Abortion and South Dakota: Will Roberts And Alito Legislate From The Bench? Republicans Sure Hope…

February 22, 2006
( Another Seriously Folks Editorial)
Women’s Rights opponents are licking their lips at the thought of South Dakota lawmakers voting to ban nearly all types of abortion today, a prospect that seems likely and one that will surely result in court challenges, perhaps leading all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evangelical Christians are hoping that George W. Bush’s two new Supreme Court judges Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts will finally provide the needed votes to overturn the 35 year old law known as Roe v Wade, which after years of life threatening backroom abortions finally gave women the right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy.

Completely disregarding the fact that not everyone thinks the way they do or believes in the same things, Evangelicals have been pushing President Bush, who does think exactly the way they do, to finally pay them back for the votes which gave him the edge in the 04 elections. With the President’s nomination of Alito and Roberts, that bill seems to have been paid and Conservative Christians are ready to move their cause forward. Their hope is that by allowing South Dakota’s laws against abortion to stand in direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court will finally remove the stigma from the term “legislating from the bench”

While “legislating from the bench”, a phrase that means absolutely nothing, was the big bugaboo on a nearly equally divided Supreme Court, it may soon come to represent one of Conservatives best loved phrases, right after “What would Jesus do?” another useless expression. After all, if a person needs Jesus to tell them what’s right or wrong, or good or bad, then they have a lot more ethical and moral problems than they know, and no amount of bible reading or church attendance is going to help them at the end of the day.

While this reporter believes there are many things in this country that are legal but shouldn’t be