« Alito against liberty? | Main | MA legislators push for expanded buffer zone »
December 28, 2005
Is South Dakota the new Mississippi?
South Dakota is now one of three states in the country that has only one clinic to obtain abortions. (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others) Sigh.
Restrictive state laws on choice aren’t exactly new, but South Dakota has taken the cake lately with an abortion task force that recently recommended some of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country and stated that “the unborn child from the moment of conception is a whole separate human being.” You see where I’m going with this--the report recommends a complete ban on abortion. By the way, only two out 17 members of the task force were pro-choice. Nice.
What makes it even worse is that South Dakota has some of the poorest counties in the country, making abortion access even more difficult.
Check out the whole Washington Post piece for a heartbreaking look at the difficulties women--particularly poor women--in South Dakota are encountering.
Posted by Jessica at December 28, 2005 7:17 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2908
Comments
“the unborn child from the moment of conception is a whole separate human being.”
Then there wouldn't be a problem with it leaving, correct? Since they're already separate, the woman can go on with her life and the "unborn child" can stay in the clinic. At any stage in gestation. After all, they're separate, yes?
Posted by: Kyra at December 28, 2005 1:02 AM
If South Dakota lists an unborn child as a seperate human being, that makes them a citizen of south dakota, subject to all benefits and care that state has to offer{sorry as it may be}
If a woman is forced to bear that citizen, is not the state liable for all the benefits and care due to that "citizen?" Since that citizen cannot work, would they not be eligible for unemployment benefits? Health care? Disability pay because they cannot perform the basic functions required by ANY job?
After all the state says they are seperate human beings and as such, they do not list them as children, subject to parental subjucation.
In the end, it just says we still have many bozos with their heads up their collective asses when it comes to matters of reality
Posted by: robert at December 29, 2005 2:58 AM
Gar! This sucks!
Posted by: Malafides Lucius at December 31, 2005 9:28 AM
Malafides Luciius,
GAR! you have such an exemplary touch of the language. It does suck, but you certainly do not!
Posted by: robert at January 1, 2006 4:52 AM