In A Word: Abortion
Gerald Eisman
April 20, 2006
Abortion: 1. Induced termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival. 2. A miscarriage. 3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
IN 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that women had the right to terminate pregnancies. The ruling has held against assaults for its reversal ever since that decision was made. Once again, the forces that seek to change that ruling are on the march.
Most recently, Rep. Roger W. Hunt, Republican from South Dakota, sponsored a bill making it a felony for a physician in the state of South Dakota to perform an abortion of any kind except if it is to save the life of a pregnant woman. The bill is designed to force a reexamination of Roe v Wade by a loaded court led by two Bush appointees.
The measure, as written, passed in the South Dakota Senate by a 23 to 12 vote and was signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds, also a Republican, who opposes abortion.
"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant-future," Hunt said. He expressed delight that anti-abortionists were able to defeat any amendment that would mitigate the harshness of the bill, including exceptions for rape, incest or other extenuating circumstances. Such changes, Hunt added, would dilute the strength of the bill and its impact on the national scene.
The Director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, Kate Looby expressed shock at the vote, calling it a devastating day for the women of South Dakota. As she expressed it, the move was fully expected, but not as restrictive as it is.
In 1992, the Supreme Court again affirmed the right of women to have an abortion in a case called Planned Parenthood v Casey. In that decision, the court said that states cannot put undue burden on women getting access to abortions.
As this writer sees it, this assault is not so much on abortions as it is on the right of an individual to make a choice. In this case, the individual is any woman who finds herself pregnant and hasn't the means or the desire to bring another mouth to feed, another mind to nourish into a world that gives no quarter. This is simply stated, the imposition of ones will over another's.
The anti-abortion movement in recent years has focused on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions to access to abortions. This effort includes pushes for parental notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed.
To some, the enactment of the law is moot as the state is one of the most difficult in the country in which to get an abortion. There is only one provider of that service, Planned Parenthood of Sioux Falls. The catch is, they only do the procedure once a week. Moreover, there are four doctors who perform the procedure and they must be flown in from Minnesota as no local physician will do it, that because of the heavy stigma put on it by state resident.
Regardless of challenges and reviews, the ultimate problem is this. Why are the women of this country willing to stand by and let one of their basic rights, the right of choice, to be taken from them? By standing by and letting just one right be taken, they open the door to all rights becoming vulnerable to attack and repeal.
The right of choice is basic to every thinking human being. It is a God given right and should not be subject to the whim or fancy of a zealot, be he Republican or Democrat. I would ask those who would legislate away that right if they are willing to carry a child to term and hand it over for adoption or, better yet, support the child till the age of 18.
It is very easy to pontificate or legislate when the burden of such pontification of legislation does not fall upon the shoulders of those voting for it.
IN 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that women had the right to terminate pregnancies. The ruling has held against assaults for its reversal ever since that decision was made. Once again, the forces that seek to change that ruling are on the march.
Most recently, Rep. Roger W. Hunt, Republican from South Dakota, sponsored a bill making it a felony for a physician in the state of South Dakota to perform an abortion of any kind except if it is to save the life of a pregnant woman. The bill is designed to force a reexamination of Roe v Wade by a loaded court led by two Bush appointees.
The measure, as written, passed in the South Dakota Senate by a 23 to 12 vote and was signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds, also a Republican, who opposes abortion.
"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant-future," Hunt said. He expressed delight that anti-abortionists were able to defeat any amendment that would mitigate the harshness of the bill, including exceptions for rape, incest or other extenuating circumstances. Such changes, Hunt added, would dilute the strength of the bill and its impact on the national scene.
The Director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, Kate Looby expressed shock at the vote, calling it a devastating day for the women of South Dakota. As she expressed it, the move was fully expected, but not as restrictive as it is.
In 1992, the Supreme Court again affirmed the right of women to have an abortion in a case called Planned Parenthood v Casey. In that decision, the court said that states cannot put undue burden on women getting access to abortions.
As this writer sees it, this assault is not so much on abortions as it is on the right of an individual to make a choice. In this case, the individual is any woman who finds herself pregnant and hasn't the means or the desire to bring another mouth to feed, another mind to nourish into a world that gives no quarter. This is simply stated, the imposition of ones will over another's.
The anti-abortion movement in recent years has focused on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions to access to abortions. This effort includes pushes for parental notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed.
To some, the enactment of the law is moot as the state is one of the most difficult in the country in which to get an abortion. There is only one provider of that service, Planned Parenthood of Sioux Falls. The catch is, they only do the procedure once a week. Moreover, there are four doctors who perform the procedure and they must be flown in from Minnesota as no local physician will do it, that because of the heavy stigma put on it by state resident.
Regardless of challenges and reviews, the ultimate problem is this. Why are the women of this country willing to stand by and let one of their basic rights, the right of choice, to be taken from them? By standing by and letting just one right be taken, they open the door to all rights becoming vulnerable to attack and repeal.
The right of choice is basic to every thinking human being. It is a God given right and should not be subject to the whim or fancy of a zealot, be he Republican or Democrat. I would ask those who would legislate away that right if they are willing to carry a child to term and hand it over for adoption or, better yet, support the child till the age of 18.
It is very easy to pontificate or legislate when the burden of such pontification of legislation does not fall upon the shoulders of those voting for it.
Print
Email
