Letter to South Dakota's governor.
.
I've been stewing for days about South Dakota's ban on abortions. Somewhere, I was directed to SaveRoe.com. Among other things, it has a place to send a letter of protest to Governor Stan Rounds, with a copy sent to the governor of your state.
Click here if you want to do it, too.
Of course, in my usual long-winded fashion, my letter was far too long to fit in the allowed space. (Only 4000 characters; what a crock!) But I've spent two long evenings working on this, and I feel very strongly about it. So, I divided it into three parts, and sent each part under one of my alternate emails. (I tried to send under the same email, but it wouldn't go through.) In other words, if you do decide to write, keep the limit in mind, and count your characters in Word.
Realistically, I know that it won't make any difference; their minds are closed to logic and sense, or they wouldn't have enacted this law in the first place. But, I feel the issue is too important to relegate to the status of "sound bites"; I wanted to present a (hopefully) fully-reasoned argument, and have it in front of them. No excuses for them to say, "We didn't think of that."
I think all of you who read my journal have similar reactions about this idiotic law; I'm preaching to the choir, and you will be aware of everything I've written. But if you're interested in my thoughts, and the letter that I just sent to two governors, look
The new South Dakota law prohibits abortion except where the pregnancy is a direct threat to the life of the mother, or -- possibly -- in a case of brutal rape, such as that outlined by Senator Bill Napoli --
1) "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
Hmm... let's break this down.
a) "She was a virgin." Is "brutally raped and sodomized" less traumatic if the girl has sexual experience? What would make this savage act acceptable? If she's already experienced two previous sexual encounters? Five? Ten? Twenty? Let's go for broke. Say a girl has had one hundred previous sexual experiences. Why does that make "brutally savaged and sodomized" okay?
b) "She was religious." Most people are. Jews are religious. Muslims are religious. Bahá'ís are religious. Even Pagans are religious. So, which religion counts? Is this type of rape only bad if the girl is a Christian? But which "flavor" of Christian -- does she have to be Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, for this rape to be bad? What about Seventh Day Adventists, or Mormons? Which religion does she have to belong to, to make her exempt from the mental trauma of being forced to carry her rapist's child? Maybe the rapist should check, and only attack Atheists -- then he can be as savage as he wants, and it's not a crime.
c) "I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." Yes, that girl -- and ANY girl, of ANY description would be equally "messed up" by such an experience. Age, religion, previous sexual experience will not cushion ANY woman from such a trauma. So, why deny her an abortion if she needs it?
But, you've stated your position -- if a situation is desperate enough, abortion might be acceptable in your eyes. So, what about the following situations --
2) She's eleven years old, and daddy comes into her room at night. "Don't tell," he says, "this is a special way to prove you love me." She's scared, confused, in trauma from what is happening to her. Neither her body nor her mind are ready to support a pregnancy to term.
3) She's sixteen, and flattered to be dating the eighteen-year-old senior. Even her parents approve; he's a "nice" boy, goes to their church. She thought she would have a good time at the party. He slipped some date-rape drug into her drink and raped her, then invited his friends to have fun too. She's mentally shattered, and can't even know which man impregnated her.
4) She's nineteen, and went to a sorority party which she knew her girlfriends would also be attending. She was careful; never let her drink out of her sight, and had only two alcoholic drinks all evening. When the party became a bit rowdy, she decided that she would be safer to leave. As she walked out to her car, two of the men followed her outside, dragged her into the shadows and raped her. Those inside could not hear her screams because of the loud music.
5) She's twenty and already has three children. She and her husband have been careful, but the condom broke. They are living on the edge of poverty; he has a minimum wage job, and she can't work because of the babies. A fourth child will push them over the edge; all of the children will suffer as they go on welfare, have less to eat, have more illnesses because of poor living conditions. They become "troubled" kids that cost the schools more to educate, and eventually cost the taxpayers money to incarcerate them.
6) She's twenty-one and single, just graduated from college, and working at a job that has great career potential. Her car is at the mechanic's for a tune-up, so she accepts a ride home from her co-worker. After all, she's been working with him for six months; he's shown that he's a gentleman, and therefore "safe". But he drives her to a secluded spot and rapes her. Her career involves a lot of travel, which she won't be able to continue once she has a baby; the company "lets her go". The minimum-wage job that is now all she can get barely provides food for the table and babysitting services while she works. Because she cannot provide adequately, the child grows up sickly, neglected, does not do well in school, and is addicted to alcohol and drugs by the age of fifteen -- a drain on society rather than a contributing member.
7) She's thirty-three, has one child already, and is eagerly looking forward to another. Amniocentesis indicates that the child will be born appallingly handicapped -- blind and severely mentally retarded; it will never walk or talk, or know anything outside the bars of its crib. Medical care and subsequent treatments will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars before the child dies at nine years of age, leaving her shattered. In the meantime, her marriage and her other child suffer, because all of her focus is on the sick one, every minute of every day. Her health suffers because she never has a respite; there are no baby sitters that will take over for a few hours.
8) She's forty-five, and taking care of an adult handicapped child, and a parent whose health is deteriorating from Alzheimer's. She thought she was past the age of conception -- hadn't had a period in four months when she conceived. She is already stretched to the limit physically and emotionally, and the family's finances are shaky. If the pregnancy carries to term, her husband will decide that he can't take any more; he'll divorce her and leave. She is now trying to take care of two incapable people without support as she slips into poverty; the baby will grow up with inadequate attention, care, food. (see scenario #5)
Tell me - why are these women less deserving of a safe, legal abortion than your raped, Christian virgin? Note that scenarios #2, #3, #4 and #6 were also virgin rapes. Why do you think their rapes are less traumatic than the scenario you outlined? In each of these cases, the birth of another child because the woman is FORCED to carry it to term will not be a cause for celebration; instead, it will be the catalyst that has severe negative impact of a number of other people. Why are the people already alive less important than a blob of cells that hasn't yet even separated out distinct arms and legs? Life must be protected, yes -- but why does one POTENTIAL life weigh heaver than two, or three, or four, or more CURRENT lives?
Your law states "that 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." Let's analyze this --
a) protect the rights, -- But you've taken away her rights to the integrity of her own body and her whole life, by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, you are holding her body -- her entire life -- hostage to the violent actions of a criminal. By no stretch of the imagination is this a protection of her rights.
b) interests, -- How does it benefit her "interests" to undergo a life-changing event that will throw her into poverty, and keep her struggling for at least the next eighteen years?
c) and health of the pregnant mother -- Realistically, pregnancy is dangerous. Many women choose to take that risk. For others, pregnancy will result in lifelong, debilitating conditions, such as gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, blindness, and others. Yet your law makes exceptions only for the possible death of the mother. If she "merely" is in danger of developing lifelong medical problems, she still must carry the pregnancy to term. How is this "protecting her health"?
d) "the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child," -- The right to grow up in poverty, or an abusive or neglectful home? The right to live with painful, debilitating physical and mental handicaps? Is not quality of life important?
e) "and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child," -- The XX chromosomes do not automatically convey maternal feelings. Being forced into an unwanted pregnancy is hardly likely to contribute to the development of such feelings.
This law is placing a negative stigma on a woman who is trying to preserve the emotional, physical, and mental well being of her life and the lives of those already dependent upon her. Abortion is a method of self-defense and protection for her and her world.
No woman wants an abortion, but birth control methods fail. Men rape in a variety of ways and situations, not just in a back alley. How dare a society -- in this case, a bunch of politicians -- decide that she MUST care for a pregnancy forced on her through violence or failed birth control? She is the ONLY one who can make that determination.
The choice is not easy or simple, as too many people make it sound. It is not black or white; there are hundreds of shades of grey. If society forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of circumstances or her considered decision, we reduce women to the status of a pregnant cow. We claim, in effect, that the woman is no more than a walking incubator, that she has no value other than her ability to bear children. This is slavery, no more and no less.
A woman who wants to become a mother loves her unborn child, but love cannot be legislated or forced. Unwanted children are often neglected and/or abused, and become a greater burden on society. The way to encourage all children to be loved and cared for is to make sure that all children are wanted children. Women should have easy access to reliable, inexpensive birth control. Men (yes, even young men) should be taught to use condoms every time they engage in sexual relations. The law should punish date rapists and incest-abuse as stringently as it punishes the stereotypical stranger rapist in a dark alley.
Then -- THEN -- unwanted pregnancies will become less common, and abortion will decrease to tolerable numbers. This law will not do that. It will merely ensure that desperate women break the law and die from unsafe, unsanitary, home abortions, either self-induced or at the hands of an incompetent practitioner. This is not progress; it is simply arrogant, high-handed stupidity.
ETA: Followed a series of links, and found this graphic account of What the lack of a health exception means in real life.
