Letters to the Editor | South Dakota abortion restrictions a cause for alarm

On Monday, March 6. the Republican governor of South Dakota, Mike Rounds, signed into law House Bill 1215, banning abortion in almost every circumstance.

The law would protect a fetus conceived as a result of rape or incest. It contains a narrow exception if the woman’s life is in danger, but the wording is unclear and subject to interpretation. Bill 1215 also targets those who perform abortions, prohibiting “any person from knowingly prescribing, administering, procuring or selling any medicine, drug or any other substance to pregnant women with the intent to cause or aid in the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” By passing Bill 1215, the South Dakota legislature has enacted the most restrictive ban on abortion since Roe v. Wade had been conscripted in 1973.

The political goal of this bill is clearly to get Roe v. Wade reconsidered in the now more conservative Supreme Court. Because Bill 1215 is unconstitutional, it is likely it will be challenged immediately in court, potentially preventing it from going into effect unless the Supreme Court reconsiders the fundamental protections provided by Roe. Significantly, the law would not go into effect unless South Dakota got the case to the Supreme Court and won. As of April 1, 17 other states have created laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion. Four states have so-called trigger laws that would ban abortion if Roe were to be overturned and 13 others have retained their pre-Roe abortion bans in state law. The sheer number of states interested in passing such laws could persuade the Supreme Court to deal with Roe in the near future, potentially jeopardizing a more than 30-year protection of women’s right to choose.

In an interesting twist of events, a leader of one of South Dakota’s Indian tribes is proposing to establish an abortion clinic on an Indian reservation. Because federally recognized American Indian tribes are not, in many cases, required to abide by state laws, a clinic could operate in South Dakota even with a ban in place.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a pro-choice group, hopes to collect the 16,728 signatures needed to put the ban on hold, delaying the July 1 date and putting the law to a public vote. A court challenge is anticipated, where a judge would likely suspend the ban. However, Governor Rounds has announced that abortion opponents have already offered donations to help the state pay for the court challenge.

Who would have thought that in the twenty-first century we would still be fighting to control our own bodies? It is infuriating that every woman in America must subscribe to the bogus moral restrictions of the white, rich troglodytes running our country. For an example of what our country might be like in the case of a nationwide abortion ban, look no further than El Salvador, where abortions are no less prevalent than before criminalization, but have been pushed to a dangerous market of on-line drug peddlers and back-alley witch doctors. Though a national ban is not imminent, the power of an emboldened right wing certainly is. Whether the conservatives chip away quietly on a woman’s right to choose, (age restrictions, parental consent, etc.) or they propose outright restrictions on abortion, we must pay very close attention, lest our rights be swept out from under our feet.

—Liz Clarey ’06