The Roe v. Wade Challenge

South Dakota has recently made criminal the practice of aborting a fetus, except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Instances of rare birth defects and incest will not be considered exceptions to the ban.

Of-course this type of state defiance to the Roe decision could have been foreseen with the recent nominations and subsequent confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. South Dakota and other states that might eventually follow suit are going to test the waters of the more conservitive Supreme Court.

Although it seems the religious right in this country would rather see abortions take place in dark alleys with coat hangers for forceps instead of in clinics with sterile instruments, I support their right to make decisions governing there own local geographic locations. Because when you get to the heart of the Roe decision, it was basically a slam against state's rights. I support the right of the states to make there own decisions, as stupid as they may be, about these matters. People of small local areas coming together deciding on laws that reflect their culture and values are exhibiting the kind of activity that contributes to a free society.

Of-course the ideal situation would be to have all the governing be done at a level even more local than the states. Back in 1993 Murray Rothbard wrote, "Pro-choice paleos should hope that Roe v. Wade is someday overthrown, and abortion questions go back to the state and local levels-the more decentralized the better." Perhaps this is the beginning of the overthrow of Roe that will bring about the decentralization of state power in Washington that we paleo and left-libertarians have been waiting for.