Posted by: Christine Johnson | May 26, 2006

And if this doesn’t work, we’ll just FORCE it on them like last time.

Opponents of abortion ban petition for vote

Seems that those in South Dakota that don’t like the new law banning most abortion procedures – a law that affects, if I’m not mistaken, about one abortion clinic and whatever hospitals provide abortions – are going to risk putting it to the vote test. Mind you, if Roe were overturned tomorrow, this is exactly what every state in the union would get to do. But in South Dakota, they’ve banned abortions unless the woman is going to die. That’s it. No rape exception (those babies are not guilty of anything – it’s their fathers), no exception for “health” (which has included things that could be summed up as “I’m stressed out”), no exception for incest (again, those babies did nothing wrong). It’s a really good law, if you ask me.

Anyway…the pro-abortion rights crowd have been trying to decide how to proceed with this one. At first, they weren’t sure if they’d go with a petition to put it to a referrendum on the ballot. Maybe they’d just go to court; after all, that’s how we got unrestricted abortion in 1973. But it seems now that they’d like to try to poll everyone. They’ve collected their signatures and it looks like the November ballot will include a referrendum on this law. Now, if they win, the law will be struck down. And you know what? As horrible as that is, at least THE PEOPLE would be deciding it. Pro Lifers would have the opportunity to work to keep the law. That is, my friends, how America is supposed to work. And Pro Lifers need to get on the stick up there and make sure that people know exactly how many abortions were done for the “exception” cases that are most strongly touted. And they need to be sure to make it clear that the “health” exception includes women who say, “Well, I’m just depressed and don’t want to have a baby.” (Why doesn’t anyone think to treat them for depression instead of killing the woman’s unborn child? Talk about ignoring root causes! Bad medicine, and I’m not talking about Bon Jovi, either!) They need to talk about how many abortion clinics there are in South Dakota. They need to give facts and figures, folks. They need, in short, to be on the offensive here. That law can and should stand.

But what if the pro-abortion rights crowd fails? Then what? Will they accept that the majority of people DO NOT WANT unrestricted abortion in South Dakota? Well, let’s look at this paragraph from the above-linked article:

If the secretary of state finds enough valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot, the law would be suspended pending the outcome of the November election. If voters reject it, the law would be scrapped permanently. If voters accept the measure, opponents could still go to court and argue it is unconstitutional. [emphasis added]

So if the will of the people is that abortion be illegal in South Dakota, then the hell with the people! FORCE it on them.

For people who seem so obsessed with Pro Lifers forcing things on women, they certainly don’t have a lot of difficulty forcing things on the rest of us. But that’s just par for the course. If they didn’t force it on us, we wouldn’t have had the sudden lifting of abortion restrictions 33 years ago.



%d bloggers like this: