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 Afghanistan’s swift unraveling has created new — and in some quarters unrealistic — enthusiasm for talks with the Taliban. Budget cuts and rising case loads threaten to undermine public defenders’ ability to provide adequate representation. There should be a mandate on how long airlines can keep their passengers idled before taxiing back to the gate. Two months short of Inauguration Day, the excitement of a grand national convergence on the Capitol is already palpable. While some conciliatory signals followed after Barack Obama was elected president, it seems clear that the Kremlin intends to keep the “new cold war” going. When Barack Obama takes office, he will face major challenges. A political office that lets him communicate with his supporters and mobilize them for important battles will be essential. The next administration will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduated first in their high school classes. If an enemy attacks the United States during a Harvard-Yale game, we’re in trouble. The prospects for the economy look much grimmer now than they did a week or two ago. Yet economic policy, rather than responding to the threat, seems to have gone on vacation. Speculation about Obama's favorite for the job of chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. The graphic designer Sol Sender talks about the logo he created for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. A sure hit is never a sure thing, and some songs find all kinds of ways not to make the charts. To the Editor:. To the Editor:. To the Editor:. To the Editor:. To the Editor:. It would be a mistake not to take advantage of innovations in water management technology. Creating a new diagnostic category for children with severe behavioral and emotional problems may mean less use of atypical antipsychotic drugs for their treatment. Where will the bailouts — which are turning citizen against citizen and the haves against the have-nots — stop? Why it's easier to grieve over the extinction of a species than celebrate the appearance of a new one. The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters. American democracy would be far stronger without it. If Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. wants to persist in withholding bailout funds for foreclosure relief, he will have to come up with a new set of justifications. Walking away from the Colombian free-trade agreement now would alienate many people in Colombia and undermine Washington’s credibility. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson must impose some coherence and clarity on the bailout soon, or otherwise he will only fan anxieties and mistrust. To protect the nation, the Obama administration will have the incredible task of rebuilding a military that is overtaxed and ill-equipped. Eliminating daylight time would accord with President-elect Barack Obama’s stated goals of conserving resources and reducing climate change. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the auto industry needs. If we have learned anything throughout this year, we have learned that this financial crisis is unpredictable and difficult to counteract. For all the outrage about Chinese melamine, what the United States has failed to scrutinize is how much of the chemical has pervaded our own food system. A variable fuel tax could pay for a sound transportation policy agenda beyond the bailout. |