Is the South Dakota Abortion Ban Deader than Wood?

David Weigel | July 31, 2006

South Dakota's draconian abortion ban (first covered by Ronald Bailey here) is trailing in the polls.

According to the statewide poll, conducted for the Argus Leader and KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, 47 percent of voters polled would vote to reject the ban, compared with 39 percent who would vote to keep it. Another 14 percent were undecided.

Support for the current form of the abortion ban came equally from men and women and matched the statewide 39 percent. The political breakdown showed only 23 percent of Democrats support the proposed law, while 51 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents back it.

A solid majority (59 percent) would support an abortion ban with some exceptions, but if abortion rights activists are as organized as they claim to be, this law that prevents even a raped or underaged women from terminating her pregnancy is screwed.

Comments

|7.31.06 @ 4:05PM|#

I wonder what the results would be if the abortion ban included health and rape exceptions.

|7.31.06 @ 4:23PM|#

KELO-TV?? WTF? Now they're naming television stations after infamous SCOTUS opinions?

Jennifer|7.31.06 @ 4:23PM|#

Herrick, according to Republican state Senator Bill Napoli, the bill would make an exception for the health of a religious virgin who got ass-fucked:

A real-life description [of an exception] to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Raping a non-virgin atheist is okay, I suppose. I wonder if this mythical girl would have to sign affidavits to the effect that she was planning to save it for marriage and furthermore has accepted Christ as her lord and savior?

Unrelated question: why do people persist in believing that Republicans who try to pass laws regulating sex have sick, twisted, filthy little minds?

|7.31.06 @ 5:06PM|#

She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated

It would have to be a really brutal sodomizing for it to result in a pregnancy.

|7.31.06 @ 5:08PM|#

Wait. If she was sodomized, she won't get pregnant, so she wouldn't need an abortion. Do they skip the whole "How the Reproductive System" works in South Dakota sex ed classes? Or is this just a demonstration of why abstinence only sex ed sucks.

|7.31.06 @ 5:18PM|#

The problem with the rape, incest and health exceptions is that they completely undermine the law. I haven't seen such an exemption that would require a court order to implement.

Planned Parenthood would just photocopy a bunch of consent forms.

Check one:
I was drunk, and didn't mean to say yes.
I didn't know he was my cousin.
I don't want hemmorhoids.

Jennifer|7.31.06 @ 5:27PM|#

I think she was raped first, then sodomized. Although that makes me wonder just how quickly her attacker could get it up again after blowing his wad the first time? So I'm guessing what actually happened was rape (sans ejaculation), followed by sodomy (sans ejaculation), followed by a second rape with a happy ending for the rapist.

In all seriousness: I have a deep distrust for anyone who can so quickly, off the top of his head, reel off a description of a vile, filthy, nasty little thing he'd never, ever do. But even so, I'd have a lot more respect for Napoli if he hadn't felt the need to mention that this hypothetical victim was a religious virgin. What, does he think rape is only horrible if it happens to a first-timer who thinks God is watching and not doing a thing to stop it?

|7.31.06 @ 5:37PM|#

"Why do people persist in believing that Republicans who try to pass laws regulating sex have sick, twisted, filthy little minds?"

I think this is because (1) the GOP advocates repressing sexual urges, e.g., to bottle up the sexual energy, (2) like the priests do (who don't have the greatest reputation in this area), and (3) many in the GOP brass like to write tawdry sex novels (i.e., Lewis Libby's novel). Of course, given the GOP's anti-sex stance, there is a higher level of scrutiny (and blatant rumormongering) on these hypocritical mofos. Then there's the John Bolton group sex rumor, the Jeff Gannon thingamajig, Newt's, Rudy's and Henry Hyde's cheating on their wives, and on and on.

I suspect they aren't any worse than the Democrats, but given their anti-sex message, they get what they deserve.

|7.31.06 @ 5:45PM|#

That's totally bunk that rape and health exceptions undermine the law. If a woman flet she was raped, then if she goes to get an abortion, she will then file with the police to start a rape investigation.

If there's a health risk, then you can get like two or three doctors to sign off on there being health risks.

For the record, I'm for abortion on demand being legal until the beginning of the 2nd trimester or so and afterwards if there are risks to a woman's life or health. I think that the woman's right to her body and the fetus's right to develop are both two real rights, so some compromise needs to be developed to accomodate both of them to some degree.

|7.31.06 @ 6:38PM|#

Wasn't there a case that carved out an exception to the Irish abortion law based on the woman's stated intent to suicide if she didn't get the abortion? Wouldn't this law be susceptible to a similar development?

|7.31.06 @ 7:36PM|#

"Why do people persist in believing that Republicans who try to pass laws regulating sex have sick, twisted, filthy little minds?"

