This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
But the big problem with this law is the continued dishonesty of the proponents, who sound ever more like an American Taliban, seeking to strip women of their rights. Check out Section 1 of the bill, the statement of legislative findings:
[1.1]...a pregnant mother possesses certain inherent rights, that these are natural intrinsic rights which enjoy affirmative protection under the Constitution of the United States, and under the Constitution and laws of the State of South Dakota, and that among these rights are the fundamental right of the pregnant mother to her relationship with her child, her fundamental right to make decisions that advance the well-being and welfare of her child, and her interest in her own health
The bill begins with outright Newspeak. Where the bill authors speak of "rights," read "obligation." Why won't Roger Hunt and Marlboro Man Gordon Howie be honest and say they aren't protecting rights but enforcing obligations?
[1.2] ...the pregnant mother's relationship with her child is inherently beneficial to the mother; that a mother's unique relationship with her child during pregnancy is one of the most intimate and important relationships, and one most worthy of legal protection; that the history and tradition of our nation has recognized this relationship as one that has intrinsic beauty and benefit to both the mother and the child; and that this relationship is recognized as one of the touchstones, and at the core, of all civilized society
Now we take a dangerous step toward codifying an obligation for women to bear children. Does a woman who chooses not to bear a child somehow forever suffer from not experiencing that inherently beneficial relationship? Is she somehow less civilized? Does a rejection of motherhood somehow make her less of a citizen? If the legislature is so worried about providing "legal protection" of the "right" of motherhood, when will the legislature decide that women abstaining from child-bearing are not receiving sufficient counseling and must be informed (by force) of the importance of bearing children? (Those of you familiar with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale should be able to see where this law leads.)
[1.8] ...an abortion places most women at greater risk for psychological distress, depression, suicidal ideation and suicide than carrying her child to full term and giving birth
Just to top it off, Hunt, Howie, et al lie with bogus science. There is no scientific basis for claims of post-abortion syndrome. Emily Bazelon offers a spectacular report on the issue in the January 21 New York Times ("Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?"). She notes that Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a well-known abortion opponent, refused to comply with a request from president Reagan to issue a report on the health effects of abortion:
Koop was against abortion, but he refused to issue the report and called the psychological harm caused by abortion “minuscule from a public-health perspective.” Nor did Koop believe that the anti-abortion cause would be served by shifting its focus to the suffering of women. “As soon as you contaminate the morality of your stand by getting worried about the health effects of abortion on women, you have weakened the whole thing,” he said at the time in an interview with the Rutherford Institute, a conservative law center.
That was in 1987. Science has advanced since then... but no thanks to abortion opponents like "researcher" David Reardon, who is making a career of cherry-picking studies to cobble together a case for post-abortion syndrome. As Bazelon points out, Reardon even admits in his 1996 Making Abortion Rare that he is using rhetoric, not rigorous science, to sow doubt: "Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted."
Fortunately, real scientists like Arizona State University's Nancy Russo are busy refuting such abuse of science for political purposes. The real science finds no link between abortion and depression, suicide, or any other such harm. Yet our legislature continues to purvey these lies to further its goals.
I'll admit that I'm uneasy about abortion, and I'm open to a discussion about restrictions on it. However, I can't have a discussion with people who are willing to lie about their motives and their science. Laws should be based on truth. I will not support HB 1293 or any abortion ban in South Dakota until the anti-abortion forces can prove to me they really want to protect the rights and health of women, not patronize and subjugate them.
Hi Cory,
ReplyDeleteI see a recurring theme of supercharged language on your part... which (in my mind) only obscures the issues.
"But the big problem with this law is the continued dishonesty of the proponents, who sound ever more like an American Taliban, seeking to strip women of their rights."
Seems like some novel variation of Goodwin's Law... if you can't call them Nazis (or Puritans), how about the Taliban?
Exactly which "rights" are you referring to? The "right" to have unprotected sex and not be responsible for the consequences? I don't think that the writers of our Constitution had that one in mind.
"Now we take a dangerous step toward codifying an obligation for women to bear children."
Which part of the bill says that a woman must conceive a child? It seems pretty clear that that is up to the woman's free will. The bill only insists that when a woman has freely chosen to conceive, then she must give birth. In other words, if she chose to have a child, she will have a child.
If she did not choose to conceive (ie she was raped), the bill does not make her give birth. There is no "obligation to give birth" here any more than what the woman herself chooses.
"Does a woman who chooses not to bear a child somehow forever suffer from not experiencing that inherently beneficial relationship? Is she somehow less civilized? Does a rejection of motherhood somehow make her less of a citizen?"
