Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Fairy Tale From South Dakota
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
- Gloria Steinem, The Verbal Karate of Florynce R. Kennedy, Esq.
Herewith a suggestion on how to improve the South Dakota Fairy Tale that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has approved for reading to women before they undergo abortions. The case was Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, et al vs. Mike Rounds, et al. It pertained to a piece of legislation passed by the South Dakota legislature, a mostly male body that has, until now, unsuccessfully tried to tell women what they may and may not do with their bodies. Thanks to the Court it has finally succeeded.
The essence of the case was that although women may continue to get abortions in South Dakota, the physician performing the procedure is required to read aloud to the prospective mother. Under section 7 of the statute a woman is required to receive oral disclosures about the procedure she is about to undergo. Some of the information must be given orally AND in writing and other information only in writing although the language of the statute can be read to require that all information must be imparted orally by the physician.
Although the prescribed reading (and writing) is not the sort of thing the mother would read aloud to the child were the child to be born, it has a certain fairy tale like quality to it. Among the things the physician is required to tell the mother is that an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," that the woman has an "existing relationship with that unborn human being, " that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States constitution and under laws of South Dakota" and that "by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated."
It is patently absurd to describe the embryo has a "whole" and a "separate" human being since whatever else it may be, it is neither whole, having many months to go before it achieves that state, nor is it "separate" since ordinarily it cannot survive outside the mother's body at the time the abortion is performed. It is equally absurd to say that the "relationship" "enjoys protection under the United States Constitution" since it does not. Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office, said the statute represents an "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life." She also observed that the law is "non-science" based but as we have been taught by none other than the president of the United States and his minions, science is an elective subject whose proofs one may accept or reject based on one's personal biases. And speaking of science, we are brought to the Environmental Protection Agency's most recent pronouncement that if added to the South Dakota statute, will bring the number of abortions performed in South Dakota to zero.
The E.P.A. issued a report on July 19, 2008 that pertained to a matter with which few people knew the E.P.A. was concerned. The report said the value of a human life has gone down from $8.04 million to $7.22 million. That does not mean, as the report is careful to point out, that every reader of this column is worth that. Some will be worth more and others less and most readers know to which group they belong.
The reason it is important to know the value of a human life is that when you have the answer to that question you can decide whether certain governmental actions are worthwhile. If something is proposed that a governmental agency determines will save 50 lives and cost $500 million, the agency determines if the proposal makes sense by multiplying 50 lives times $7.22 million. If the product is less than $500 million, the project is abandoned and if more, it may be implemented. If, in that example, 200 people were affected, then the math would justify the cost.
Now that this information is available, the South Dakota legislature should promptly amend House Bill 1166 to include a requirement that the fairy tale be refined to add a section that will inform the woman that not only is she "terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" but she is also disposing of an asset that has a scientifically established value of $7.22 million. Armed with that scientifically correct information most women will immediately spring for the cash and abortions in South Dakota will come to an end. There will, of course, be a modicum of disappointment when the kid hits college age and the parent goes looking for the $7.22 million the parent knows was being stowed away. Parents will find, to their dismay, that the $7.22 million was, like much of the rest of the language in the South Dakota Fairy Tale, made up by ignorant busy bodies more interested in controlling women's bodies than in educating their proprietors.
brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu
For political commentary see my web page http://humanraceandothersports.com
13 Comments so far
Show AllD n G - Hope you are still looking at this occasionally.
I don't think you have mis-represented me at all. So absolutely no apologies are necessary on your part. I'm not sure you have understood me, that's a different issue of course.
My own views are closer to yours than you may think.
One does not necessarily need to believe in a Creator in order to accept the wisdom of such people as Christ, Buddha, Dr. King, Ghandi and Mr. Thoreau (among others Of course). Wisdom and good sense can be found among many people of many beliefs, or even none. AT the same time though, to ignore physical reality and our scientists, who actually bother to study that reality and how a very few simple laws ultimately interconnect in astonishingly subtle ways, is also foolish.
I hope you have not misinterpreted my posts as a cynical rail against the general teachings of such people for whom, I can assure you, I have nothing but admiration. Nor do I disagree with the broad themes they have espoused. Quite the opposite.
What I object to, strenuously, is the propaganda engine that has turned what is, at its essence, another one of our examples where the poor are held to a different moral standard than the rich into some kind of argument either 'for' or 'against' life. Which is vacuous in the extreme and carefully crafted to split people of good conscience so that one particular political party, which is pre-disposed to support Mammon above all things, can drive a wedge deep into the middle class and the poor. This is what passes for their 'policy' and it is so effective at diverting discussion from it's true purpose, which is entirely a political one, that most people fall right into the trap that has been laid. This is the raw intellect of James Baker and Karl Rove at work.
Regardless of whether you think abortion is right or wrong. The whole point of state criminalization of abortion is to provide one more handle on criminalizing the poor. No law any state or even the USA could pass would ever prevent a wealthy girl from getting an abortion if she wanted one. She will ALWAYS have a choice.
Equality under the Law is a really good idea. We need to make THAT the new 'wedge' issue I think.
If people would read their bibles instead of using them as a weapon for their own selfish gain, they would read that LIFE begins with the FIRST BREATH!
The right to life ends at birth.
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
This was certainly true when Gandhi said it and the world contained 3 billion people.
It is only true today if we continue burning fossil fuels at unsustainable rates, fix all political systems so that they are more caring for the poor, and STOP population growth NOW...so that the planet keeps 6.5 billion people.
But then, in 100 years or so, all the oil runs out.
