Conservative Split On Abortion
No challenge to Roe foreseen in Texas: Foes are content to chip away, let other states wage costly, risky fight (Lisa Falkenberg, Houston Chronicle)
The GOP-led Texas Legislature hasn't been quiet about its opposition to abortion or shy about restricting women's access to it.
In recent years, lawmakers have required parental consent, a 24-hour waiting period, state-directed counseling and state funding for abortion alternatives.
All this, according to some abortion rights groups, makes Texas one of 21 states most likely to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court ever gives them the chance.
But with South Dakota lawmakers last week approving the nation's most rigid abortion ban — designed to challenge the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion — one might wonder: Is Texas ready to take it that far?
The answer, according to several of Texas' most ardent abortion foes, is no. Though they may admire South Dakota's gusto, most think a law blatantly violating Roe v. Wade at this point is hasty, risky and too brazen for Texas to attempt.
[snip]
Those in Texas' anti-abortion camp say they're content to let other states take the lead on picking an expensive court fight over Roe. In Texas, abortion opponents are encouraged by their strategy of chipping away at abortion, one restriction at a time, hoping to end the practice with a whimper rather than a bang.
Since one party is beholden to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other groups that oppose any restrictions on abortion, this is really a debate among conservatives/Republicans as to how to proceed in further restricting abortion in the United States. David Cohen summed up the conservative/Republican debate as follows:
The proponents of the ban are betting that Justice Stevens is going to retire soon, giving the President a third opening on the Supreme Court. Without Justice Stevens retirement, there seem to be five solid votes to uphold Roe, which is why other abortion opponents want to concentrate on whittling down abortion rights. The problem with whittling the right down is the courts' insistence that there must be allowance made for any abortion to protect the health of the mother, that "health" includes mental health and that, as far as doctors are concerned, threats to mental health include things that might make the mother unhappy or induce stress.
Brother Cohen is right about the weakness of the whittling-down approach. However, there are no guarantees that Roe is going to be overturned, even if Stevens is replaced. I don't know how much good it does for anti-abortion states to rush to duplicate the South Dakota effort, when the immediate result of that effort will be a federal judge overturning the legislation and forcing the Supreme Court to decide if it wants to take up the subject anew.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 02/26/06 20:42 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
No comments yet. Add yours?
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.