speaking out

[rivendellrose]

I seem to be saying this a lot these days, but I have another link from misia that I think people (especially my feminist friends) should take a look at.

This time, though, it's more than a little controversial.

Information for women in South Dakota and elsewhere.

As the original poster and misia have both pointed out, home abortions should always be an absolute last choice. But since the government of South Dakota has pushed the last abortion clinic in its state out of service, 'absolute last choice' isn't that far off for a lot of women, now. I'm all for avoiding the necessity of abortions if at all possible. I'm all for women putting babies up for adoption if they feel that they can go through the pregnancy and all that. And if some women think that abortion would not be an option for them if they were in that situation, that's fine by me - I'm honestly not sure I could do it, either. It'd be a moment for some damned serious soul-searching. But that option should always be there, and I am pissed as all hell that for the women in an entire fucking state in this supposedly enlightened nation, it no longer is.

I pray that this will get to the Supreme court and be overturned faster than you can say "constitution," but in the current political climate I see more and more situations like this turning up, and I'm tired of keeping quiet about the whole subject out of fear of insulting someone. In the mean time, those of us who have the blessed fortune to live in states that aren't so backward should count our blessings, and it's not a bad idea for all of us to save information like this, in case things get worse.

Comments

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

Well, bitchcakes. My main question would be concerning possible exceptions to the law. If to save the life of the mother, doctors can preform an abortion. Or in the case of rape or incest, two more issues where the law can get a bit looser.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn this law. Hell, this could very well be the impetus to overturn Roe. That said, I still don't think there's a right for a woman to have an abortion in the Constitution. If it is there, its under the Due Process clause by way of the "Substantive Due Process" way of thinking, a very dubious way of thinking with not all that great a legacy in the court. I made a big post about Roe a while ago over here, if you want more. Doesn't contain much about Substantive Due Process cause zomg, is that a fucked up thing to explain.

Frankly, women's groups are getting far too reliant on the court to fix the laws for them instead of lobbying and getting real honest-to-god activism going. (Though I could be wrong, I don't keep that close an eye on lobbyists and the like.) Roe was actually a bad political move, too. It spawned the giant backlash, ruining a trend the states themselves were already going.

Anyway, if you look closely at the Amendments, and keep in mind that States can have an interest in protecting pre-natal life (an interest wholly approved of by the courts and most people in the country), then its not obvious how a right to an abortion can be gotten out of that.

It's not just the rights of women I'm worried about. I'm worried about doing a disservice to the country by manipulating the Constitution however we see fit.

Damn... class. Need to cut short. D:

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

There's no 'right for abortion' in the constitution, no - of course not. But there's right to life, and if I'm understanding things correctly South Dakota doesn't have allowance for abortion even in cases where carrying out pregnancy would put the mother's life in danger. I might've misunderstood something to do with that, but I'm pretty sure it was the reference I'd heard on NPR.

I'm a good deal less concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit, at the moment, considering that the spirit is headed in the direction of removing rights that I consider pretty damned vital.

[zinjadu.livejournal.com]

Ah, there's a right to not killed (hence proscriptions against murder) or be deprived of your life without due process of law. Kind of different, but its law and subtle wordings make all the difference. But if it is the case that there's no out, even if the woman's life is in danger, that'll be easy enough to take down provided the person affected brings it up in court. Cause the 'due process' part of this law is kind of iffy. It's putting fetal life above a full citizen's life, with little to no ground for such reasoning. The balance of interests is off.

And if the court didn't turn a law like that over, there'd be hell to pay politically.

Hrm. This is probably a sign I'm being irrevocably indoctrinated, but the first question that leaps to mind at what you just said is: what does 'the spirit of the law' mean? Side issue, but feel free to laugh at me for it. ^^;;;

[fragglebo.livejournal.com]

I am definitely pro-choice and I couldn't believe this when I read it.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

This is a crazy, crazy time. I didn't really know what to think, either, except to be horrified at the thought that keeping information like this available might actually be important, now.

[sigelphoenix.livejournal.com]

Reading that made me scared and angry at once - scared that some women are actually going to have to go through something like this, trying to operate on themselves because their state politicians are fuckwits, and angry that this would never, never happen in regards to a health issue affecting men. If we stopped providing men with the services to rid themselves of, say, kidney stones (something comparably painful but far, far less traumatizing to the body than pregnancy and childbirth), you know there would be a shitstorm of people decrying the inhumanity of the action. But for women? Who gives a flying fuck, right?

I've got a lot of rage building, as you can see - sorry I had to release some of it in your direction. Thank you for passing along the link - I know it's useful for a lot of women.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The whole idea makes me nauseated in the extreme, and the accompanying political mess is, for a person like me who desperately hates trying to wrap her brain around politics, equally sickening. I can't even begin to deal with everything to do with this case, so I'm just grabbing at bits that I can understand and hoping.

It's okay, I think we're all in pretty much the same boat at the moment. I'm glad I was able to pass on something worth looking at.

[shoeless-girl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that link.

Um.

I've been trying to figure out a worthwhile comment for a while, but it's too hard. I know that's a cop out. I'm horrified that the women in South Dakota have had this right taken away from them. I'm horrified that it's necessary for Molly to share this information with us. Yes, I'm horrified by the procedure itself. Yet, I'm profoundly greatful that information has been shared - hopefully it will reach the women who need it :(

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I agree, pretty much every damned thing about this is horrifying. I never thought I would see a day when it could be concievable that we'd be heading back toward the sort of back-alley abortions that women had to go through in previous decades.