A lot of people are asking that question following our abortion ban. Some reactions are downright absurd. Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Columbian is looking at it differently: "South Dakota can teach us a few lessons." Excerpt:
In reading about South Dakota's abortion climate, however, I think that state has a lot to teach us. The state already treats abortion in a way that would have Washingtonians throwing their double mochas at Olympia lawmakers. According to the Guttmacher Institute (www.guttmacher.org), when it comes to abortion Washington and South Dakota are as different as Sturgis and Seattle. In 2000, South Dakota had two abortion providers; Washington had 53. In Washington, no metropolitan area lacked an abortion provider; in South Dakota, one metropolitan area lacked an abortion provider.
Washington does not have any major abortion restrictions. South Dakota has among the most: parental notification; state-directed counseling; 24-hour waiting periods; and public funding for abortions limited to life-threatening cases.
But look at this: In Washington, 126,910 of the 1,294,501 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 1996. Sixty-four percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 21 percent in induced abortions. That mirrors national percentages. What about South Dakota? Of the 158,436 women of reproductive age, 13,540 became pregnant in 1996. Seventy-six percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births. Only 8 percent resulted in induced abortions. Eight percent compared to 21 percent. That's dramatic.
If pro-choicers are serious when they say they share the pro-life goal of making abortion rare, they have to admit South Dakota is on to something.
Recent Comments