Most of Mr. Saletans article hinges on his definition of the word "separate", which he defines in paragraph two. This may be an honest mistake - I don't know anything about Mr. Saletan. But my guess is that he wanted to paint the SD abortion law as ridiculous and lawmakers as idiots. If you think of the term "separate" as "distinct", it conveys the true meaning of the law. In otherwords, if Suzy who is 7 months pregnant with Johnny (already named after the dad) is killed in a car accident but the emergency medics are able to save Johnny, we can see that there are two distinct lives here.

Rather than this kind of disingenuous twisting of words to set the stage for a pro-abortion sermon, I would rather see an honest debate on the subject. There are two basic camps, the pro- and anti-abortion. As of the Roe v. Wade decision, judicial fiat has established that there is pretty much no restriction on abortion. The People did not vote, congress did not debate, the states didn't have any say, and abortion was unilaterally declared legal, with almost no limits. If abortion were put to a vote, we would almost certainly see some restriction. As in South Dakota, where the legislature has passed this law. I believe the SD law is a positive step toward taking into account the will of the people, many of which still consider life to be God-given and not something that should be subject to someone else's 'choice'.

I believe the SD law is a positive step toward taking into account the will of the people, many of which still consider life to be God-given and not something that should be subject to someone else's 'choice'.

So they're working on repealing the death penalty? Or is it only where fetuses (fetii?) are concerned that South Dakotans consider life to be God-given and not something that should be subject to someone else's 'choice'?

"If abortion were put to a vote, we would almost certainly see some restriction."

Have you thought about the implications of building our judiciary system by popular vote?

What you are suggesting regarding the rights of women in this country would require a Constitutional Ammendment, unless SCOTUS reverses itself. Neither is likely.

kgswiger,

Women are also free to choose not to have an abortion. The whole freedom to choose thing works both ways. Mistakes happen and 18 or more years is a long time to be forced to pay. Women's rights have been hard won. Be grateful there are choices and stop meddling and lamenting.

As we have seen with the trainwreck that is Gitmo, what is initially popular isn't alwasy Constitutional. Remember that Jim Crow and "separte but equal" were very very popular. They just happend to also be Unconstitutional.

It isn't the case that judicial fiat established that there isn't a restriction on abortion. Rather, the courts found that The Government was never empowered to regulate in the first place.

ALL Constitutional laws deriv their powers from the US Constitution. Can you point to the text that empowers The Government to regulate teh bodies of women? Of their reproductive organs? Because if you cannot, then there isn't a power to regulate.

Really? Thinking that a law that specifies what a doctor has to tell a patient, whether he agrees with what the required statement says or not, is a bad idea is "meddling and lamenting"?

The Interstate Commerce Clause? Of course, that would only apply if the parties to the conception were in different states when it happened.