To the editor:
Amazing. South Dakota passes the abortion law protecting new life as the majority desires and every out-of-state pro-choice representative condemns the state for legislating to protect those who are completely without the ability to mount self defense against terminating their lives.
Would that the pro-choice population invest as much money into educating future parents about the challenges of parenting rather than blindly supporting the choice to procreate without responsibility their societal contributions would be of far greater value.
The intent of our legal system is to create law that is living; that which under different times and conditions merited creation yet left open the opportunity for new interpretation or superceding legislation given unknown future societal conditions. The law ideally must have the greater good of the population within its intent. It is by no means a popularity contest yet if it mirrors the intent of the majority it must be given review and development within the legislative processes as the greater majority of society has found a need for the legislation.
If the proposed legislation has merit and is found to bode well for the greater societal needs or preserving life or limb, then it is prepared and passed into law given ideal circumstances. Our abortion law protects newly conceived children from medical genocide. Protecting newly conceived children is something we as a society have a sacred bond to do. All religions and societies identify the fundamental obligation adults have to protect children and so we must protect them to the fullest of our capabilities. Thus the majority voice of South Dakota embraces this sacred bond and felt the need to support the creation of the new law.
Now we have the law desired by the majority and it will come under test in the courts.
If we were to follow the pro-choice judicial model for law, we would still be wallowing around enforcing antiquated laws that had been given no opportunity for judges to create new precedence, interpretations or applications had they impeded on the agenda of the pro choice. While it is true that the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade established law concerning abortion; it is also true that the opinion and findings of the Supreme Court are not completely impervious to review and address. This is the beauty of our independent judicial and legislative branches.
As societal needs change, the law is left open to scrutiny, interpretation and ruling in order to help the law meet the needs of the people who may or may not have created the original law or possess the abilities or faculties to best represent themselves to the government insofar as the broad application of the law. Existing law can also be replaced by laws more appropriate to the situation given sufficient burden of proof exists supporting the creation of new legislation.
The medical community maintains a myriad of ways to preclude unwanted pregnancy; from education and abstinence to pharmaceuticals, there exist solutions, that "burden of proof" off setting the need for open source abortion. The religious communities offer a myriad of support networks and services for those who are faced with the trials and tribulations of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. This is a second ?burden of proof' indicating the need for the new abortion law. Life is not easy; the ability to terminate newly created life should face just as difficult a passage as warrants life.
The majority voice of South Dakota was made clear with the passage of this law. A minority opposed it and lost. It will be enforceable law in the State of South Dakota. Just as penalties for drunk driving were made incredibly punitive to stem the loss of innocent life, the intent of this law is to stem the loss of innocent life to those who have the access and ability to prevent or manage the pregnancy but choose to exterminate an innocent life as a course of birth control or lifestyle management. This is not only a test of Roe v. Wade but can be interpreted as a test of the sovereignty differences between state and federal government.
Pro choice supporters will try to legislate it from the bench using activist judges. South Dakota cannot afford this nor can the nation. The only effective interpretation of legality and application for this law through the courts system would be a determination by independent judges who free themselves of personal bias in favor of opining and rendering findings on the law in the independent spirit established by our founding fathers; not activist judges. Since we cannot depend on activist judges to self excuse from the case given their personal bias, we as a population dedicated to fair and equal judicial processes must ensure activism in the judicial system will not impinge upon any future decisions.
Any future decision will come through the courts system and should be adjudicated only by judges renowned for their dispatch of personal opinion to ensure the greater benefit of maintaining a living law standard. I ask that we ensure our governor, state and federally elected officials understand that while we as citizens of South Dakota either support or oppose this law, as a unified population we will not tolerate its interpretation or opinions from the bench of any activist judge.
The governor saw fit to represent the majority of South Dakotans. It is time to work towards enforcement of the law or prepare the legal defense of the law by precluding activist judges from rendering opinions based upon their political beliefs founded in agenda. Once activism replaces effective judicial process and prudence it is only a matter of time before living law descends into the murky mire of law devised by agenda and supported by money and cause, not greater good."
Guidon Resources and Consulting, INC (GRCI)