In Which I Discover an Election Wherein I Would Bother to Vote

South Dakota asserts its tenth amendment rights:

Circled around a living room, sipping coffee, five long-acquainted couples grappled with their stark differences on a topic they would have skirted in the past but now cannot avoid _ abortion.

Like other South Dakotans, people in this tiny farming town are confronting a historic opportunity on Nov. 7. They'll sway a tortuous national debate by making a choice no statewide electorate has faced before: whether to approve a sweeping ban on virtually all abortions.

"None of us think abortion is a desirable thing," said Tom Dean, a family physician who hosted the discussion along with his wife, Kathy. "But it's not a problem for government to solve by passing a rigid law."

Oh, but it is, Dr. Dean; it is. People have pointed out the supposed contradiction that I am a pro-life libertarian. But there is no contradiction at all. The pro-life libertarian holds that pre-born babies be given the same right to life that the rest of us have. Even a limited goverment must still defend the right to life by punishing those who extirpate it. This is what separates libertarianism from anarchy.

It will be interesting to see how this vote pans out. It will be even more intriguing to watch the federal courts, including the Supreme court, now packed with two Bush appointed justices, overturn the will of the people of South Dakota.

If and when that happens, there will no longer be a single reason to support the Republicans. If Republican appointees will not allow a state to ban abortion, one may as well vote for the Democrats, as they are infinitely more honest about their support for infanticide.

One hopes my pessimism is, for once, unfounded, and states will again be allowed to do what the constitution explicitly allows. Alternatively, the state of South Dakota could pull a page from Andrew Jackson's playbook. Old Hickory once told the court, "[They] had made their decision, let them enforce it."