BAD NEWS FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota is about to enact a law banning abortion except to preserve the life of the mother. I think I heard that there were 800 abortions performed in South Dakota last year. They’re trying to get the case up to the Supreme Court to see what Roberts and Alito will do with it. Obviously they’re hoping for a decision endorsing the right of the states to regulate abortion any way they like, i.e. reversing Roe v. Wade, but they’ll probably settle for a broader set of restrictions than the states are currently allowed to impose, which is probably what they’ll wind up with.
I’ve never had an abortion myself, but I know several women who have, one of them very close to me. It hasn’t ruined any of their lives, though it did destroy the relationship of one of them with a really good guy whom she might otherwise have married. The world is full of things that can do that, and might have done it in that instance. I also once represented a young woman whose parents threw her out of the house because she wouldn’t get an abortion.
I do believe the US Constitution should protect a woman’s right not to be pregnant. I would vastly prefer to work out ways to do it that don’t involve abortion. But most pro-lifers don’t object to involuntary pregnancy and wouldn’t be willing to cooperate with me and those who share my beliefs to reach a middle ground. Certainly not if cooperating involved endorsing solid sex education and safe, reliable, accessible, reversible contraception.
But I think both sides in this impending battle may have lost sight of the real people making real decisions in South Dakota. The abortion controversy is no longer about an individual woman terminating a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about Which Side Are You On. I prefer the “pro-choice” side, because most of the people whose opinions I value are on it—but I don’t necessarily share all of those opinions, and neither, I suspect, do most pro-choice women of childbearing age in South Dakota. I’m no longer in that age bracket, which is just as well. Making a decision like that would be hard enough without all the shouting and side-taking. Face it, the most traditional “family value” these days is making life difficult for women.
I’ve never had an abortion myself, but I know several women who have, one of them very close to me. It hasn’t ruined any of their lives, though it did destroy the relationship of one of them with a really good guy whom she might otherwise have married. The world is full of things that can do that, and might have done it in that instance. I also once represented a young woman whose parents threw her out of the house because she wouldn’t get an abortion.
I do believe the US Constitution should protect a woman’s right not to be pregnant. I would vastly prefer to work out ways to do it that don’t involve abortion. But most pro-lifers don’t object to involuntary pregnancy and wouldn’t be willing to cooperate with me and those who share my beliefs to reach a middle ground. Certainly not if cooperating involved endorsing solid sex education and safe, reliable, accessible, reversible contraception.
But I think both sides in this impending battle may have lost sight of the real people making real decisions in South Dakota. The abortion controversy is no longer about an individual woman terminating a pregnancy, for whatever reason, and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s about Which Side Are You On. I prefer the “pro-choice” side, because most of the people whose opinions I value are on it—but I don’t necessarily share all of those opinions, and neither, I suspect, do most pro-choice women of childbearing age in South Dakota. I’m no longer in that age bracket, which is just as well. Making a decision like that would be hard enough without all the shouting and side-taking. Face it, the most traditional “family value” these days is making life difficult for women.
posted by WiredSisters at 4:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home