SD abortion bill: has anyone asked Johnson?
by skeptic06, Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:46:17 AM EST
The SD abortion bill currently before 06 shoo-in Gov Mike Rounds for his John Hancock is perhaps the biggest thing in South Dakota politics since Wounded Knee.
Last time I looked, Tim Johnson was its sole Democratic US Senator.
And I seem to remember not long ago some sort of fuss being made about a nomination to the US Supreme Court in which abortion appeared to be an important issue to a whole slew of folks.
Yet, so far as I can see, no one has plucked up the courage to ask Brer Johnson what he thinks of the SD bill.
Has the entire US media been afflicted with an attack of states-rights-itis? Has Johnson disappeared on a world tour of ethanol plants?
Because, as I understand it, this is just about the nastiest abortion bill to get anywhere that there's been in the last thirty years (and that's some pretty stiff competition!).
A choice quote from its sponsor, one Roger Hunt (rhyming slang?):
If there is rape, it really is an injustice to that woman. But there are remedies for that woman. Family, friends, pregnancy crisis centres are there to help her, as well as adoption procedures to assist her. But the unborn child whose life is terminated has no remedy.
Does Johnson support the bill or not? Does he expect to last till November 08 (he's a Class II senator) without giving the world the benefit of his opinion on the bill?
Perhaps he's somewhere up in the frozen north right now with his fingers in his ears singing La la-la la la la. (I don't think that's going to do it somehow.)
Now, an anti-abortion bill with no exceptions for rape and incest goes beyond what even Bush thinks is right. Which should give a Dem - even one so pliable as Johnson - cover on the right to indulge his principles a little.
(Note the big gimme there!)
If he thought the act was wrong - and Rounds signs it - he'd be able, if he's still in time (I can't tell from this), to promote an initiative in the November election repealing the act.
And say, If the people of SD vote against the initiative, then I will have misjudged them, and could no longer in conscience continue to represent them. And, if it loses, resign. Even if a GOP is appointed in his place.
(That's a lefty druther, for the avoidance of doubt. Not even The West Wing at its most onanistic would have gone with a storyline as flat out impossible. OK, at its most onanistic...)
Quick question: What would Feingold do?
Update [2006-3-5 14:4:51 by skeptic06]:
Johnson, I noted a day or two back, had taken a sudden and inexplicable interest in redistricting reform. Surely he doesn't conceive of this as an effective diversionary tactic?