the truth about the south dakota law

the two authors below believe that the new south dakota law that hopes to ban all abortions in that state is much more dangerous than most people had at first believed.   some believe that women themselves could be jailed for attempting to self abort.  can this possibly be true?

lou

March 6, 2006, 8:20PM
The truth S.D. lawmakers won't tell on abortion law
Pregnant women can, will face possible arrest

By LYNN PALTROW and CHARON ASETOYER

Monday the governor of South Dakota signed into law a bill that would
ban
virtually all abortions in the state. Neither the governor nor any of
the
law's supporters, however, have been honest about what the cost and
effect
of such a law will be.
Those who authored this bill and those who voted for it want to create
the
impression that only the people providing the abortions will be
punished,
not the women having them. They are not brave enough or honest enough to
admit what is clear: Women will be punished, and they and their families
will suffer if this law goes into effect.
We know that before 1973, when abortion was illegal in most states, that
even if the statute did not specifically provide for the prosecution of
the
woman who had the abortion, pregnant women could still be arrested under
separate laws permitting the prosecution of those who aid and abet a
crime.
Moreover, as Leslie Regan point out in her book, When Abortion was a
Crime,
many women, while not arrested, were publicly shamed and subjected to
police
investigations that were in and of themselves a form of punishment.
Undoubtedly, the law's supporters will point to language that
specifically
states that "nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the
pregnant
mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal
conviction and penalty." The truth is, though, that this particular act
need
not authorize arrests of pregnant women for such arrest to start taking
place.
South Dakota, like many other states, has adopted numerous laws that
seek to
establish the unborn as full legal persons. For example, South Dakota
has a
feticide statute that makes the killing of an "unborn child" at any
stage of
prenatal development fetal homicide, manslaughter or vehicular
homicide, as
well as a law that requires doctors to tell women that an abortion ends
the
life of "a whole, separate, unique living human being." The new law
banning
virtually all abortions states that it is based on the conclusion "that
life
begins at the time of conception," and that "each human being is totally
unique immediately at fertilization."
If the unborn are legal persons, as numerous South Dakota laws assert,
then
a pregnant woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted as a murderer
under
already existing homicide laws.
Farfetched? Not at all.
Prosecutors all over the country have been experimenting with this
approach
for years. In South Carolina, Regina McKnight is serving a 12-year
sentence
for homicide by child abuse. Why? Because she suffered an unintentional
stillbirth. The prosecutors said she caused the stillbirth by using
cocaine,
yet, they did not charge her with having an illegal abortion - a crime
that
in South Carolina has a three-year sentence. Rather, they charged and
convicted her of homicide - a crime with a 20- year sentence. They
obtained
this conviction in spite of evidence that McKnight's stillbirth was
caused
by an infection.
Thus far, South Carolina is the only state whose courts have upheld the
legitimacy of such prosecutions. But in fact, women in states across the
country, including South Dakota, have already been arrested as child
abusers
or murderers - without any new legislation authorizing such arrests. In
Oklahoma, Teresa Hernandez is sitting in jail on first-degree murder
charges
for having suffered an unintentional stillbirth. In Utah, a woman was
charged with murder based on the claim that she caused a stillbirth by
refusing to have a C-section earlier in her pregnancy.
If women are now being arrested as murderers for having suffered
unintentional stillbirths, one should assume that in South Dakota's
post-Roe
world intentional abortions would be punished just as seriously.
South Dakota lawmakers don't want their constituents to know or face the
likely results of their actions. Eric Sterling, president of the
Criminal
Justice Policy Foundation, notes that federal and state law enforcement
agencies have grown significantly in the past 30 years. He warns that in
states where abortion is recriminalized, people should expect strict
enforcement with the use of stings, informants, wiretaps, computers and
databases to gather evidence and obtain guilty pleas.
Rather than admit that this law will hurt pregnant women and mothers,
South
Dakota's legislators pretend it protects them. Indeed, the authors of
this
bill call it "The Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act." In
another
age we might expect that legislation so-named would address such urgent
women's health problems as breast and cervical cancer, the fact that
88,350
South Dakotans are without health insurance, the equivalent of 12
percent of
the state's population, or the fact that South Dakota guarantees no paid
maternity leave for the many mothers who must continue working in order
to
feed their families.
Far from protecting women's health, this law will undermine women's
health -
because women will have abortions for health, family and personal
reasons
whether they are legal or not - and it will open the door to the
arrests of
women themselves. Those who support argue that this is OK, because at
least
it will protect unborn life. South Dakota's lawmakers, however, should
be
brave enough to admit that in passing this law they are attacking the
women
who give that life and ignoring the real life criminal and public health
consequences of such a law.
Paltrow is executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant
Women
in New York City. Asetoyer is executive director of the Native American
Women's Health and Education Resource Center in South Dakota.

Comments

[school]

Pretty much nothing seems worth doing. I've just been letting everything happen without me these days. I've just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but whatever.

