More on the South Dakota abortion bill

South Dakota's governor says he's not sure if he'll sign the bill if it passes.

South Dakota's governor is pro-life, but he is unsure if he would sign a ban on virtually all abortions and is concerned that it would likely be declared unconstitutional.

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is wrong," Gov. Mike Rounds told the Associated Press on Friday. "I believe we should do everything we can to eliminate abortion within this country."

Rounds said he wants to further review the legislation before signing it.

[...]

Rounds told the Associated Press that he is concerned the bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota, confirmed that her group would challenge the legislation in court if passed.

The legislation would likely make its way through the judicial process and the bill would likely wind up at the Supreme Court. One there, a pro-abortion majority will almost assuredly strike down the law.

"It's one of the concerns that I would have, but it would not necessarily lead to a veto," Rounds explained.

If he wants to do everything possible he should ask for any changes he thinks would improve the chances that it would survive a court challenge. Then, he should sign the bill. If you believe that the bill is a) the right thing to do, and b) constitutional than the danger of a court finding otherwise should not affect your actions.

If you believe that the law is right, but unconstitutional¹ you should be working to change the Constitution.

¹ There are millions of people out there who would be convinced that that phrase constitutes a contradiction of terms. Way to many people out there have come to believe in the formula wrong=unconstitutional. Yes, something can be right, but not allowed by the constitution. Something can also be wrong, but constitutional.