South Dakota and Abortion

For the past few years the right wing in South Dakota has been attempting to outlaw abortion. While the attempts have mainly failed, the state continues to attempt to force a Supreme Court showdown on abortion.
There is no question that South Dakota’s law is unconstitutional. It disregards a constitutional right upheld by the Supreme Court seven times. In 1973 the constitutional right of privacy protecting a woman’s right to choose an abortion. South Dakota’s law strikes down a constitutional right and puts into jeopardy the system of which we live under.
There is a right to personal privacy in the Constitution. South Dakota’s law ignores constitutional precedent created and upheld by the Supreme Court, including the three key cases: Griswold V Connecticut in 1965, Roe V Wade in 1972, and Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992. Griswold V Connecticut in 1965 was the first Supreme Court case to outline the right to privacy embodied in the Constitution. In it the Supreme Court decided that the guarantees in the Bill of rights embodied a right to privacy. The Supreme Court’s opinion asserts that the existence of a "right of privacy" is bolstered by the Ninth Amendment's protection of rights not detailed in the Constitution, and that the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause embodied those same rights. Furthermore, The Supreme Court held that the first, third, and fourth amendments also guarantee that right. The precedent set by Griswold alone is enough to declare South Dakota’s law unconstitutional.
In addition, the South Dakota legislature ignored Supreme Court precedent in Roe V Wade as well; a landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld a constitutional right to the same privacy rights as Griswold V Connecticut. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that the fourteenth amendment protected a right to privacy, and that the state had no vested interest in outlawing the termination of a pregnancy during the first trimester.
South Dakota ignored judicial precedent a third time when they disregarded the decision in Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992; which once again upheld Roe, and ignored precedent another four times when the court upheld Roe in Akron V Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Bellotti V Baird, Hodgson V Minnesota, and Lambert V Wickland..
South Dakota’s reckless policy of ignoring Supreme Court decisions undermines judicial authority outlined in the constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority to review laws and declare them unconstitutional. South Dakota’s legislature dismisses judicial authority substantiated in article three sections one and two of the Constitution, which vests all judicial power in the Supreme Court. It also discounts the landmark case Marbury V Madison which holds that “the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and that an act of legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Marbury V Madison grants to the Supreme Court the power to review any act of legislature and determine if it is constitutional. By determining that the Constitution embodies a right to privacy including the right to reproductive freedom is not an example of the Supreme Court overstepping its power, that power is granted to it by the Constitution and the precedent of judicial review outlined in Marbury V Madison. South Dakota’s legislature is overstepping its power when it ignores Supreme Court Precedent; South Dakota’s law attacks a constitutional right upheld seven times by the Supreme Court and clearly violates the constitutional right to privacy.