[Jason]

L.

Good point! I can't answer that.

I'm still not seeing the virtue in murdering babies, though.

[L.]

Correct me if I`m wong, but isn`t "Abortion is murder" one of the catch phrases of the pro-life side? If abortion is the willful termination of a child, why shouldn`t women who have them face the same charges that a woman who kills her BORN children face? If there`s no moral difference, then why let the woman off the hook, unless she can honestly prove she didn`t know what she was doing?
It seems to be to be a legal inconsistency. If abortion is so evil that it must be outlawed, doesn`t it make sense to prosecute the people responsible? Why is only the abortionist guilty, and not his willing accomplice?

[Jivin J]

Hi L.,
The problem with that theory is that it says "any abortion is performed" which would include self-induced abortions since they fall under the category of "any."

Paltrow and Asetoyer are also extremely deceptive regarding South Dakota's fetal homicide law which states that abortions, lawful or unlawful, aren't covered by the law. They base their whole theory, which is clearly contradictory to the wording of South Dakota's laws, on nothing but a single case in South Carolina, where the laws are worded differently.

Prolifers say that women who abort are "cold-blooded murderers?" I know you visit a lot of prolife blogs but which one of us has said that?

[L.]

Actually, J., the wording of the law makes me think that they have in mind to prosecute abortionists, but don`t take into consideration what they would do if the "the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted" is doing it to herself, and is therefore both victim and perpetrator.

And if abortion is indeed cold-blooded murder as pro-lifers say, then why shouldn`t it be a crime for a mother to kill her baby in her womb? It would seem logical to try the woman for murder, or at least as an accomplice if she sought an abortionist`s help.

[Jivin J]

Lynn and Charon either failed to actually read the law or are incredulous liars.

The law specifically states that, "nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

Available online at http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215enr.htm

To say that women in South Dakota could be prosecuted based on this law when the law specifically says they can't is the pinnacle of deception.

[Diatryma]

Those legal cases frighten me. I'm pro-choice and won't budge on it because I know too many people who might need to end a pregnancy for health reasons, and one who ended a pregnancy and took a lot of flak for it-- she was within a few weeks of viability, but given the risk of a stroke or death for her and the miniscule chance of survival for her child, she chose-- CHOSE-- to end the pregnancy she wanted for so long.

You choose. You choose life. And your choice doesn't make you weak any more than another choice would make you weak. It's not what choice you make, but that you have made it-- you are informed, you are capable, you are exercising the rights you have as a person. Eventually, most of my friends will make the same choice-- my mother made the same choice, and chose to keep me because she wanted me (I was planned, not the result of a trauma in any way, and it's still choice).

A woman isn't weak because her body cannot handle the stress of pregnancy as she needs an abortion.
A woman isn't weak because she is ten and didn't tell anyone what her uncle was doing until it was too late.
A woman isn't weak because she decides to keep a child from rape, or because she decides she will not bear it.
A woman isn't weak because she decides it is better for her beloved child to die safe and warm and painlessly rather than cold, alone, and struggling to breathe.

It's my body, not yours. I won't tell you to have an abortion and you won't tell me not to have one. Your freedom to choose life only matters if I can choose otherwise.

[Zygote]

Christiana,
I can completely understand why you don't want to be lumped into a group you feel so passionaly against. But you proved my point...

"But imagine how you'd feel if somebody went around insisting, *on your behalf and without your approval*, that you consider something to be a "right" that you know is an abomination"

I am making generalizations, but this statement is exactly pro-choicers are up in arms over the SD law. The SD legislators are going around and saying on "your behalf" we going to make this illegal. We considered it an abomination that this isn't/won't be an option for us. We feel exactly the same way on the opposite side. You believe that abortion is wrong, which is great for you, but why do the women who don't believe this have to suffer?

[Diana S]

BTW, I am very strong, very capable and absolutely trustworthy, and I had an abortion.
I know many such women.
So do you.

[Diana S]

I do think you have valid points, Christina.

Women do instinctively want to protect their unborn. It goes against every cell in their bodies to do them any harm. That is why it is such a painful decision. "Want" is a bad word. But women do come to make that decision, and it is not as easy to raise a baby as it is for a housecat, and in this world even pregancy and delivery is much harder on a woman than a cat. That is why it is wrong to judge or question a woman who had an abortion. You know women do not do it lightly.

I'm more upset that we live in a society that is hostile to motherhood, hostile to children than the fact that abortion is legal.

[Christina]

To even say that a woman wants the "option" of abortion is, in itself, the most profound insult you can hurl at a pro-life woman. It's a repudiation of motherhood, of love, of nurturing, of relationship, of everything that matters in life. To imply that I embrace such an abomination simply because I have a uterus -- Excuse me, I also have a brain and a soul and a conscience. And to say that being female means I "need" this "option" is a slap in the face. I can think of no worse thing you can say about me than to even *imply* that I want abortion available as an option. You might as well say that I need to keep rat poison in the house in case I get tired of caring for my elderly mother. It's an affront not only to my intelligence but to my character.