.
I've been stewing for days about South Dakota's ban on abortions. Somewhere, I was directed to SaveRoe.com. Among other things, it has a place to send a letter of protest to Governor Stan Rounds, with a copy sent to the governor of your state.
Click here if you want to do it, too.
Of course, in my usual long-winded fashion, my letter was far too long to fit in the allowed space. (Only 4000 characters; what a crock!) But I've spent two long evenings working on this, and I feel very strongly about it. So, I divided it into three parts, and sent each part under one of my alternate emails. (I tried to send under the same email, but it wouldn't go through.) In other words, if you do decide to write, keep the limit in mind, and count your characters in Word.
Realistically, I know that it won't make any difference; their minds are closed to logic and sense, or they wouldn't have enacted this law in the first place. But, I feel the issue is too important to relegate to the status of "sound bites"; I wanted to present a (hopefully) fully-reasoned argument, and have it in front of them. No excuses for them to say, "We didn't think of that."
I think all of you who read my journal have similar reactions about this idiotic law; I'm preaching to the choir, and you will be aware of everything I've written. But if you're interested in my thoughts, and the letter that I just sent to two governors, look
The new South Dakota law prohibits abortion except where the pregnancy is a direct threat to the life of the mother, or -- possibly -- in a case of brutal rape, such as that outlined by Senator Bill Napoli --
1) "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
Hmm... let's break this down.
a) "She was a virgin." Is "brutally raped and sodomized" less traumatic if the girl has sexual experience? What would make this savage act acceptable? If she's already experienced two previous sexual encounters? Five? Ten? Twenty? Let's go for broke. Say a girl has had one hundred previous sexual experiences. Why does that make "brutally savaged and sodomized" okay?
b) "She was religious." Most people are. Jews are religious. Muslims are religious. Bahá'ís are religious. Even Pagans are religious. So, which religion counts? Is this type of rape only bad if the girl is a Christian? But which "flavor" of Christian -- does she have to be Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, for this rape to be bad? What about Seventh Day Adventists, or Mormons? Which religion does she have to belong to, to make her exempt from the mental trauma of being forced to carry her rapist's child? Maybe the rapist should check, and only attack Atheists -- then he can be as savage as he wants, and it's not a crime.
c) "I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." Yes, that girl -- and ANY girl, of ANY description would be equally "messed up" by such an experience. Age, religion, previous sexual experience will not cushion ANY woman from such a trauma. So, why deny her an abortion if she needs it?
But, you've stated your position -- if a situation is desperate enough, abortion might be acceptable in your eyes. So, what about the following situations --
2) She's eleven years old, and daddy comes into her room at night. "Don't tell," he says, "this is a special way to prove you love me." She's scared, confused, in trauma from what is happening to her. Neither her body nor her mind are ready to support a pregnancy to term.
3) She's sixteen, and flattered to be dating the eighteen-year-old senior. Even her parents approve; he's a "nice" boy, goes to their church. She thought she would have a good time at the party. He slipped some date-rape drug into her drink and raped her, then invited his friends to have fun too. She's mentally shattered, and can't even know which man impregnated her.
4) She's nineteen, and went to a sorority party which she knew her girlfriends would also be attending. She was careful; never let her drink out of her sight, and had only two alcoholic drinks all evening. When the party became a bit rowdy, she decided that she would be safer to leave. As she walked out to her car, two of the men followed her outside, dragged her into the shadows and raped her. Those inside could not hear her screams because of the loud music.
5) She's twenty and already has three children. She and her husband have been careful, but the condom broke. They are living on the edge of poverty; he has a minimum wage job, and she can't work because of the babies. A fourth child will push them over the edge; all of the children will suffer as they go on welfare, have less to eat, have more illnesses because of poor living conditions. They become "troubled" kids that cost the schools more to educate, and eventually cost the taxpayers money to incarcerate them.
6) She's twenty-one and single, just graduated from college, and working at a job that has great career potential. Her car is at the mechanic's for a tune-up, so she accepts a ride home from her co-worker. After all, she's been working with him for six months; he's shown that he's a gentleman, and therefore "safe". But he drives her to a secluded spot and rapes her. Her career involves a lot of travel, which she won't be able to continue once she has a baby; the company "lets her go". The minimum-wage job that is now all she can get barely provides food for the table and babysitting services while she works. Because she cannot provide adequately, the child grows up sickly, neglected, does not do well in school, and is addicted to alcohol and drugs by the age of fifteen -- a drain on society rather than a contributing member.
