Whose rights are they “protecting”?
StaffWriter
For those of you who don’t know what’s going on with South Dakota, here’s a brief overview. The state legislature has placed a direct attack on Roe vs. Wade, which is the 1973 decision that a woman has the right to an abortion. South Dakota passed a bill stating that all abortions are banned in the state unless the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. A penalty of up to 5 years in prison, making it a felony, would apply to any doctor or other participant who performed an abortion beginning July 1.
When I first heard about South Dakota passing this bill I was appalled. I hopped on the computer and began pulling up some news articles. I wanted to know just what was going on with this state and its governor, Mike Rounds. The more I read the angrier I got, and still am today.
I read a phone interview on MSNBC.com that involved Governor Rounds, Dan Abrams (the host) and a couple other folks. Rounds stated that the bill was merely to challenge Roe vs. Wade. One of their points was to send a message to the court to go over it and look at different challenges. This I do not understand. I admit that Roe vs. Wade could use some restrictions; of course this is my own opinion. It allows women to have an abortion up to the second trimester. How are you challenging this by banning abortion in your state? He was saying that some restrictions need to be placed on abortion. So if you were trying to get restrictions on abortion why on earth would you BAN it? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Apparently we weren’t on the same page.
Another article I read that really got me revved was also on MSNBC.com. Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center, which is a pregnancy counseling agency that detours women away from abortion, took it upon herself to be the voice of the women of South Dakota. She stated that “most of the abortions performed in South Dakota do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply ‘conveniences.’” Ms. Unruh also believes that most women in South Dakota are in favor of the ban on abortion, and that many of the women who have had abortions “wish someone would have stopped them.” Really, Leslee? I didn’t realize that at any moment a person could take it upon themselves to speak for a large group of others. I would love to hear why she feels she knows these South Dakota women’s thoughts and where they stand on the ban of abortion.
So if I were to get raped, or became pregnant due to incest, apparently I’m SOL? Yes, that is correct. Unless a women’s life is in danger due to the pregnancy she may not have an abortion. How is this ethical? How is it right? Do you realize that if a woman is raped and has the child her perpetrator is the father? This means he is entitled to certain parental rights, possibly the same as the mother; after all it is his child. I personally would not want my child under the parental care of a rapist. Would you? Would you like your child to, even if it be every other weekend or even supervised visitations, under not only the care but also the influence of a man that raped someone? I’ll let you ponder that one on your own.
Section 1 of the South Dakota law says, “To fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited.”
I have a very hard time with this. They state that they are “protecting” the pregnant mother’s rights. They most certainly are NOT protecting her rights; they are taking them away. I agree that they are protecting the child’s rights to life but that is the only set of rights they are looking at.
If you look in the case of rape you are not protecting the child’s rights, you are protecting the father’s. Since the “father” of this child conceived due to rape has certain custody rights the child has no choice; he or she is subject to the care of this unfit parent. It also says due to the mother’s “fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child” abortions are banned. What if the mother has no desire for a relationship with her child? You’re right, she has every right to the DECISION of having one, but in this case they are forcing her to have one even if it is for a short time – for instance 9 months. How can they even have the audacity to say that they are protecting anyone’s rights?
This issue is very controversial. I do not wish to offend anyone, though I feel very strongly about this. I feel abortion should not be used for birth control, I do not look at it lightly, I don’t feel that abortion is something that is right, just or even humane to the unborn child (depending on term). I feel that restrictions should apply within reason and I most definitely think that a woman should have the right to choose.
Banning abortion in South Dakota merely endangers the lives of women today. It forces them to either jump state or worse. Those who can’t afford to go elsewhere will get an abortion illegally. The fact that they take away a woman’s right to choose does not change what goes on behind closed doors and sealed lips.
A possible response to these issues is adoption. Once again, that is taking away a woman’s right to chose the course of her life over the next 9 months. She is forced to carry the child to term, and then give her baby away. Who are they to determine whether or not this mother should be forced to give birth? Her situation is private; it is her own decision to be made. By banning abortion they are not only challenging Roe vs. Wade but are also taking a step back in the progress of women’s rights today.
 NYT > Opinion Sun. 1pm Better design is precisely what suburban America needs in the housing crisis. Mitt Romney seems to be trying to please everybody but has ended up pleasing few. Just what David Riesman would have called an other-directed man. Conservatives have started telling us that the growing inequality is about a decline in morals. But it’s mainly about money. Senate candidates in Massachusetts and Montana hope to keep third-party spending out of their races. What explains the attraction of evangelicals to a presidential candidate who prides himself on the depth of his Catholicism? United Nations peacekeeping missions need stronger commitments from member nations. The U.S. State Department is cutting way back on its diplomatic presence in Iraq. What's next? The United States needs to keep the pressure on Swiss banks and pursue the data needed on American tax cheats. Recalcitrant lawmakers should explain to voters why they refuse to get behind the federal fight against domestic violence and sexual assaults. Good news on same-sex marriage from California and Washington adds some critical momentum to votes scheduled for next week in the New Jersey Legislature. The Taiping Rebellion, which nearly toppled the Qing Dynasty in the 1850s, bears warnings for the current government. The filmmaker Jon Shenk presents a portrait of Mohamed Nasheed, the first democratically-elected president of the Maldives and an environmental activist, who was deposed on Feb. 7. A conservation initiative that uses strategies to change behavior locally to protect ecosystems is having an impact worldwide. Readers respond to an editorial, “Another Campaign for Sale,” about the president and the “super PACs.” Readers react to an editorial about how to control rising college tuition. An intelligence official with the New York Police Department discusses counterterrorism efforts. A response to a front-page article, “For Soldier Disfigured in War, a Way to Return to the World.” |