This is complete red herring. Nothing of the sort is implied in the statement you quoted. Physical exercise also is "inherently beneficial" but that doesn't mean that someone is less of a citizen if they drive to work rather than bike. (Personally, I walk.) Legal protection for the mother and child is not forced breeding. You're just throwing up nonsensical decoys to divert the reader's attention.
"when will the legislature decide that women abstaining from child-bearing are not receiving sufficient counseling and must be informed (by force) of the importance of bearing children?"
Yup, let's ramp up sex-ed. But that's no reason to oppose this bill. No matter how hard you try, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I do agree with you that 1.8 is specious... but the virtue of the bill doesn't hinge on it. I would favor a bill for higher teacher pay even if it happened to include a 1.8 that said something about how lack of money makes teachers more likely to be ranting liberals... it's a dubious statistical statement and detracts from the integrity of the bill, but that doesn't change the initiative from good to bad.
"supercharged language" -- not a theme, just my style, which I prefer to think sharpens rather than obscures the issues. (But then dbergan always gravitated toward oratory, while I leaned to drama.)
ReplyDelete"Goodwin's Law" -- patronizing women? treating them like they are not intelligent enough to protect their own rights in their own medical decisions? sounds like the philosophy of men trying to deny women equal rights... just like the Taliban.
Which rights am I referring to? Oh, the right to see one's own doctor in one's own community rather than having to travel out of town for a second opinion; the right not to have the police involved in one's sex life; the right to government that bases laws on truth, not the lies of a passionate minority; and let's not forget the right not to be required by the government to place one's body at the service of another person (13th Amendment, anyone?).
I didn't say this bill requires women to conceive; it only codifies in its "findings" the philosophical framework for making such a requirement in the future (for the good of women, of course).
"The bill only insists that when a woman has freely chosen to conceive--" Hold it right there. Check the language. How many women choose to conceive? If one's contraceptive method fails, has one still chosen to conceive? If women aren't sufficiently wise and informed to decide when an abortion is permissible, why are Roger Hunt and Gordon Howie any better qualified to decide the exceptions that go into law? (Could it be that Hunt and Howie think they are smarter than all the women in this state? Might that justify the Taliban comment?)
No red herring on the "inherently beneficial" point. The "findings talk about this inherently beneficial relationship between pregnant mother an fetus, then use that statement as justification for government intervention to ensure the carrying out of that beneficial relationship. Given that reasoning, the government could justify any enforcement of any beneficial activity. If there's any red herring here, it's the bill's authors' insertion of that bogus language in their findings to distract us from their real, misogynist intentions.
When I speak of the legislature perhaps someday taking action to inform women of the importance of becoming mothers, I'm not talking about increased sex ed; I'm talking about the danger that the government will start repromulgating the myth that only through motherhood can women be complete.
And finally, dbergan agrees that Section 1.8 of the bill is false, yet woud still accept the law? Government has an obligation to the truth, not to write myth into law. I would reject teacher pay increases or any other laws based on lies. Dbergan indicates a dangerous willingness to vote for any law regardless of the truth, as long as that law suits his personal preferences. Good law and the principles behind it should be based on truth. Lie to me, and you lose my vote.
Women (adult women, not minors) should be able to make their own decisions about medical treatment (which extends to elective procedures, not just sicknesses/disorders etc) The only question when it comes to abortion is if the embryo - whether just a clump of cells or something more - has human or civil rights. Civil rights is an arbitrary decision by society. Human rights is not, but that is completely undefined. Until the law defines what it is to be a human, abortion can't be resolved. That definition has to be found through our elected representatives (not by the judicial - they can only interpret and so are impotent for this) The truth of humanity, if religiously determined, is the soul....not useful for determinations in law. We have to get people who are willing to define what the distinction is between an individual human, and an animal organism. The only other option would be to lump human rights and animal rights together and while the green freaks would love that it would be insanity.
ReplyDeleteAs far as equal rights for women go...you are creating some of that out of very thin cloth. "the right not to be required by the government to place one's body at the service of another person" Are you saying the government does not have the right to enforce a parents obligation to care for their children? The abolition of slavery hardly extends to denying the government the ability to regulate medical practices. I also question that anyone has the right to have whatever goods and services they require to be conveniently located.
