Abortion Rights in South Dakota
When a woman gets pregnant in America, she has three options to choose from with respect to how to her pregnancy: carry to full term and keep as her own child, put the baby up for adoption, or abort. Now, many people have their own views on each one of these options, but by far the most controversial decision is abortion. People who are in favor of “pro-choice” see abortion as a legal right of females to perform a medical procedure to terminate the birth of their unborn child, which they view has having no legal rights of its own. Those opposed to abortions think that the unborn child, at the second of conception, is a human life and therefore see termination as a form of murder. Both sides have strong feelings and rationale to back up their opinions and because of this, there have been heated debates, legal battles, and government conversations surrounding the subject. South Dakota is notorious for finding itself at the center of bitter arguments between supporters and opponents of abortion. Recently, the Midwest state passed legislation which is sure to cause an uproar. The law, though it does not prohibit abortions, does makes them inherently difficult to receive, forces women to receive medical advice from non certified individuals, and increases tensions further between the rival groups of pro and anti choice.
According to Sulzberger, the legislation, “require[s] women who are seeking abortions to first attend a consultation at ‘pregnancy help centers’, to learn what assistance is available ‘to help the mother keep and care for her child’”. These pregnancy help centers are organizations which are set up with the sole intention of trying to convince women to bring their babies to term. Ironically, they have signage outside their buildings listing services which mirror those of abortion clinics; free pregnancy tests, information about abortions, and STD testing. With a state whose government officials have highly skewed party representation, Republicans outnumber Democrats 3 to 1, it is no surprise that such a law passed. In addition to the roadblock this enforcement places on women seeking abortions, it also requires them to wait 3 days after their meeting with the pregnancy clinic to have a scheduled procedure performed. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me. In most cases, the period leading up to a woman finally making the decision to get an abortion can be very stressful. This law simply puts more strain on patients, forcing them to think about their choice that much longer. The idea of having to talk to a stranger about your ultimate decision is also alarming to me. What about the cases where the woman has been raped or a victim of incest. I think it’s safe to say that the last thing she will want to do on her quest to terminate the illegitimate child is to confide or even relive the horrible experience with someone completely foreign to her. Abortion supporters have, “provoked vehement opposition…both locally and nationally, [and] describe the requirements as unconstitutional obstacles for women seeking to have an abortion” (Sulzberger). With such ludicrous requirements, it is hard to imagine that the implementation of this law could encumber women even further. Unfortunately, it does.
The people who work at these implemented pregnancy help centers have no medical training. Sarah Stoesz, the president of a Planned Parenthood located in South Dakota, expressed her concern: “They’re not licensed, they’re not regulated, they’re not accredited and they’re openly ideological.” The counselors at these clinics are frequently compiled of faith-based advisers and anti-choice volunteers. Thus, there is a clear bias and underlying objective these centers want to promote. I think that is completely unjust that women be required to succumb to such lectures. Further, evidence has been shown that, “employees at the pregnancy help centers have a record of providing misinformation about the physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure and use tactics like displaying graphic photos or quoting scripture to influence a woman’s decision” (Sulzberger). To reinforce my point again, it seems absurd that in order to carry out a medical procedure on one’s own body, women in South Dakota must now confide in and justify their reasoning to an unqualified, non-certified counselor. In a way, you could argue it is an invasion of privacy because the state is forcing women seeking abortions to relay personal information about how they got pregnant and reasons for not wanting to keep the baby. The last issue with this law moves beyond the concern for those directly affected by its requirements and highlights what influence it will have on the local supporter and opponent parties of abortion.
Activists for abortion providers and pregnancy help clinics in South Dakota are likely to butt heads in the near future for numerous reasons. One reason is due to the fact that the two opposing operations are located near each another which means that participants of each will eventually run into each other. Next, the two centers are listed consecutively in the phone book (both under “adoption”). Thus, phone calls are bound to be misdialed and unwanted discussions brought up. As a result of the above scenarios forcing frequent contact, the two sides “regularly [accuse] the other of manipulating and coercing women” (Sulzberger) which escalates tensions and perpetuates the feelings of animosity.
As a member of modern society, it is surprising that we still mandate laws which limit citizens’ rights over their own bodies. Abortion is a perfect example of how our legislation restricts what procedures a woman can and cannot do to herself. A good solution to the controversy arising in South Dakota might be to instruct that those wishing to receive an abortion be highly recommended to go to the pregnancy centers, but not necessarily required. In the future, I hope further constraints on one’s body are not employed, but if they are, opposing groups must try to meet at common ground, otherwise we are heading towards a state of chaos and uprising.
No comments:
Post a Comment