.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

I Hate Linux

Monday, January 29, 2007

Deceits in the Referred Law 6 debate: Part 4

Due to a few personal issues I have been neglecting this blog and my abortion series over the last few months and with the recent news of the South Dakota legislature having once again drafted legislation to ban most abortions in the state... I decided I should take one of the nearly completed posts I wrote back in October and November, complete it and try to finish this series.

For those who are new, be sure to check out the previous parts:

... so without further ado... Part 4:

From where I sat in the recent battle over the South Dakota abortion ban, it had always seemed to me that the pro-abortionists were on the on the defensive from the get go as not only were they the ones trying to fight Washington... errr, Pierre, they were trying to defend the status quo against a population (both local and national) whose views on abortion have been changing over the years and slowly beginning to favor some degree of restrictions on access to it.

All the while the pro-abortionists would work hard to point out as many flaws as they could in the proposed legislation, things the anti-abortionists for the most part poo-pooed or answered... or at least would answer a similarly sounding question that wasn't actually asked but fail to address the underlying point… but more on that another time...

Before beginning I must state that I do not mean for the following post to be in anyway construed as another attack on the pro-abortionist side... instead I mean it for to pose a few honest questions that I have been unable to answer.

With many on the pro-abortionist side rejecting the SD abortion ban law because of its lack of provisions for rape, incest and the health of the mother... I'm forced to wonder about potential abuses under a ban similar to the recently defeated one but that included such exceptions and that carried the same penalties.


Would we see an uptake in the number of alleged rapes several months after the supposed fact in order to allow the woman the abortion? If this were a serious possibility, how could such a case be avoided?

One way to reduce the likelihood of such abuse would be to require the filing of a police report just as insurance companies require for paying claims on a stolen car or other crimes.

If the report were required, would we have woman doing so and risk jail time for giving a false report to authorities and risk being charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor that could see them locked up for a year in the county jail?

Of course if that were to happen and the woman was successful in getting the abortion, she would be guilty under the new law as a Class 6 felony, just as those involved in the procedure would be... despite the fact that they did not know of the false report at the time and all be eligible for up to 2 years in the state penn.

Granted, what I am saying says nothing about a 'woman's right to choose' or her general access to abortion on demand. I am simple pondering about how things would work under such a ban.

I should also pause to say that any comments that are along the lines of the 'it's her body' argument, or any argument for that matter that claims that a woman has an unequivocal right to an abortion will be deleted as this post is not talking about a woman's right to an abortion but instead about the legality of access under such a theoretical a ban.


In the case of consensual incest (because non-consensual is rape), would we really see the women involved reporting themselves and their family member's transgressions? Let's not forget that incest in South Dakota can be a class 3 or class 5 felony depending on the age of the participants and can range from 5 to 25 years in the state pen.

Health of the mother

While I've already discussed this previously, I am forced to wonder here too about potential abuses, after all, how to we define 'health of the mother' for one? With such an exception does the health of the mother include general comfort? Mental wellbeing? Threats of self harm?

While the previously proposed law is not specific, I would expect that under such legislation as well as any more permissive one, the ability to get an abortion would be treated similarly to ones ability to get prescription drugs... only by a doctor's order.

The one exception to this I suspect would be with a police report in hand stating under perjury that the pregnancy was the direct result of a rape.

Unfortunately under such a system, any doctor who would authorize an abortion for their patient would be opening themselves up to potential liability should they knowingly or unknowingly proscribe it for a woman who does not actually fit under the current provisions.

Once again I've got to ask the question, under an abortion ban that allows for it in the case of rape, incest and the health of the mother, short of repeal of the ban... how can the likelihood of abuse be reduced?

Please note that just like my previous posts on this subject, there will be an upcoming post where I examine some of the issues likely to be encountered under a ban such as the recently defeated one or the more permissive one now before the legislature.

I've also got to say real quick that I absolutely love the South Dakota Codified Laws page.


Post a Comment

<< Home