…with no exceptions for the health of the mother or for victims of rape or incest — and with the express purpose of provoking a court challenge. Does the South Dakota legislature really want to force a 12-year-old whose dad or uncle couldn’t keep it in his pants to have a baby? Does it want a severely diabetic woman who has a birth control failure to put her life at risk? Apparently so. In an ideal world, we might not need access to abortion services. But in an ideal world, we’d have comprehensive sex education, easy access to safe and reliable birth control, no diseases or conditions that threaten the life or health of a pregnant woman, no rapists and no child molesters, and no fetal death or catastrophic damage. But we don’t live in that world.
Apparently, the South Dakota legislature doesn’t care. It wants a fight. W has the Supreme Court his supporters have always wanted, and they’re banking on overturning Roe v. Wade. Can Griswold be far behind? After all, a lot of the wingnuts consider contraception to be a form of abortion. We may end up with a government that insists on wives having sex with their husbands whenever they ovulate. Otherwise, they’re aborting a potential life, right?
I pray that none of my daughters will ever be in need of abortion services. I’ll do my best to teach them how to protect themselves. Meanwhile, I guess I’d better start stockpiling condoms and store away a couple of morning-after pills before they disappear from the pharmacy shelves.