Real Love Incorporated - Articles » Should South Dakota Allow "Exceptions"?

So the South Dakota legislature has passed a law banning abortion.

I’m not entirely certain what to think of the whole thing. I’m elated, of course, that any state’s elected officials would have the courage to make such a move. I would love to see abortions actually banned in South Dakota, but of course that won’t happen – at least not anytime soon. The law stands in direct violation of Roe vs. Wade. So, it will be immediately enjoined, and the lawsuits will begin their slow trek up to the Supreme Court, which was the whole idea anyway.

My one concern is the timing. Of course, any time is a good time to stop the practice of snuffing out prenatal life, and start working toward solutions that help women and their children. But will that actually happen? If the Supreme Court were to find the South Dakota law constitutional, they will be overturning Roe. If, however, the Court were to find the law unconstitutional, the decision will serve to reaffirm and to strengthen Roe, and make it much more difficult to overturn in the future.

Currently, there are four justices – Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Aleto – who would likely vote to overturn Roe. Four out of nine. Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old.   It is not inconceivable that he could retire before the end of President Bush’s second term.

I’d rather wait for one more justice.

I’m struck by something else – the national discussion over the limits this law sets. The South Dakota law allows an exception only in cases where the life – not the health – of the mother would be in danger if the pregnancy were to go to term.

What the law doesn’t allow is exceptions in cases of rape and incest. This apparently troubles a lot of people. I heard today that a poll found that 70% of Americans favor such exceptions – including, most likely, many of you.

I’d like to look at that for a minute.

I think our support of rape and incest exceptions is often a sort of “knee-jerk” response. After all, who could possibly feel anything but incredibly pity and sympathy for the victims of these heinous crimes? We don’t want them to suffer any more than they have to. To “force” them to carry a child to term seems downright cruel.

Let’s begin by talking about rape. What is rape? It is the violent invasion of a woman’s body. It is horrible, and it leaves permanent scars.

What is abortion? It is the violent invasion of a woman’s body – for the purpose of killing her child. It is horrible, and it leaves permanent scars.

Why meet violence with violence? Why should the rapist’s child have to suffer the ultimate punishment for the crimes of his father? And, lest we forget that this is not just the rapist’s child, it is the victim’s child. Why should her child have to die? Many women don’t want to live with the reminder of the rape, to see the resemblance in a child’s face. I understand that. But there are thousands upon thousands of families who wouldn’t see that resemblance, and who would love nothing more than to nurture that child and give him hope and a future and a change to bring something very, very good out of something very, very evil.

“But then she’d have to live knowing her child was out there somewhere.” I know. But do you think that’s any harder than living with the knowledge that her child is not out there somewhere, because of a decision she made? I’ve heard more than one woman say “At least the rape wasn’t my fault. The abortion was my decision, and it has haunted me ever since.”

Wouldn’t it be better to be “haunted” by the knowledge that that child was “out there” somewhere, warm, dry and loved?

And what about incest? Incest is another horrible, horrible crime – a violation of trust, a secret shame. Secrecy is at the heart of incest. It hides in the shadows. Exposure is the ultimate fear of the incestuous perpetrator.

Pregnancy is a lot of things. Secret, it isn’t. It is very obvious. And once a pregnancy becomes public knowledge, the incest becomes public knowledge – and the perpetrator is exposed.

Abortion in cases of incest serves no one so much as the perpetrators of incest. They are often men who are in a position of authority over their victims. And even in situations where they aren’t, they generally hold a great deal of manipulative control.

When an incest victim goes to have an abortion, who do you suppose is driving the car?

I understand – and expect -- sympathy for the victims of rape and incest. But I would invite all of you to think a little deeper. Does abortion really help them, or does it just further victimize women who are already traumatized by violence and betrayal?

I don’t believe abortion “exceptions” for rape and incest help anyone – least of all the women they were intended to protect.


	Should South Dakota Allow "Exceptions"? Rape and incest victims shouldn't have to suffer any more. But does abortion really help them? March 8, 2006 So the South Dakota legislature has passed a law banning abortion. I’m not entirely certain what to think of the whole thing. I’m elated, of course, that any state’s elected officials would have the courage to make such a move. I would love to see abortions actually banned in South Dakota, but of course that won’t happen – at least not anytime soon. The law stands in direct violation of Roe vs. Wade. So, it will be immediately enjoined, and the lawsuits will begin their slow trek up to the Supreme Court, which was the whole idea anyway. My one concern is the timing. Of course, any time is a good time to stop the practice of snuffing out prenatal life, and start working toward solutions that help women and their children. But will that actually happen? If the Supreme Court were to find the South Dakota law constitutional, they will be overturning Roe. If, however, the Court were to find the law unconstitutional, the decision will serve to reaffirm and to strengthen Roe, and make it much more difficult to overturn in the future. Currently, there are four justices – Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Aleto – who would likely vote to overturn Roe. Four out of nine. Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old. It is not inconceivable that he could retire before the end of President Bush’s second term. I’d rather wait for one more justice. I’m struck by something else – the national discussion over the limits this law sets. The South Dakota law allows an exception only in cases where the life – not the health – of the mother would be in danger if the pregnancy were to go to term. What the law doesn’t allow is exceptions in cases of rape and incest. This apparently troubles a lot of people. I heard today that a poll found that 70% of Americans favor such exceptions – including, most likely, many of you. I’d like to look at that for a minute. I think our support of rape and incest exceptions is often a sort of “knee-jerk” response. After all, who could possibly feel anything but incredibly pity and sympathy for the victims of these heinous crimes? We don’t want them to suffer any more than they have to. To “force” them to carry a child to term seems downright cruel. Let’s begin by talking about rape. What is rape? It is the violent invasion of a woman’s body. It is horrible, and it leaves permanent scars. What is abortion? It is the violent invasion of a woman’s body – for the purpose of killing her child. It is horrible, and it leaves permanent scars. Why meet violence with violence? Why should the rapist’s child have to suffer the ultimate punishment for the crimes of his father? And, lest we forget that this is not just the rapist’s child, it is the victim’s child. Why should her child have to die? Many women don’t want to live with the reminder of the rape, to see the resemblance in a child’s face. I understand that. But there are thousands upon thousands of families who wouldn’t see that resemblance, and who would love nothing more than to nurture that child and give him hope and a future and a change to bring something very, very good out of something very, very evil. “But then she’d have to live knowing her child was out there somewhere.” I know. But do you think that’s any harder than living with the knowledge that her child is not out there somewhere, because of a decision she made? I’ve heard more than one woman say “At least the rape wasn’t my fault. The abortion was my decision, and it has haunted me ever since.” Wouldn’t it be better to be “haunted” by the knowledge that that child was “out there” somewhere, warm, dry and loved? And what about incest? Incest is another horrible, horrible crime – a violation of trust, a secret shame. Secrecy is at the heart of incest. It hides in the shadows. Exposure is the ultimate fear of the incestuous perpetrator. Pregnancy is a lot of things. Secret, it isn’t. It is very obvious. And once a pregnancy becomes public knowledge, the incest becomes public knowledge – and the perpetrator is exposed. Abortion in cases of incest serves no one so much as the perpetrators of incest. They are often men who are in a position of authority over their victims. And even in situations where they aren’t, they generally hold a great deal of manipulative control. When an incest victim goes to have an abortion, who do you suppose is driving the car? I understand – and expect -- sympathy for the victims of rape and incest. But I would invite all of you to think a little deeper. Does abortion really help them, or does it just further victimize women who are already traumatized by violence and betrayal? I don’t believe abortion “exceptions” for rape and incest help anyone – least of all the women they were intended to protect.