Thursday, February 23, 2006

South Dakota Legislature Passes Criminal Ban on Abortion or "I'm Up On My High Horse Now!"

I've been having a kinda slow day today, just hanging out, reading other blogs. My husband just walked into the office, telling me that he just heard on the Howard Stern Show on Sirius satellite radio (the FCC kicked him off regular radio; can we say censorship?) that South Dakota has just made it illegal to have an abortion. WHAT!?! I knew that they had been trying. I've been seeing snipits about the subject off and on for months, but to actually go through with it? This just blows me away. (BTW it took me a while to actually find a news piece about this, I'm not sure why. I just thought it was strange.)

Both houses of South Dakota's legislature passed the total abortion ban (HB 1215), and now goes to anti- choice Gov. Mike Rounds to say yay or nay, possibly as early as this week. Gov. Rounds, who has not indicated whether he will sign the bill, has said that, "(a)abortion ... Should always be illegal." What an idiot. I wonder if he would feel the same way if he were a woman?

As with all arguments that have been heard far and wide, things always seem to need to be repeated. My arguments for this subject:

If you are not a woman, just shut the hell up. You cannot even begin to have an opinion about something that you will never, ever understand or experience. Well, I guess you can have an opinion, (it's supposed to be a free country), but it's not worth much to me in these matters.

Making abortion illegal, will not stop them. In the case of South Dakota, it will either cause people to just drive to another state, or you will end up with the normally law abiding people receiving or giving the abortions, overcrowding your jails.

At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision?

The anti-abortion leaders really have a larger purpose. They oppose most ideas and programs that can help women achieve equality and freedom. They also oppose programs that protect the health and well-being of women and their children.

Anti-abortion leaders claim to act "in defense of life." If so, why have they worked to destroy programs that serve life, including prenatal care and nutrition programs for dependent pregnant women? Is this respect for life?

Anti-abortion leaders also say they are trying to save children, but they have fought against health and nutrition programs for children once they are born. Just to save the tax dollars. The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth. Is this respect for life?

Then there are programs that diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur: i,e: family planning counseling, sex education, and contraception for those who wish it. Anti-abortion leaders oppose those, too. And clinics providing such services have been bombed. Is this respect for life?

I think that the pro-lifers need to get their shit straight, before they take a stand on anything. Don't pass an anti-abortion law and then pass a measure that cuts funding for the programs that feed or give medical care for the children that you forced into this world.

Oh, and in case you are wondering...I personally would not have an abortion, no matter what the circumstances. But that's my choice isn't it? At least for right the state I live in.

Link that might be of interest to you:

Recent Study,

1 comment:

  1. very scary...But almost not surprising. The Pro Lifers are usually the ones who provide no help once the baby is here, and condemn any horrid outcome that may come.
    I don't understand it myself.

    What rights will they take away next?