Besides the whole Fruedian thing, I think it could be that what consenting adults do is no of the Religious Right's business and that anyone who thinks that sex needs regulation has a sick, twisted, filthy and little mind.

Of course, according to GILMORE I'm wrong about everything I say about religion so I guess Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell are actually paragons of sexual liberation.

|7.31.06 @ 8:57PM|#

Jennifer,

How does this law regulate sex?

|7.31.06 @ 9:13PM|#

Because a large portion of the Religious Right's opposition to abortion and birth control has to do with their desire with controlling sex by making riskier. By denying birth control and holding the threat of STD's and unwanted pregnancy over people's heads, the Bible-beaters hope to create a sexual chilling environment that will discourage pre-marital and extra-martial sex and keep intercourse where they think it belongs: Between married couples for the sole purpose of creating more Christians. None of that sinful sex-for-pleasure stuff.

|7.31.06 @ 9:32PM|#

Edit: ...with their desire to control...

|7.31.06 @ 9:40PM|#

I used to be more pro-Life (I had it in my head that abortion was the murder of a defenseless pre-born human) than I was now, but I just got so turned off by being associated with the religious wackos who wanted to control other people's sex lifes (the people who made me vomit the most were the vile hypocrites who claimed to be "Pro-life" but also wanted gay adoption to be illegal), so I dropped caring about that issue. Then I read a bit more and thought a bit more and have blossomed into the moderately pro-choice young man you know and love today.

|7.31.06 @ 10:33PM|#

If you were trying to answer my question, Akira, you didn't.

|7.31.06 @ 10:47PM|#

If abortion is murder, and thus ought to be banned, then why is murdering your baby acceptable with some exceptions?

These quasi-pro-life types piss me off more than the pro-life ones. At least the real pro-life ones are intellectually consistent.

Jennifer|7.31.06 @ 10:54PM|#

I think he did, Crimethink. When Napoli talked about the "religious virgin" exception he let on more than he knew.

|7.31.06 @ 11:39PM|#

Jennifer,

So, the law regulates sex because its supporters want to regulate sex? Does that mean that the Terri Schiavo bill in Congress also regulated sex?

|8.1.06 @ 7:13AM|#

"If abortion is murder, and thus ought to be banned, then why is murdering your baby acceptable with some exceptions?"

I agree. Exceptions for rape or incest undermine the whole concept. If you think there should be such exceptions, then I can't fathom how you can be anything but solidly pro-choice in general.

|8.1.06 @ 7:18AM|#

"Besides the whole Fruedian thing"

Why do people persist in believing Freud had any clue what it was he was talking about.

He was a good man who was trying to help, but he was mostly wrong...

Jennifer|8.1.06 @ 8:29AM|#

No, Crimethink, the law goes out of its way to ensure that people (read: women) who have sex will have to suffer the maximum possible consequences, unless the girl was a religious virgin because good girls don't deserve to be punished for having sex the way bad girls do.

Hell, this religious virgin's fetus is just as much a full-fledged baby as anybody else's, supposedly. But hers can be done away with. If an atheist virgin, or a religious slut, is attacked, I wonder if Napoli would still be as sympathetic? Certainly he saw no need to say so.

|8.1.06 @ 11:52AM|#

That's totally bunk that rape and health exceptions undermine the law. If a woman flet she was raped, then if she goes to get an abortion, she will then file with the police to start a rape investigation.

File me under "it's not the baby's fault that mom was raped" but I did ask the question. So, are you going to wait for a conviction before allowing the abortion, or can she just file a police report against "John Doe." Who is going to prosecute the 17 year olds for filing false reports? That sounds like a fun job.

Given that all pregnancies involve a risk to the mother's health, how does allowing this exception not allow all abortions? You think Planned Parenthood doesn't have 2 doctors on each site willing to say that pregnancy is inherently risky to the mother? Just ask Jennifer. I do agree that this exception is morally defensible. Perhaps legislation would require confirmation from an unaffiliated doctor.

As a practical matter, I'd be in favor of allowing all abortions in the first 2 months, and then none thereafter. Conventional wisdom likes 3 months, so that's more likely to get passed.

Tangent One question I have about Plan B going over the counter is this: What happens when women start taking AFTER the rabbit dies? Is it harmless? Does it induce abortion? Does it cause birth defects? Who is liable for damages?

|8.1.06 @ 1:04PM|#

If you think it's just a walk in the park to go through a rape investigation, you're quite mistaken. Having to mess with filing with the police will be much more than enough disincentive to keep 95+% of the potential fakers away.