National Review has an excellent editorial on South Dakota’s abortion-ban legislation:
Since these statutes are extremely unlikely to result in the end of Roe, they will not succeed in making the law just. And since the courts will probably quickly strike down these laws, they will not stop a single abortion either.
That’s 0 for 3. On the plus side of the ledger, the states will have communicated that resistance to the Roe regime is stronger than the conventional wisdom about its popularity would suggest. But that is not a sufficiently valuable benefit to make up for the damage these laws are likely to do to the pro-life cause.
I completely agree. This was a horrendously rash decision that will set the pro-life cause back by years. Especially given that the bill doesn’t make exceptions for incest or rape. Instead of moving the culture towards one that values the lives of the unborn, the South Dakota Legislature has bloodied its hands by hardening the lines against the pro-life cause by making them look like a bunch of unthinking zealots – which I’m afraid in some cases may not be too far from the truth.
The way to end abortion – or at least minimize its effects is to change the culture first and let the laws follow those changes. The civil rights movement succeeded because the moral injustices of segregation were made clear long before Brown v. Board of Education – the culture changed before the law. New advances in sonographic images made the idea of a child being something as abstract as a mere “choice” much harder for women to accept. Now, the South Dakota Legislature has single-handedly set back the pro-life cause by years. Now it’s once again about a bunch of heartless white males who want to oppress women rather than a group of people who see the measure of a nation in how well it protects the life of the most innocent of us. Once again it’s about court decisions and politics rather than human life.
This law has ensured that the abortion debate will only become more acrimonious, it will not strike down Roe, it will not prevent more abortions, and despite the fact that Gov. Rounds said that he had reservations about the bill, he signed it into law anyway. He, and the rest of those who did not consider the ramifications of this bill, bear the responsibility for the damage that it will cause.
The culture that needs to change is the one that treats women like incubators. The culture that needs to change is the one that views sex (especially female sexuality) as something dirty and sinful. What needs to change is the idea that laws based on religiously-motivated bullshit are acceptable.
This isn’t Iran, this isn’t Afghanistan, and this isn’t The Handmaid’s Tale either. Making that argument may appeal to ultra-radical feminists, but it has absolutely no relation to reality in this country today. Birth rates are plummeting in this country, in large part because high birth rates aren’t necessary anymore, but also largely because our society has devalued the family. Women have more reproductive freedom than ever before. The argument that women are viewed merely as “incubators” is the kind of agitprop that doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Again, that line is just silly. Our culture is, if anything, hyper-sexualized. Female sexuality is all over the place. Think Sex and the City, The L-Word, The Vagina Monologues. The arguments that we’re in some world where women are barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen don’t quite fly outside Women’s (or is it Womyn’s?) Studies programs these days?
I’d trust 300 centuries of colected wisdom and tradition before I’d start throwing out laws based on anti-religious bigotry, myself…
“Making that argument may appeal to ultra-radical feminists, but it has absolutely no relation to reality in this country today.”
Well it didn’t until Monday. If females of all ages are expected to carry and deliver their rapist’s spawn, then women are indeed little more than incubators.
“our society has devalued the family”
And the promotion of reproduction through incest helps this how?
“Women have more reproductive freedom than ever before.”
Again, you’re living in a pre-3/5 world.
I didn’t really sleep last night because this kind of thing scares me. I can’t have a baby right now. Being pregnant would ruin my life. But I’m married, and expecting me to be abstinent is stupid. Yes, I’m on birth control. But what if it fails? There is a 1% change that it will fail, and that absolutely terrifies me. I can’t be pregnant because I work with mutagenic chemicals and because I don’t have time or money. I can’t afford the co-pay that my shitty grad student health insurance requires. I’m planning on having my thesis written by August, and being a puking mess would interfere with that. But none of that matters. According to you I would have to carry to term a fetus even if it would force me to quit school and make me destitute. That is what pisses me off. I worked hard to get where I am, and I’m not about to let anyone value a fetus over my life and my hard work. That is what strips me of my humanity.