Yet More on the South Dakota Abortion Bill

This editorial from Friday's edition of the Washington Post demonstrates another aspect of the South Dakota abortion law that could wind up hurting opponents of Roe/Casey: the fact that the South Dakota legislature rejected exceptions for rape or incest. Polls usually show that a majority of self-identified pro-lifers support such exceptions, and the issue does not have a necessary logical connection to the constitutional questions surrounding abortion law. However, if other states wind up adopting similar provisions in their attempts to challenge Roe, I think the only significant result would be less public support for allowing states greater latitude to regulate or prohibit abortions. Put another way, if the public becomes convinced that states really would enact "extreme" (the Post's characterization, not mine) abortion legislation in the absence of Roe, that could only politically hurt the cause of those who want the Roe/Casey constitutional rule overturned.

(Full disclosure: My own policy position on abortion is that it should generally be prohibited except in circumstances like rape, incest, a danger to the mother's life, etc. However, I should say that my moral and policy views on abortion are less well-formed and, of course, infinitely less relevant to matters on this blog than my legal view that the federal constitution does not mandate any special protection for substantive abortion rights.)