The right for a woman to be able to decide what happens to her body has been a hotly contested issue since the Supreme Court first made its decision to legalize abortion in the Roe v. Wade case of 1973.
Now, South Dakota is taking a “full frontal attack” against abortion, as its Gov. Mike Rounds called a new bill that would end abortions in his Midwest state, according to a Nov. 1 New York Times article. If Rounds is successful, this could be incredibly harmful to women across the nation.
Although the measure would only address abortions in South Dakota, Planned Parenthood in the state is likely to sue if the proposition passes, according to the article. This is something that may bring the controversial issue before the Supreme Court once again, and this time, with a decidedly more conservative set of judges, Roe v. Wade may be overturned.
While the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortions altogether, it would leave the decision up to individual states, leaving women in deeply Democratic states like California, New York and Oregon safe, but women in more conservative states may be in trouble.
According to the article, about 800 women each year from the roughly 387,000 women in the state, have an abortion in South Dakota. That averages out to about two women a day, a significant population of women.
Abortion is an extremely complicated issue. Even though one may personally be against abortion, many women (especially those who can’t afford birth control) live in circumstances where they are in abusive relationships, cannot afford to take care of children or do not have health care that is necessary to properly care for themselves during the physical trials of pregnancy.
Regardless of one’s own opinion on abortion, we must ask ourselves whether or not it is the role of the state to impose what it thinks is right onto its constituents.
Roe v. Wade gave women the choice to decide what they consider right for themselves. The retraction of the paramount 1973 decision would impose very narrowly confined moral beliefs that many people may not subscribe to.
While in many other cases, like rape, murder and robbery, there is a clear majority opinion of what is right and wrong. There is definitely someone who is harmed by the action, a victim, and the person who has wronged someone else – someone who should be punished. In abortion though there is no clear moral decision. An argument can be made both for the fetus and the mother as victims.
The proposed law in South Dakota is constrictive and incredibly detrimental to the women who may be affected by the legislation, that could possibly exclude many commonly accepted exceptions to abortion like rape and incest.
The abortion issue deserves serious consideration before creating such narrowly defined limits.