Log In | Register
Let me be honest with you. Up front and in the open. My personal regard for abortion is that it is at best, an unfortunate occurrence. Its practice within our borders should be deplored not as sin, but as a sad indictment of our society. A society wherein any potential mother should fear for any reason that bringing a new life into this world would result in pain and suffering. That abortions occur, is a regrettable side effect of our nation's abject failure to take care of children, no matter the socioeconomic scale upon which they might enter this world.
That said, I find the choice of whether or not to bear a child to be personal. It is a choice that can only be made by the person who will ultimately be responsible for that child. So long as the state is not only unwilling to assume but also to excel at that responsibility, it has no business here.
This is my opinion. This is after all, an opinion-editorial piece.
But let us not dwell entirely on opinions here. Let us attempt to examine facts. Let us avoid the intemperance of passion or belief and focus rather on what can be proven. Scientifically. Measurably. Let us engage in a discussion of reason.
Recent History of Abortion in South Dakota
In 2004 the South Dakota Legislature passed laws strictly limiting access to abortion. The opening statement of the law included the following language:
"The Legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm. The Legislature finds that the explosion of knowledge derived from new recombinant DNA technologies over the past twenty-five years has reinforced the validity of the finding of this scientific fact."
Each provision of the law was carefully worded to indicate that these laws would be statutorily repealed in the event of a Supreme Court decision giving states the right to abolish abortion.
Previous to these laws, bear in mind that the 2000 Census reported the following facts about South Dakota:
In 1999, only 14% of child support cases in South Dakota received some sort of support.
In 1999, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in South Dakota was $485,28. 54% of the average monthly income for a worker earning the minimum wage,
An estimated 19,119 children in South Dakota were uninsured. Of these, 40% were potentially eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, and other state-sponsored programs, but were not enrolled.
During 1998, $28,677,300, or $38.85 per capita, was spent on the public child welfare system, including federal, state, and local resources. Nationwide, $57.75 per capita was spent.
Not exactly shining statistics for any poor woman faced with the proposition of bringing a child into the world.
Less than a week ago, the legislature superseded that law with House Bill 1191. The new bill outlaws all abortion including in cases of rape and incest. The only exception is in cases where the mother's life is endangered. The introductory language of the former bill was replaced with the following:
The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefore finds that unborn human life begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.
Note the more vague assertion of scientific findings. The elimination of references to recombinant DNA. Why the change?
Both versions of the bill were carefully worded to avoid any encroachment into the issue of contraception. Never mind the fact that in January of '05 the same legislature voted to kill a resolution requiring health insurance companies in South Dakota to offer coverage for prescription contraceptives. Health care costs are spiraling out of control, and costs must be kept in check. Not to mention the words of that particular committee's vice chairman, who stated that the bill could be detrimental to the state's insurance industry, which is working to recruit more companies into the state.
The main proponent of the revised abortion bill, State Rep. Roger Hunt states the following in a USA Today Op-Ed piece entitled "Our time has come".
In 2005, South Dakota created a 17-member state task force to gather information and evidence about abortions. The task force received testimony and materials from many national and international medical and scientific experts on abortions and unborn children, and more than 2,000 affidavits from women who had had abortions. The task force concluded that life begins at conception and that abortions harm women."
The Committee's Report
The passage of House Bill 1191 was preceded by a 17 member Commission formed ostensibly to study the facts of abortion and issue recommendations based on it's findings to both the State Legislature and the Governor. Upon perusing their report, several questions come to mind.
The report touts the testimony of over 2000 women who have had abortions. Their testimony indicates consequences of depression, suicidal tendencies, as well as other adverse psychological effects resulting from the performed abortion. Advocates tout this research as incontrovertible evidence that abortion is harmful to women.
What they fail to elucidate is the fact that every one of these women had sought counseling to deal with their psychological difficulties following their procedures. Women who felt compelled to seek professional assistance as a result of aborting their children suffered from psychological complications. How novel.
Of course, were the members of the commission actual scientists, they may well have realized that selecting your test subjects from a single pool of experiences is apt to produce the same result.
Did the commission hear from anyone who suffered no complications at all from the termination of their pregnancy? Doubtful, since they apparently weren't interested in hearing any point of view different from the preconceived notions already held.
The commission cites that medical science has proven that life begins at conception. This is news to me. Perhaps what they meant to say is that some scientists who have previously testified in anti-abortion cases continue to assert this position. The main doctor in question was cited as an expert due to years of working with recombinant DNA research and having been awarded Inventor of the Year in 1986 for work which had absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
The primary assertion appears to be that if the DNA of the fetus is different from the mother's DNA then the fetus is a unique human being capable of personality as well as the ability to feel pain. I'm not entirely sure I understand how uniqueness translates to sentience/identity or awareness of pain. It's highly debated within the medical community whether a fetus possesses even the barest ability to feel pain until at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy. And even then whether the existence of pain is recognizable as more than just another sensation at any but the latest stages of development.
The footnotes of the report conclude:
Although the Task Force was not mandated to discuss and make recommendations regarding sexuality education, this issue was brought to the attention of the Task Force throughout the testimony, and was discussed extensively. It is clear that sexuality education and abortion are undoubtedly connected. We find that abstinence until marriage education based upon character development is foundational in decreasing unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS.
We find that almost everyone can agree that sexual activity for minors is harmful. To promote a message of "comprehensive sex education" (i.e. sex education based upon the promotion of contraception) is confusing and dangerous. It is inconsistent with the message of "Just Say No" since abstinence from sexual activity is the only completely reliable means of preventing pregnancy and disease.
Further, contraceptive sex education instills a mentality that abortion is a "back up" for failed contraception, thus the promotion of "emergency contraception" drugs which can act as early abortifacients. No objective studies of contraceptive sex education programs have proven to result in the reduction of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Conversely, studies have shown that contraceptive sex education results in an increase in sexual activity.
Agenda, anyone? Honestly, if simply telling teenagers not to have sex were a completely reliable means of preventing pregnancy, half of you would not be here to read this article.
Conclusions
In all honesty, I find myself shocked at the naked slanting and shaping of what is presented as scientific fact in this report.
If the the State Legislature of South Dakota had decided on this law after a course of impartial investigation, I would brook no argument. If the majority of our scientific and medical community were to come to some consensus on these issues to the point of agreeing that human life in fact begins at conception, I would be the first to rethink my position. If the vast majority of women were to agree that abortion fundamentally endangers their well being, I might agree that the practice should be ended.
But this isn't the case here. Instead the legislators of South Dakota have engaged in intellectual fraud, and as such they have trampled the civil rights of an entire population of women.
A shame upon your house, Dakota. In the guise of protecting the unborn, in the guise of preventing what you see to be murder, have you no other recourse than "lies, lies, and damn lies?"
What if instead of this approach, the State of South Dakota were to work towards guaranteeing the standard of living for all of its children. Making sure that they were all insured. Ensuring that none ever went hungry? Turning their education system into palaces of learning. Might that not eliminate the reasons for abortion in the first place?
Easier to turn doctors into criminals. Easier to cast the hopeless into alleys. Far from the eyes of decent Dakotans everywhere. After all, you already told them to just say no? What more do they deserve?