And then, in another 1000 years or so, all the coal runs out.
And well before you get to either the 100 year, or the 1000 years you have so warmed up the planet that 'death' rather than 'life' is the true normal way of being.
Without a little practical attention to these 'details', 'life'...whether you decide I respect it or not....doesn't really happen.
Another very well-known phenomenon on this planet comes into force instead.....Extinction.
Apologies for going off-topic, since this article is mainly about denying the poor access to abortions while allowing the rich to do whatever they want. Apparently, you must 'respect life' if you are poor but you are allowed to disrespect life if you are not poor. I have big problems with that hypocrisy which is built-in to all anti-abortion rules and legislation I have ever seen.
"I am offended to think that the unborn, or the potentially born, somehow have more right to resources than my own, living, friends neighbors and family. I am offended when a brain-dead woman can invoke a special session of congress on the same day when the USA murdered a thousand living, breathing, loving, hating, walking, talking people in Iraq. I am filled with disappointment when those who CAN speak out, who CAN work, who CAN contribute directly to our society are cut out of the political process in favour of collections of cells that have no existence outside of a host or a machine."
Although I do understand what you are saying physicscitizen, I respectfully disagree. The idea of respect for all life is much bigger than narrow interpretations allow. Respect for all life means "all" life including the impoverished and disadvantaged among others. It includes humans, other animals, plants, insects, everything, including unborn life.
Respect for all life is central to the transformative vision and values of our near future. It is that to which we are all aspiring in hopes of defeating collapse, conflict, and violence.
Sorry Doom n Gloom, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I do not ascribe to the view that 'All life is precious'. I do ascribe to the view that life with dignity is precious...so precious that it is worth working toward giving that benefit to all living human beings.
Those who are born deserve food enough to live, Shelter enough to be comfortable, and medical care to cure them when possible or make them comfortable when our cures fail us or do not exist. It would be even better if they were all wanted and loved as children so that they would stand the best chance of growing up normal, happy, and healthy in both body and mind.
It is in the above statement that I believe we should be directing the considerable resources of our collective community and NOT in passing laws which work to destroy the dignity of existence for the poor while not effecting the rich.
I am offended to think that the unborn, or the potentially born, somehow have more right to resources than my own, living, friends neighbors and family. I am offended when a brain-dead woman can invoke a special session of congress on the same day when the USA murdered a thousand living, breathing, loving, hating, walking, talking people in Iraq. I am filled with disappointment when those who CAN speak out, who CAN work, who CAN contribute directly to our society are cut out of the political process in favour of collections of cells that have no existence outside of a host or a machine.
And I am a man.
If I were a woman I would just be angry all the time.
I have great difficulty with the responses I am reading. It is increasingly clear that our survival as a species depends upon changing our attitudes toward life, all life. We must quickly learn to support life in all it's forms or we will surely perish. There are just two paths, the life path and the death path. Choose death and death will consume you.
More crazy nonsense. All a conscientious doctor need do is read this codswallop fast and incoherently to the mother of the soon to be aborted fetus (even if it is a 150 odd cell blastocyst), pop the reading material into her her hand as something to indulging in for bathroom diversion and get on with the procedure. We haven't quite yet become a truly fascist nation.
Another absurdity garnered from the reading; "...that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States constitution and under laws of South Dakota". The Constitution and the laws of SD name 'person', or 'persons', or 'citizen' as those who have protection under the law. In order for that to be true the fetus would need to have something of a 'conception certificate' and the only way to ensure that is to have all women of child bearing age submit to a monthly exam to determine if pregnant. Something again, if implemented, would only be effective against those who could least afford to travel. The absurdities just multiply.
It is so clear to me that 'abortion' is actually just a catch-word for a war against the poor by the rich.
NO ONE who is rich will ever be denied an abortion. So South Dakota bans them? Well then, since a 16 year old can drive (and can drive her young friend) she can borrow the car and cross state lines. Or hop on a plane and have a shopping spree in New York afterward if Daddy is wealthy enough...but then, those girls were probably also taught about, and given access to birth control too...another perview of the wealthy over the poor.
So then even suppose the whole USA decided to make abortion illegal. Do you think that those top 2% of Republican earners will care? Little Angel gets knocked up by the wrong guy and a flight to India or Japan is in the offing in Daddy's Gulf-Stream jet.
Then, to top it all off, Let's cut off all welfare services for the poor, so they can only raise all those unwanted children in abject poverty, let's break beyond all recognition adoption services, and even if we did not then it STILL wouldn't matter because THOSE children don't look like us and we already HAVE kids...so we who are so big on antiabortion just also have to be big on jails, police, and the death penalty to deal with the human detritous our own policies have created.
It's all about the rich exploiting the poor.
"We are marching proudly backwards to the future."
That's the motto from "The Department of HOmeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual," a hilarious satire of these moral majority, self righteous, right-wing Christians. The book is available everywhere. www.homelanddecency.com
This is a state issue; when the women and some of the men in SD are sick of the disrespect, blatant lies and misprepresentation of risks and abuse in general; then maybe they will actually do something, like vote these women hating bigots out of office! I say this as 2 referendums overturning the ban on abortion, do not seem to have set these folks straight.
"The report said the value of a human life has gone down from $8.04 million to $7.22 million."
Minor correction: the value of an AMERICAN life is $7.22 million. An Iraqi life is about $2,500.
Too clever by half. The misogynists in South Dakota, where there is only one PP clinic in the entire state staffed periodically by doctors from MN, don't need any more suggestions on how to implement their campaign to control women.