South Dakota’s swinging for the fence
Anybody that follows abortion laws even loosely will know by now that South Dakota has passed into a law a bill that will outlaw all abortions except those done to save the life of the mother. Christianity Today has a pretty good article describing many groups’ disappointment with the bill. Even President Bush differs with the bill. The differences seem to coalesce around two things: strategy and scope.
Those that take issue with the strategy of the bill (which is explicitly and openly aimed at generating a court challenge to Roe) prefer an incremental approach. They feel that it would be better to continue slowly chipping away at abortion “rights.” They have a point: if the legal challenge to this bill prevails, at best we’ll have another pro-abortion precedent but no clear victory (i.e., the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case), or, worst case, a punch-in-the-face loss (i.e., the SCOTUS firmly strikes down the law and upholds Roe). That certainly is a legitimate fear, and I do hope that we’re not disappointed in this regard. However, i think State Rep. Roger Hunt is correct in saying, “After a while you can only chip away so much.” At some point we have to stop passing laws that say, in the words of my friend Brian, “if you do this, this, and this, then you can kill your baby.” So, while I am a bit nervous, I think this is the way to go.
The second source of unease for some is the scope of the bill: abortions will only be allowed to save the life of the mother. There are many in the pro-life camp, including President Bush, who feel that there should be exceptions made for rape and incest. I could not disagree more. While I think rape is a horrible, horrible thing, I think it is just as monstrous to kill any child resulting from abortion just because it was conceived in such an ugly manner. What that boils down to, basically, is capital punishment for the other victim of rape. (As an aside, I think I’d be pretty comfortable with capital punishment for the rapist.) Of course, those that oppose any restrictions in this particular scenario will point out issues with adoption, etc., and, while those are valid concerns that need to be addressed, I fail to see how that justifies killing an innocent human being.
Overall, I’m pretty happy that South Dakota passed this bill and that several other states are considering similar measures. In the end, black-robed tyrants may disappoint us and uphold murder, but that’s the risk we have to run. The time for bunting is past. It’s time we step up to plate, boldy call our shot and swing for the fence, and South Dakota is leading the way.