South Dakota's attack on Roe gives focus to what's at stake

South Dakota is about to prove exactly why Roe v. Wade was good law when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in 1973 and why it should remain the law of the land.
A bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life has been passed by the Legislature and is likely to be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
Under this law, a doctor who performed an abortion on a woman who was impregnated during a rape would be subject to prosecution and up to five years in prison.
A child who was impregnated by a relative would be forced by the state to give birth. A South Dakota woman who learned the fetus she was carrying was horribly deformed would be told by the state that she must give birth - or leave the state to get an abortion.
Tactical legislation
Of course, the law will be immediately challenged, because it is so obviously in violation of a woman's right to privacy, as defined by the Supreme Court. And, of course, that's exactly what the legislators of South Dakota want. They have passed a law that they know to be unconstitutional. They are hoping that a reconfigured Supreme Court will reinterpret the Constitution to allow states to outlaw abortion under virtually any circumstances and at any point during a pregnancy.
Some abortion opponents are already anticipating a victory, their catch phrase being that "elections have consequences." They make no secret of their belief that constitutional law is nothing more or less than a referendum. Ironically, these are the same people who claim to oppose judicial activism. In truth, the only judicial activism they oppose is that which produces a result with which they disagree.
Until now, an entire generation has been able to oppose Roe v. Wade on the basis of horror stories and horrifying pictures of fetuses, without having to think about the reality of forcing a woman in one state to bear a child while women in other states are free to choose.
Why should any American woman whose conscience and religion tells her that an abortion is an appropriate response to an unwanted pregnancy have to live according to the dictates of someone else's religion?
Make no mistake, this is, at its heart, a religious doctrine being imposed on all the people of South Dakota, and even if it is being imposed by a strong majority, it is inimical to the American way. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
There are certain religious precepts that are almost universally acceptable and are therefore appropriately translated into civil law. That's why "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" translate well into law, but "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does not.
Differing beliefs
Abortion is not a universally accepted moral wrong. People with a well-established sense of right and wrong, including members of some mainline denominations in the United States, do not consider abortion evil or sinful.
The idea that an abortion is morally wrong and therefore should be illegal under any circumstances and at any point in a pregnancy is held primarily by fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholics. It is based on their belief that from the moment of conception, the embryo is infused with a soul.
It is certainly their right to believe that and to see abortion as morally wrong. It is their duty to discourage members of their congregations from having abortions. But it is un-American for them to use politics and the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs regarding abortion on every citizen -- believer and nonbeliever alike.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned by this Supreme Court or any subsequent Supreme Court, the concept of separation of church and state in the United States is dead.