Targeting Roe

In the most restrictive abortion measure to pass a state legislature since Roe vs. Wade, South Dakota approved a bill March 6 that would ban almost all abortions. Emblematic of the "Alito way" -- that is dismantling Roe bit by bit -- the proposed law would ban abortions in almost every case, even pregnancies that are a result of incest or rape. The only exception? Cases that involve saving the mother's life. \nThe bill says the goal is to "fully protect the rights, interests and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child." But if a rape victim becomes pregnant and has a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother. \nKrista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault said, "The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice."\nClearly, the bill does not represent the rights, interests or health of the mother.\nNot only does the South Dakota Senate (consisting of only three females out of a total of 32 members) not believe it's right for a woman to end her pregnancy if she has been raped, but it is OK with a victim of rape being forced to carry the resulting child for nine months. My only advice to South Dakota women is to pack your bags and get out while you can. \nWhat is at stake here extends beyond the issue of abortion. It's the whole notion of the constitutional right to privacy. Since when does the government -- not doctors or families -- make a woman's personal health care decisions? \nTo be fair, no one wants to see abortions taking place. If this were a perfect world, the debate would not occur at all. But let's face it: No one is perfect, and instead of completely prohibiting abortions, we must work to keep them at a minimum -- "keep" being the key word here. Instead of spending money and resources outlawing abortion, let's put the focus into keeping unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place.\nGroups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, who said the ban was a "monumental setback for women," have already threatened legal action. But legal action is exactly what abortion opponents want. Two conservative judges have recently been appointed to the Supreme Court and are likely to lean toward the position that Roe should be overturned, and legal action might only hurt pro-choice advocates in the end.\nBetween state laws requiring parental notification for abortion and smug pharmacists who refuse to fill "day-after" pills, I knew this was coming. The back-door tactics -- mandatory waiting periods, parental consents and the like -- aren't restrictive enough. Now our nation can't even compromise and our privacy rights are eroding faster than the time it takes to plant a wiretap in your e-mail. While the ban currently does not affect someone living in say, Indiana, right-to-lifers are stripping a woman's right to privacy state by state, law by law, until they get what they want: a complete overturn of Roe, a time when a woman will not own the right to her body.