Some people will stop at nothing to get what they want, no matter the opposition. With the nefarious intent to eventually challenge the legality of abortion on a national stage, Mike Rounds, the governor of South Dakota, signed into law yesterday a bill that would limit almost all abortions in that state.
"Its purpose is to eliminate most abortions in South Dakota," he said.
The law, euphemistically titled the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, would make illegal all abortions but those required to save the woman's life.
The law would reduce South Dakota's abortions from about 800 per year to nearly zero, and force desperate young women whose lives are not in imminent physical danger across the border to less restrictive neighbor states.
More troubling, though, is the door that the law opens for opponents of abortion to bring a national challenge to Roe v. Wade. With Planned Parenthood, the operator of South Dakota's sole abortion clinic, committed to fighting the ban in court, it seems likely that in a few years we may very well see this issue reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
That is not a prospect worth relishing, given the Court's increased conservatism with the ascensions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the bench. The South Dakotan ban, as pure a challenge as abortion rights are likely to receive, might be just the impetus the pro-life movement needs to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It is clear from the disgusting actions of South Dakotan lawmakers that social conservatives are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.
But in the case of abortion their efforts are particularly shameful. Attempting to shape national policy from the backwaters of America shows just how desperate and opportunistic the pro-life movement has become.
Abortion cannot really be considered a national debate anymore. For a debate to exist, there must be widespread agreement that change needs to happen and at least two viable positions to take regarding said change. When it comes to abortion, though, most Americans are satisfied with the status quo.
According to the Gallup Organization's Web site, and based on decades of polling experience, "few call [abortion] a priority, and when asked in general terms about changing abortion laws, most Americans seem opposed." In a Jan. 2006 poll, Gallup found that a huge majority of Americans - 66 percent - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.
What's more, there exists - and has for some time - a clear majority of backing for the legality of first-trimester abortion. Support of first-trimester abortion is what constitutes being "pro-choice" according to Gallup, and approximately 53 percent of Americans consider themselves to be pro-choice, while only 42 percent consider themselves pro-life.
Over half of America believes in a woman's right to choose, yet Mike Rounds and company think they have the moral authority to set in motion events to defy the opinion of that majority. That's an odd disconnect between public opinion and political action.
Interestingly, a scant 18 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be, like the South Dakotan law comes inches from reaching, illegal under all circumstances.
It should go without saying that there are innumerable examples in the United States' history of challenging the status quo and enacting social change. In a message justifying the abortion ban, Governor Rounds compared his hopes for an eventual rollback of abortion rights at the national level to the overturning of segregation in 1954 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. He seems to be arguing that it is always progress when the Supreme Court reverses its decisions.
Rounds' view is a fitting demonstration of the twisted logic that social conservatives have to employ to rationalize their archaic ideals.
Brown v. Board of Education overturned nearly 60 years of legal segregation. "Separate, but equal" was a pathetic and embarrassing attempt on the part of bigots to keep black Americans from enjoying the same opportunities as whites.
While constraining abortion rights would without question represent a reversal of Supreme Court opinion, any similarities to the invalidation of segregation end with that fact. Overturning segregation was social progress; banning abortion would be a huge step back into the cave.
For over 200 years, the United States has been moving in a progressive direction, granting suffrage to women and minorities, outlawing slavery, and making great strides in civil and human rights in general.
The South Dakotan ban on abortion represents the beginning of a huge leap backward, and we shouldn't stand for it.
