South Dakota Leads the Nation?
Cynthia Gorney has an excellent piece in the June 26 issue of the New Yorker about the politics of the recently enacted South Dakota ban on abortion. The South Dakota legislation is an absolute ban--no rape-and-incest exceptions, in fact no exceptions at all except when neccessary to prevent the mother's eminent death. This legislation has been controversial among pro-life groups--the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life actively opposed it, and many pro-life advocates appear uncertain that an absolute ban is a good or saleable idea. Pro-choice forces appear to have collected enough signatures to subject the measure to a popular vote in the November elections. Even pro-life voters may be uneasy with a ban that says there are absolutely no circumstances, ever, under which an abortion is justified, and pushing such voters to support an absolute ban may well backfire.
Both pro-choice and pro-life forces have a lot riding on the outcome of the November referendum--if such a ban can't pass in an extremely conservative state as South Dakota, it's hard to imagine that it could pass anywhere; but if the legislation is upheld, it's difficult for pro-choice forces to claim such results aren't what the people want. Only in America could the outcome of an election in such a small state--South Dakota's population is only about 775,000--have so many moral and political consequences for the rest of the country.
- Jim Fossett
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Huh - Cynthia makes a really interesting point in saying that "What people are responding to—the pro-life stance that is being articulated—is entirely theoretical." BitchPhD highlighted Salon's coverage of this article last night, and apparently many pro-life people, now suddenly faced with absolutes instead of abstractions, find themselves very uncomfortable with the idea of a total ban.
It will be very interesting to watch and see what happens.
- by Kelly on Jun 22, 2006 at 5:02 PM | link
I hate to play language cop but...an "eminent death" would be a prominent or noteworthy demise. What the law would ban is the mother's imminent death.
- by Joe Carter on Jun 23, 2006 at 3:40 PM | link
I have trouble understanding how doctors can continue to practice medicine under such constraints. How can doctors provide patients the confidentiality that is their due? How can a doctor act in the best interests of his/her patient if that is in conflict with the law?
In short, how can a doctor practice medicine that is consistent with both their oath and the law, and how can they decide which trumps which?
Perhaps the only way to address the lunacy coming out of Ohio and Louisiana and North Dakota, etc., would be for the doctors to simply migrate to states that do allow them to practice medicine?
I never would have believed that we would reach the point where supposedly rational people would declare that women should be forced to bear the child of anyone who rapes her, but these are indeed very strange times we live in.
- by kathleen on Jun 23, 2006 at 11:29 PM | link
There are plenty of doctors who do not perform abortions. They do not see the ban on abortion as conflicting with their oath.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jun 25, 2006 at 10:40 PM | link