Challenges to Roe v. Wade on the Way
The South Dakota Senate has passed, by a wide margin, a bill that would ban nearly all abortions. The House has already adopted a similar measure, with only slight variations, and it shouldn't be difficult to reconclile those measures. Governor Mike Rounds is a long-time abortion opponent, but has declined to say whether he will sign legislation outlawing abortions. He was relatively little known before his election two years ago, and it is possible that he may have "grown in office." More likely, he will sign the bill that emerges from the South Dakota legislature and thus trigger an epic constitutional battle. At least five states are reported to be working on similar legislation.
It will take years for litigation ensuing from this statute, or a similar one, to work its way through the federal courts. In the meantime, one or more Supreme Court justices will likely be appointed.
The battle that will follow upon enactment of legislation restricting abortion will present a constitutional issue, not a political one. I think that reasonable people can differ on abortion; I don't think that reasonable people can differ on Roe v. Wade. The Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion. If it did, someone would have noticed it during the Republic's first 180 years. The issue here isn't abortion; it's judicial usurpation. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, as I think it will be someday, many or most of the states will choose to legalize abortion. I personally would vote the other way. But the key issue, for me, is the constitutional one that is about to wend its way through the courts.
