Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

It would seem that events are moving a bit faster than I anticipated. We have one Supreme Court ruling, unanimous at that, regarding a case that has been a thorn in the side of the prolife movement for several decades.

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

[...]

While I am pleased with the decision, I hope that protesters don't fall back to the tactic of blockading clinics. Such actions only drew attention to the protesters, and not in a favorable manner. This made it easy for those on the pro-choice and pro-abortion sides to easily demonize the tactics and draw attention away from what the issue was really about.

Still, it is impressive that the court ruled unanimously. We can easily imagine the uproar that would occur if PETA or some other protesting group had RICO applied against them. Despite their violence, cries of free speech would abound and do much to shame any consistent application of this statute. That lack of consistency and suppression of political speech has now been corrected.

Hopefully, prolifers will learn from the experience and conduct rallies that don't block clinics but merely prayerfully provide information concerning options, for those who dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. I argued this some years ago here.

Michelle Malkin is the go to girl with links to reaction in the blogosphere, the oral argument transcript and Breyer's opinion.

Also in the news, is the ban on abortion that has passed both houses in South Dakota.

Abortion ban bill heads to South Dakota governor

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

Clearly, this is a test aimed at the U.S. Supreme Court. I think it may be too soon for such a far reaching law, though it may take a few years to reach the court and perhaps another justice will be nominated by then. Still, there is no provision for rape or incest, which are the most controversial, though statistics have shown that such abortions account for very low (single digit) percentages of all abortions. While my view is that how a pregancy came about, does not affect the value of the preborn, we must consider the current cultural and political environment and what is necessary for the most lasting change, not just in law, but also in the cultural zeitgiest. This may simply be too much for many to accept, especially when abortions for such circumstances can be reduced by other means, i.e. strengthening laws, the enforcement of such laws, crisis pregnancy counseling and support, as well as other methods that can reduce rape and incest and the emotional trauma that leaves some considering only abortion for the innocent life they carry.

Hopefully, as I have argued here, parallel actions will be enacted as this moves through the courts. This could help move society to change from within, rather than just prohibit by law what a generation has grown up thinking is a right, that must not be assailed. Sadly, for many, the artificial stiching of the word right, to the term abortion, when that words is even used, has been an effective form of propoganda in shaping people's views. We need to use wisdom and patience to overcome what has been so long assumed by many and become a calcified belief, and consider the power of love and compassion in changing such views.

Finally, there will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects, primarily NARAL and the Diane Feinstein type politicians. It is only one state, at this point, yet apocalyptic visions will be presented ad infinitum, in an attempt to sway public opinion. Supposing that the court does allow South Dakota's restrictions to stand, does this mean every state will do the same? Hardly, and no one, even those on the non pro-life side think that will happen. So, why not put their money where there mouth is? Such is constantly thrown at those of us who are against abortion. Let's see those who think responsibility should be avoided at all costs, help those who cannot afford to do so, go to other states that still allow the procedures. I seriously doubt that all fifty states will ever completely ban abortion for any and every circumstance.

Will the South Dakota ban stand a Supreme Court review? I have no idea, but I feel public resistance could be reduced with some of what I have recommended and that certainly wouldn't hurt the case when it's before the court. For my part, I'll try to get this post to South Dakota legislators. Of course I'm nobody important, but sometimes, even small actions, can have greater results than anyone could have anticipated. I encourage others who are prolife to do what they can, to help move society in a better direction, one that respects life, even while it is in the womb, seeing it not as a responsibility to avoid but as an opportunity to love and nuture an innocent life.

---

The pro-life moment?
Theocracy - Abortion
Another potential stem cell source
What Kool-Aid do GOP Senators drink?
Embryonic stem cells - Narcissism unleashed
I see - pro-life people :-) part I
I see - pro-life people :-) part II
Stem cell research
Abortion - no consequences?
Stem cell research
Another interesting contrast
Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues