Roe, Roe, Roe

National Review Online opposes the new measure in South Dakota banning all abortions.

Does the South Dakota ban, or the ban contemplated in Mississippi, advance any of those objectives? These laws set back the cause of overturning Roe. If they reach the current Supreme Court, a five-member majority of which is on record in support of Roe, they will elicit yet another re-affirmation of that decision. (We truly hope that our pro-life allies supporting these laws are not basing their strategy on the possibility of a change of heart by Justice Kennedy.) They could thus strengthen the felt force of the argument that Roe is a super-duper-precedent.

That which does not defeat Roe, makes it stronger.

I have to wonder if the South Dakota legislators watched the same Senate hearings I did. Roberts and Scalito are not political hacks. I am fairly confident they will not strike down Roe for the sake of striking it down. We can hope that the Supreme Court simply refuses to hear the case.

On the plus side of the ledger, the states will have communicated that resistance to the Roe regime is stronger than the conventional wisdom about its popularity would suggest. But that is not a sufficiently valuable benefit to make up for the damage these laws are likely to do to the pro-life cause.

H/T South Dakota Politics.