7) She's thirty-three, has one child already, and is eagerly looking forward to another. Amniocentesis indicates that the child will be born appallingly handicapped -- blind and severely mentally retarded; it will never walk or talk, or know anything outside the bars of its crib. Medical care and subsequent treatments will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars before the child dies at nine years of age, leaving her shattered. In the meantime, her marriage and her other child suffer, because all of her focus is on the sick one, every minute of every day. Her health suffers because she never has a respite; there are no baby sitters that will take over for a few hours.
8) She's forty-five, and taking care of an adult handicapped child, and a parent whose health is deteriorating from Alzheimer's. She thought she was past the age of conception -- hadn't had a period in four months when she conceived. She is already stretched to the limit physically and emotionally, and the family's finances are shaky. If the pregnancy carries to term, her husband will decide that he can't take any more; he'll divorce her and leave. She is now trying to take care of two incapable people without support as she slips into poverty; the baby will grow up with inadequate attention, care, food. (see scenario #5)
Tell me - why are these women less deserving of a safe, legal abortion than your raped, Christian virgin? Note that scenarios #2, #3, #4 and #6 were also virgin rapes. Why do you think their rapes are less traumatic than the scenario you outlined? In each of these cases, the birth of another child because the woman is FORCED to carry it to term will not be a cause for celebration; instead, it will be the catalyst that has severe negative impact of a number of other people. Why are the people already alive less important than a blob of cells that hasn't yet even separated out distinct arms and legs? Life must be protected, yes -- but why does one POTENTIAL life weigh heaver than two, or three, or four, or more CURRENT lives?
Your law states "that 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." Let's analyze this --
a) protect the rights, -- But you've taken away her rights to the integrity of her own body and her whole life, by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, you are holding her body -- her entire life -- hostage to the violent actions of a criminal. By no stretch of the imagination is this a protection of her rights.
b) interests, -- How does it benefit her "interests" to undergo a life-changing event that will throw her into poverty, and keep her struggling for at least the next eighteen years?
c) and health of the pregnant mother -- Realistically, pregnancy is dangerous. Many women choose to take that risk. For others, pregnancy will result in lifelong, debilitating conditions, such as gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, blindness, and others. Yet your law makes exceptions only for the possible death of the mother. If she "merely" is in danger of developing lifelong medical problems, she still must carry the pregnancy to term. How is this "protecting her health"?
d) "the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child," -- The right to grow up in poverty, or an abusive or neglectful home? The right to live with painful, debilitating physical and mental handicaps? Is not quality of life important?
e) "and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child," -- The XX chromosomes do not automatically convey maternal feelings. Being forced into an unwanted pregnancy is hardly likely to contribute to the development of such feelings.
This law is placing a negative stigma on a woman who is trying to preserve the emotional, physical, and mental well being of her life and the lives of those already dependent upon her. Abortion is a method of self-defense and protection for her and her world.
No woman wants an abortion, but birth control methods fail. Men rape in a variety of ways and situations, not just in a back alley. How dare a society -- in this case, a bunch of politicians -- decide that she MUST care for a pregnancy forced on her through violence or failed birth control? She is the ONLY one who can make that determination.
The choice is not easy or simple, as too many people make it sound. It is not black or white; there are hundreds of shades of grey. If society forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of circumstances or her considered decision, we reduce women to the status of a pregnant cow. We claim, in effect, that the woman is no more than a walking incubator, that she has no value other than her ability to bear children. This is slavery, no more and no less.
A woman who wants to become a mother loves her unborn child, but love cannot be legislated or forced. Unwanted children are often neglected and/or abused, and become a greater burden on society. The way to encourage all children to be loved and cared for is to make sure that all children are wanted children. Women should have easy access to reliable, inexpensive birth control. Men (yes, even young men) should be taught to use condoms every time they engage in sexual relations. The law should punish date rapists and incest-abuse as stringently as it punishes the stereotypical stranger rapist in a dark alley.
Then -- THEN -- unwanted pregnancies will become less common, and abortion will decrease to tolerable numbers. This law will not do that. It will merely ensure that desperate women break the law and die from unsafe, unsanitary, home abortions, either self-induced or at the hands of an incompetent practitioner. This is not progress; it is simply arrogant, high-handed stupidity.
ETA: Followed a series of links, and found this graphic account of What the lack of a health exception means in real life.
.