Sunday, June 18, 2006

Louisiana signs anti-abortion law

Of all places, this was the scrolling banner headline on NDTV during the 9pm news. "Louisiana governer Blanco signs law banning abortion." [Right after "Thousands march in gay pride parade in Sao Paolo" Heh.]. I searched all over, but no one seems to be carrying this story in the US. Yes, lots of talk about it being expected to be signed. But no one has carried a story about it actually being signed yesterday. Not CNN. Not NYT. Not any pro-life groups. Or even local LA papers. And nothing really on Technorati at all. I got this from Office of the Governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, State of Louisiana Guess the folks at NDTV didn't realize that the law is a dead-letter?

4 comments:

Sean said...

It is amazing that we can pass laws that depend on the courts or the US congress to take action before becoming active. Oh what a country we live in.

Marty said...

I searched all over, but no one seems to be carrying this story in the US. Yes, lots of talk about it being expected to be signed. But no one has carried a story about it actually being signed yesterday. Not CNN. Not NYT. Not any pro-life groups. Or even local LA papers.

The media would much rather keep something like this is as silent as possible, and I can recall when the have blacked out news regarding victories over The Homosexual Agenda and other instances where common sense and decency prevail.

As for pro-life groups, they're usually not boisterous, nor are they the types to boast about things, but they probably need to start getting the word out if the media is not going to do it.

I might have heard some mention once or twice about this signing on the radio.

Marty said...

Also, I just read something that says the Louisianna law that was just signed is "trigger law" that will criminalize abortion after Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Is this the case?

Gashwin said...

Hey Sean -- the US Congress is pretty ineffectual in this case as well. It cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision. [Amending the Constitution is a possibility, but hardly probable.]

However, judicial oversight isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes, the courts are ahead of the country, and in hindsight, most people think that was a good thing. Think desegregation and Jim Crow or anti-misegenation laws.

Now, even the pro-choice side is slowly realizing that the current Roe v. Wade regime is highly undemocratic (See the last issue of the Atlantic Monthly, for instance). One can hope and pray that one day, this infamous Court decision will join others (say, Dredd Scott?) in the dustbins of history.

And, whatever our flaws, the respect for the rule of law in the US is highly admirable. One notices it when one is in other parts of the world where it is more than lacking!

Marty - I have no idea about the history of the LA law, or the motives of those who passed it. I can imagine, like the SD law, this is designed to be a "test case" that will make it to the US Supreme Court and force the court to revist Roe v. Wade. Obviously, it has no effect right now, since it is, as things stand currently, unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer (or even a dedicated pro-life activist, i.e. someone for whom that is a profession), so I don't know much else.

The more such laws the better, I think!

I just found it highly ironic that I heard of this on prime-time news sitting here in India whereas the MSM back in the US didn't say a word!