Disclaimer

This blog is not intended to provide legal advice, legal services or legal anything else. Don't sue me. All I have is debt anyway.

Friday, October 10, 2008

South Dakota

South Dakota's at it again. Even though the forced pregnancy lobby got defeated in 2006, they're giving it another go. Watch this video here at Feministing.

No one likes abortion. No one gets a warm, squishy feeling about a pregnancy being terminated and potential life being snuffed out. But I certainly don't have a warm squishy feeling about making extremely important medical choices for other women. And Tiffany Campbell's story is exactly why these decisions need to be made between a woman and her doctor, not by strangers who regret their abortions and want to take that choice away from other women. I'd like to see someone "pro life" tell Tiffany Campbell that she should have let her son die because there was only one "choice" and that's "life."

Because for a lobby that claims that there is only black and white and no gray when it comes to abortion, that they would always "choose life," many times "life" is not so black and white, and the choice isn't so straightforward. The anti-choice lobby loves to act like all abortion is because of selfish whores out having lots of sex and then murdering their babies as a form of birth control. They love plastering posters on our campus of aborted fetuses and calling it "genocide." No, abortion isn't pretty. It isn't a good thing. But sometimes it's a necessary thing. And having a taste of what it would be like to make that decision, I wouldn't begin to judge any woman who had to make that difficult choice. And I certainly wouldn't prevent her from doing so. Hopefully the voters of South Dakota have the same amount of good sense. (Especially since I think they'd get a real big surprise by the Supreme Court decision in their own state, let alone SCOTUS. SCOTUS is willing to let abortion rights be chipped away, but Kennedy and I think even Roberts and Alito would not be so brazen as to overturn Roe v. Wade.)

No comments: