| [ |
mood |
| |
 angry |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Silence |
] |
For those who haven't seen this already the South Dakota legislature has passed a ban on all abortions, with exceptions only for the life (but not the health) of the mother.
I'm pro-life. Hell, let's drop the vague and propagandistic terminology: I support banning abortion in all cases except for when a) the mother is the victim of rape or sexual abuse, b) an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother, or c) the fetus is severely damaged - on the level of anencephaly or Tay-Sachs homozygosity.
I could argue that this measure goes too far, by not allowing abortions of brain-dead (or even brain-lacking) fetuses, by forcing rape victims to undergo further trauma, and by not granting exceptions in cases where the mother's health may be damaged without her life being lost. I believe that, and I could spend time arguing it, but I feel that it would be futile, for several reasons. Although damaged or brain-dead fetuses are a more complex issue, my other two objections regarding scope boil down to the fact that, while I believe the life of the fetus has significant value, I do not believe that it is equal in value to the life of the mother. The hardliners will therefore dismiss my argument just as easily as they dismiss the arguments of the pro-choicers. At the same time, I doubt that anyone on the pro-choice side is interested in my analysis of why fetal rights should extend only so far, as they generally don't believe in fetal rights to begin with. Most importantly, though, the scope of the ban is not the source of my primary objection.
What I object to most about this law is not what it does, but what it doesn't do. With regards to banning abortion, I think it's far too broad, but the general idea is right. However, while banning abortions will reduce the number performed, it won't eliminate them completely - not by a long shot. To achieve that, or even come close, will take a lot more. So where is the mandate for intelligent sex education, for using curricula proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates? Where is the funding to subsidize contraception for individuals or couples that can't afford it? Or for free (and voluntary) sterilization of those over the age of consent who know that they never want to have kids? Where have the provisions for free pre-natal care gone, that would have prevented miscarriages due to malnourishment, and made sure that as many as possible of the children that will be born as a result of this (as well as those who would have been born anyway) would be born healthy? And how about the provisions that would have ensured that any pregnant women who needed it could have a safe place to stay during pregnancy, and food to eat, clothes on her back, and treatment for any addictions she might suffer from? Where have they gone?
And what about an expansion to the WIC program, to ensure that those kids continue to be adequately nourished after they're born, where's that? And where are the (properly funded) mandates for improvements to the public schools, so that the next generation can be well-educated, and make the right choices? And, likewise, why do I see nothing in the text of this bill about community college programs, to expand them, and in particular their night school programs, and to subsidize tuition, so that all the struggling parents out there, single or in couples, can have a chance to learn new skills, to find better work, and thereby to make a better life for themselves and their children? And, since someone has to flip the burgers, where are the provisions to raise the minimum wage to a level that one can support oneself and a child on? And why are there no provisions in here about child support? Women ought to take responsibility for the lives they create, but so should men. So why does the burden of this law fall solely on one sex?
Finally, where is the funding for public health education programs, and to pay for medical treatment for those who can't afford it, which would both save more lives than even a complete eradication of abortion, and save the state money in the long run!?
I support a broad (albeit not total) ban on abortion, but I cannot and will not support this bill. It addresses the symptom (poorly) without addressing the causes, it placates the single-issue activists and voters without harnessing their support to accomplish broader ends, it has no chance of surviving a court challenge, and, in the end, it will do far more harm than good.
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cimadness's journal
amused
![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
Dear Santa...
