Examining the objections to HB1293

By Bob Ellis, Journal Columnist | Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

Now that the Legislature has proposed the abortion bill the people “asked for” last year, a fresh crop of objections has popped up. Do these protests make sense? Let’s take a look.

HB1293 would place an undue burden on rape and incest victims. If we accept that abortion is something to be avoided (polls consistently show overwhelming support for at least some restrictions), and if we accept that an unborn child is a unique human being (DNA science says it is), then it’s completely reasonable for the state to confirm the validity of the exception.

HB1293 constitutes government interference between a woman and her doctor. Some of the same proponents of this argument also say government should interject itself into wage negotiations between an employee and an employer. If the government has a legitimate role in forcing an employer to pay an employee a certain wage, then certainly the government has a legitimate role in reducing the killing of the most innocent human beings.

Affordable and accessible contraception would do more to reduce abortions. Who of legal consenting age can’t access or afford a 75-cent condom down at the convenience store? Even widespread access to emergency contraception has done nothing to reduce the abortion rate in Britain; in fact, their abortion rate has gone up.

More sex education would reduce the need for abortion. Who among us of reproductive age hasn’t heard how babies are made, and how to avoid making them — either at school or on television?

Banning abortions wouldn’t stop abortions. Well, banning murder, rape or drug abuse hasn’t stopped these behaviors, either. But except for a few potheads, nobody’s advocating the repeal of these laws. Most people realize prohibition reduces frequency.

Banning abortions would only increase unsafe abortions. Proponents of this argument must also be in favor of government needle programs for drug addicts as well. After all, shouldn’t addicts have safe access to drugs? If not, why not?

HB1293 is unconstitutional. Really? Where is the language in our constitution that is in conflict with banning abortions? Oh, proponents of this argument are referring to the opinion of five or more people in black robes who have decided that abortion should be legal. If the definition of “constitutional” is a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, then we have no idea if HB1293 would be constitutional since it hasn’t gone before our esteemed oligarchs for a decision yet. Besides, science has learned a lot since 1973.

House Majority Leader Larry Rhoden said last week that trying to get people who are pro-abortion to support abortion restrictions is like trying to “nail Jell-O to the wall.” Indeed, all these new objections just illustrate they’ll keep moving the target.

Hopefully the average voter is waking up to the fact that they were lied to last year. All that “if only...” disingenuousness from the pro-abortion crowd was just a diversion to preserve abortion on demand. They’ve never seen an abortion they didn’t applaud.

Bob Ellis lives and works in Rapid City. Write to bobellis@dakotavoice.com.