I mean it. It's the greatest insult. And I'm sick of living in a society that assumes that I'd ever *want* to kill my own child. The presence of an abortion facility in a town is an insult to the women who live there. "Here live cold-hearted bitches who want their children dead." I'm *proud* to live in a county with no abortionist, to be among women who are strong, capable, and trustworthy.

An abortion clinic is a statement that the woman of that community can't be trusted with their own sexuality or with their own unborn children. That's a pathetic state for women to be in.

[Diana S]

Christina, you have made it crystal clear why the "pro-life" community doesn't care about the right to life of frozen embryos.
It's about sex.
And, I admit you have a legitimate point when you complain about women being used as sex objects and then tossed aside when an inconvenient pregnancy occurs. It happened to me, I was in love with a man who abandoned me when he found out I was pregnant. He talked me into having an abortion then left. I hate him to this day for it. Maybe if abortion were not possible, he would not have risked having sex with no intentions of supporting me and my child.

But as DP brilliantly points out, that's a fantasy. If you have problems with how men use women, deal with THAT. It will do nothing to give women more negotiating power in their relationshipd to rob all women of reproductive rights.

I hear you, I do. It is really hard to get an audience when you are rebelling against "sexual liberation", people will call you a prude and move on. But talk about the rights of the unborn... now you have an audience. But it won't help women. It really won't.

[Christina]

DP and Zygote, not being pro-life women, I'm not surprised that you can't understand. Even intimating that we want the option available is an insult to us. It's saying that we're weak and can't cope with what any *housecat* in the land is able to deal with. It's saying that we're mindless atomotans that, like Pavolvian dogs, will reflexively reach for a coathanger when the little line turns blue.

I don't expect you to understand. You think abortion is okay. But imagine how you'd feel if somebody went around insisting, *on your behalf and without your approval*, that you consider something to be a "right" that you know is an abomination.

I can't think of a parallel. But it's insulting. For a woman to *knowingly* kill her own baby is the most heinous thing a person can do. And to imply that other women *want* to do that -- It's like saying that all men are rapists, just because *some* men are. Don't lump me in with women who want their babies dead. And by saying that, just by virtue of being female I somehow *need* abortion available, you're doing just that.

*Some* women *want* to kill their fetuses. Let them fend for themselves.

[DP]

The moral I draw from this article is that it's probably best to have an abortion as soon as you know that you're pregnant because if you attempt to continue the pregnancy and something goes wrong you're going to get tossed in prison and any actual, real, living children you have will be left without a mother. Ah, pro-life politics at work again.

[DP]

"Pro-life women consider having abortion available to be an attack"

Oh, for goodness sake, Christina. You can do better than this. I know you can, I've seen you do so. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to have sex, don't do it. But stop pretending that taking away an option is somehow "liberating". If abortion were illegal would that stop men from pressuring women to have sex? No. Would it stop women from yielding to men's desires out of a fear of rejection or feelings of inadequacy? No. Would it even stop them from getting abortions? No. All it would do is make the abortions much more dangerous, make a lot of women die from septic abortions and put some in prison. I don't know about you, but having the option to decide when I want children without having to resort to measures that could kill me or get me arrested is not my idea of an attack.

[Zygote]

Christina,
Them fighting words. :) I will respectfully disagree though. Strong women demand that we are given the proper credit for being capable of making our own decisions on what is right for our lives. Strong women are able to look at all the options and make the appropriate decision for themselves. They should be able to make these decision without the removal of certain "choices" because it’s for their benefit. That just implies that women are too stupid to think for themselves. You are a strong women because you have looked at the options and made a decision on what you would or would not do. This, by no means, make me weak for making a different choice.

[Christina]

Diana, can the hysteria. Pro-life women consider having abortion available to be an attack. It treats us like second-class citizens who need surgery to be as good as men. It demeans our ability to reproduce.

I am more than a life-support system for a vagina. The idea that abortion is something women need to be equal to men is based on the idea that a woman's not fully human unless she's on her back with her knees in the air and some man shoving something -- a penis, a canual -- into her private parts. I don't need a man to make me whole, be he a sex partner or an abortionist. Strong women demand more from life than a suction machine.

[Diana S]

Does the S.D. law also forbid fertility clinics from destroying frozen embryos? I doubt it, since this is just an attack on women.

[Christina]

Huh. I heard about the Utah woman and thought that was really bizarre. The late-term abortion law in Utah is enjoined by the courts and thus unenforceable. Which means that had she deliberately had the fetuses killed by somebody else, she'd have been exercising a right, but since she simply took a "hey, whatever" attitude and one of them died as a result, she was prosecuted. Makes no sense!

Bizarre. Do you have links to the cases?