Whether the South Dakota Legislature should once again take up the abortion issue is a matter of some ambivalence. Yes, we might be experiencing abortion law fatigue. On the other hand, the dang laws keep passing the legislature, so there must be some support out there.
The opposition to the latest law restricting abortion does seem a bit disingenuous. During the Referred Law 6 campaign what we heard was the "no exceptions" mantra. We were told this law was too extreme because it did not have exceptions for rape and incest. Well, now we have a bill that includes those exceptions. The usual abortion-rights suspects (see here, here, here, and CHAD seems to be down, but go here and see if the site is back up), rail against it. I take it back. The opposition to the new law is not disingenuous. It was the reasoning behind the opposition to Referred Law 6 that was disingenuous. The abortion rights advocates weren't opposed to that law because it didn't have the right exceptions. That was mere rhetoric. They opposed because they want to make abortion as easy as possible. It wasn't Referred Law 6 that was too extreme. It is any bill that restricts access to abortion in any way that is too extreme. The opposition to the new bill shows us that they will oppose any bill that does not allow abortion on demand. Remember the Clinton mantra of "safe, legal and rare"? Well, the abortion rights advocates in South Dakota are sure they want abortion legal. I assume they also want it safe, although legal and safe often seems to mean the same thing to them. But rare? Not a chance.
Does it not seem odd that we take it as a matter of course that adults inhaling tobacco smoke into their lungs is an important public question about which we need more and more regulations and taxation, but the matter of when human life begins and what protection we should give to it is a considered simply a matter of personal preference of no public significance?
Recent Comments