Finding the positives in South Dakota

First off, this bill will no doubt be challenged and it's effects minimal unless the Supreme Court rules in South Dakota's favor. General consensus for now is that it's overturned.

But is there actually a positive in all of this? At the risk of upsetting women, it seems that this will serve to be a polarizing issue everywhere that should greatly favor the Democrats:

Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand predicts the law will be "a huge benefit" for his party as it winds its way through the courts. He gives a preview of the case abortion rights supporters could make: If a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are going to be outraged," he says.

If you don't believe him, try it. Talk to the next woman you see about the conditions that the South Dakotan legislature has imposed on all the women in the state. Ask her how she would feel if your state imposed those same rules. See how she reacts. My guess is she won't be too happy, and she'll probably realize that her rights may end up taken away.

And of course, there's this:

Deirdre McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the law a chance to end Roe's "stranglehold" on legislatures and "open up the possibility of people's values being reflected in their own state laws."

Why do people always feel their view is the "will of the people," even when it isn't?

As I pointed out before, this bill represents the values of about half the people in South Dakota. The other half should be more than a little upset about what's happened in their state. This isn't the people's will that's been imposed, but rather the will of the legislature and the anti-abortionists that control them.