to the individual states. This looks like the way it ought to be legislated.

It seems that South Dakota law makers have decided to thumb their noses at the precedent set by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade ruling by passing legislation that will outlaw abortion, and make the doctors who perform the procedure criminally liable. The language in the new law is sweeping, and not at all ambiguous. This is a full-frontal assualt on what has been, up until now, a womans right to choose, that could have nationwide implications as it undoubtably works its way through the courts. If I'm not mistaken, Bush has appointed some 30+ percent of the judges that currently reside in the federal judiciary system, and this will either confirm or deny our suspicions that one of his goals all along was to overturn Roe v. Wade. Regardless of your stand on the abortion issue, this has to rank as a rather significant event.