As far as the language the SD legislature goes, it doesn't sound extreme in the least (rather pointless, but not extreme) Cory railing against an American Taliban sounds like a kneejerk reaction on a par with the Rights reaction against partial-birth abortion. In saying that they're a bunch of liars you interchange the word obligation for wherever they said rights without cause to do so. In doing that you immediately depart from reality of the proposal and are reading your own feelings into what you are afraid these people want. It makes it obvious that it doesn't matter what they write in proposed legislation. You would tear it down and dismiss it because you don't trust them (perhaps justifiably) You may be right in not trusting them, but you are wrong in thinking it is because of the nitpicking you are doing with this Bill. Its because you found the people's ideas offensive before they ever wrote this Bill.
While dbergan and phaedrus gripe about my tone (and I always have been a little louder than the average speaker), I maintain that the legislature is playing word games to cover its misogyny> To make it easier to sell the legislation, Hunt and Howie try to make it sound like they are protecting the rights of women... but from whom? The doctors who are forcing women or tricking women into having abortions? No. That justification exposes a different sort of misogyny. HB 1293's supporters need to come clean and admit they want to enforce an obligation. They need to speak more like dbergan, who talks of women needing to take responsibility for their choices. At least then we could have an honest discussion about the motives behind the law.
ReplyDelete"Good law and the principles behind it should be based on truth. Lie to me, and you lose my vote."
ReplyDeleteI suspect, then, there are very very few laws that you would favor. Just about any bill that comes before Congress or the legislature has a garbage point or some kind of pork tacked on.
"Dbergan indicates a dangerous willingness to vote for any law regardless of the truth, as long as that law suits his personal preferences."
It seems more practical to weigh the effects of the bill against the status quo. 1.8 doesn't add anything in terms of practical effects... it's benign.
My personal preference is a government that executes laws based on responsibility. I get no personal benefit from this law being passed other than the satisfaction of living in a state that agrees with my morality and political philosophy.
By the way, is my position on casual abortion also misogynist? Is it the practical effects or the "bogus language" that earns the label?
"No red herring on the "inherently beneficial" point. The "findings" talk about this inherently beneficial relationship between pregnant mother an fetus, then use that statement as justification for government intervention to ensure the carrying out of that beneficial relationship. Given that reasoning, the government could justify any enforcement of any beneficial activity."
ReplyDeleteBut the way you use it is red herring. There is no evidence for any of your doom predictions... that South Dakota women are going to be forced to breed, take lesser jobs, wear burqas, lose their drivers' licenses, and become slaves. You are inventing a list of Orwellians to throw us off the actual effects of the bill.
Hmmm... maybe red herring isn't the right term. Perhaps the slippery slope fallacy applies better.
Slippery slope -- dbergan still can't find a fallacy that sticks. I'm not saying that South Dakota will descend into a Taliban-like state with the passage of HB 1293. I'm saying the law codifies a false scientific and philosophical framework that could serve as a basis for denying women other rights, and we should not allow such a precedent to be set. We have to be careful what we do with the law. No matter how much we trust the current lawmakers (and in the case of Hunt, Howie, et al, that trust is already minimal), we have to make law from a perspective of imagining what could happen if the worst possible people got hold of that law. We must make laws from the Murphy's Law perspective: whatever can go wrong will; whoever cansue will; thus we must minimize the amount that can go wrong within the bounds of the text we codify. That's why, regardless of possibly good intentions of the moment, we cannot create faulty law that people with worse intentions could take advantage of later.
ReplyDeletePost Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
ReplyDeleteThe essential feature of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" is the development of characteristic symptoms following a psychologically distressing event that is outside the range of usual human experience.
Many things can cause PTSD. War can be a trigger, as can abortion, in fact any significant traumatic experience can do it.
In people who have experienced a traumatic event, about 8% of men and 20% of women develop PTSD after a trauma.
Symptoms of PTSD can include the following: nightmares, flashbacks, emotional detachment or numbing of feelings (emotional self-mortification or dissociation), insomnia, avoidance of reminders and extreme distress when exposed to the reminders ("triggers"), irritability, hypervigilance, memory loss, and excessive startle response, clinical depression and anxiety, loss of appetite, powerlessness, hopelessness and profound guilt, just to name a few.
Many of us may be susceptible, given a harrowing enough experience.
20% of women develop PTSD after a trauma.
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT (in arm)
THAT IS SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?
Implanon is new to the US but has been widely used in Aus for about five years.
The only bad report iv'e heard is if your a smoker you can't use them due to increased risk of cardiovascular conditions.
Good incentive to give the cigs a miss............
any way my daughter has one, and no problems, no pills to remember,and she is protected from unwanted pregnancies for three years.