The South Dakota abortion ban has no exception for rape, incest or life of the pregnant woman. There are apparently quite a few people who think that anti-abortion laws should focus on punishing women for choosing to have sex, and therefore should offer an exception for those women who get pregnant through no fault of their own — that is, rape and incest survivors. These generous souls also believe that if pregnancy is going to give a woman kidney failure, or force her to have a hysterectomy, then she should also have access to a legal medical procedure. The folks who think along those lines have pushed forward a vote on abortion exceptions in South Dakota. So that is, normal slutty women still won’t have access to this procedure; those who had their personal autonomy taken away will be allowed to have abortions. Bill Napoli, of “pity only the sodomized Christian virgins” fame, has thoughts:
Wide open abortions
Elections should be about the truth. The debate about HB1215 may not be full of lies, but there’s a lot of mistruths and deception.
HB1215 is a law that can be changed during any legislative session. If the debate were really about rape and incest, why aren’t we talking about changing it in the next Legislature? Change it to something that works for all?
Defeat of HB1215 is not about exceptions, it’s about unlimited abortions. If you vote to repeal HB1215, you’re actually voting for abortion on demand, abortion as a means of birth control, and abortion for convenience.
If you vote to repeal HB1215, you’ll be voting for the death of 800 babies that didn’t have anything to do with rape or incest.
The truth! Repealing HB1215 is for wide-open abortions, not just rape and incest exceptions.
If you love babies, and see those cute little babies in the park, grocery store, mall, or cafe, think very carefully about your vote to repeal HB1215.
When you vote, are you going to vote to end the life of a baby, or are you going to vote to give that baby a chance to live? Vote Yes on 6.
State Sen. BILL NAPOLI
Sarcasm aside, I obviously think that a rape/incest/health exception is far better than no exception. I hope that this passes. I just take major issue with the idea that particular medical procedures should be available contingent on social approval of one’s behavioral choices. I think that the person who didn’t wear their seatbelt should have as high a level of medical care in the case of an accident as the person who drives with a seatbelt and a helmet on. I think that the person who eats french fries and potato chips occassionally should have the same access to heart surgery as the health nut who would never touch fried food. I think the woman who gets pregnant because she chooses to have sex should have the same access to abortion as the woman who has that choice taken away from her.
Bodily autonomy is a human right. Access to medical care should not be dependent on sexist moral judgments.
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
- Shocker: Sam Brownback supports forced pregnancy for rape and incest survivors by Jill June 11, 2007
- “Pro-Lifers” care about women’s lives so much that: by Jill March 31, 2007
- How To Stop Rape, Part 2 by zuzu April 21, 2006
- The forced pregnancy brigade targets rape and incest survivors and women with health complications in Colombia by Jill May 30, 2007
- Abortion is a Moral Good by Jill February 23, 2007