S.D. Gov'r "inclined" to ban abortions, shoves head up ass

South Dakota governor Mike Rounds says that he’s “inclined” to sign a bill that would outlaw most abortions, including in the cases of rape and incest. Any doctor who performs an abortion not necessary to save the mother’s life could face up to five years in prison.

Leslie Unruh, president of the Alpha Center (a Sioux Falls pregnancy counseling agency that tries to steer women away from abortion) claims that most women in South Dakota who have had abortions wish that someone had stopped them, and that most SD women want abortion banned.

And factor in that Krista Heeren-Graber (executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault) opines that, if passed into law, this ban COULD possibly open the door for a rapist to be given visitation rights to the child.

Emphases mine above.

Now, I’m not going to bring up the abortion debate. Tempers flare on both sides.

But common fucking sense says that, in the case of rape or incest, an abortion just makes fucking sense.

I’ll concede that I can’t think of very many circumstances where a rapist would actually WANT visitation to a child conceived from the crime, but I would imagine that one or two would be assholish enough to do so if they knew the victim and it wasn’t just a random attack.


How can someone justify FORCING a rape or incest victim to carry a child to term?

Yet another example of what happens when you elect stupid, incompetent people into office.


Can a mod fix my coding?

Seconded. Wholeheartedly.

Supposedly, isn’t this supposed to be just a catalyst to touch off a Supreme Court fight to get Roe v Wade overturned?

I’d think it would just make more women travel (well, those who can manage it) to other states to get one.

Well, the Gov displays the ignorance and short-sightedness typical of so many political hacks - I’m not surprised. Aren’t mid-term elections coming up soon? Gotta score points with the bigger voting blocs, I guess. :rolleyes:

How can someone justify forcing anyone to carry a child to term?

This is nothing more than South Dakota legislators trying to make an end-run around the civil rights of half the population, and make the future that much more bleak for anyone who believed she was in charge of her own destiny.

I don’t know how anyone could accept this at all, even if it had a rape/incest exception. It’s an affront to the rights of women.

When exceptions are made in cases of rape or incest, it’s an admission that banning abortion is not about the sanctity of life. If it’s all about saving the babies, then it shouldn’t matter how the babies came about.

Makes sense to me, I guess. So I’m assuming that there’s no death penalty in South Dakota, either, right?

There is. South Dakota hasn’t executed anyone since the Furman case, but there are four people on death row right now.

You’d think that, wouldn’t you?

For the record, I’m pro-choice, but I can respect the pro-life position as long as it’s actually about the sanctity of life. The moment they start making the rape/incest exemption, they’re admitting that their real goal is the sexual oppression of women.

I’d been meaning to pit this, but hadn’t gotten to it yet. This bill doesn’t even have exceptions for merely endangering the life of the mother, from what I read. Unless she’s positively going to die, no dice.
This is my favorite part, from The Washington Post:

Patronize much?

I agree with you. (I’m also anti-captial punishment which, if you were to ask P.J. O’Rourke, makes me a terrible hypocrite.)

You know, whenever some smartass tries to say that women’s rights have all been achieved and we don’t need to organize and concentrate on them-I point to shit like this.


I just wanted to say that abortion was legal in the U.S. for a larger part of that century, than it was during the 20th century.

Carry on.

It’s really quite startling to drive through South Dakota and see billboard after highway/city billboard saying that abortion is murder or that abortion ends a life (with a flatline graphic).

Except for people on some of the Indian reservations and maybe a few people in the “big” cities - Sioux Falls and Rapid City, it seems like the vast majority of people in the state are anti-abortion. So, it’s probably not the case that the state legislators and governor have wigged out, but instead are looking to score some easy political points.

I mostly agree with you here and I was going to make a similar point. I am pro-choice too by the way.

A pro-lifer who would make an exception for rape is a hypocrite. Why should a “child” be punished for a parent’s act of violence? Their is another explanation for the hypocricy other than the sexual oppression of women though and that is political expedience. They are willing to sacrifice a group of “innocent children” to meet a larger political goal.

Yes… They’re scoring “easy political points” by enacting legislation that reflects the beliefs and desires of their constituents.

“Scoring points” refers to enacting provocative and openly defiant (of the Supreme Court) legislation, not to their ultimate goal of banning abortion.

DianaG, I agree with every word you’ve said here.

Gladstone, I’m not the only person who had that same thought driving through South Dakota, then? Now, I haven’t been everywhere (yet), but is there anywhere else with so many anti-abortion billboards/placards/signs? I found it very unsettling. If you had to ask me what state would attempt this sort of nonsense, I’d definitely guess South Dakota.

I have no ability to respect the ‘pro-life’ position. It’s a morally bankrupt belief in which the possession of a uterus is enough to negate my human rights.

Why should I respect people who obviously don’t think I’m deserving of the most basic and fundamental of human rights?

You mean the basic and fundamental right of life? That right?

I wouldn’t expect someone who could never be enslaved to someone else’s will for their uterus to understand.