side bar
Thursday, June 1, 2023


Abortion barriers must be erased

In South Dakota and other state legislatures, bills are being passed which would require women seeking an abortion to get a consultation at a center and sign a statement saying they have waited 72 hours before getting the procedure.

There is only one abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, S.D., and in addition to the 3-day wait it would take those who live in rural areas hundreds of miles to reach the clinic.

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard said in a written statement “I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives. I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”

Abortion rights groups sued immediately, and Douggard plans to defend the law in the state court — which will cost an estimated $1.7 to $4.5 million. This is unjustified frivolous spending on laws that have no place being enforced by any government, especially with budget concerns toted as something of supreme importance.

Whatever good intentions Douggard claims, this is no more than an another ill attempt to once again apply red tape, guilt attacks and other illogical barriers to the abortion process, and it is beginning to blur the lines of how far states can and are willing to go to effectively destroy abortion practices.

His very language implies that in the state of South Dakota, the only good choice is the pro-life choice.

The idea of consultation or the requirement of an ultrasound is unnecessary, expensive and overall insulting. Women are fit to make their own decisions.

On the issue of abortion, it’s difficult to imagine someone who hasn’t thought it over extensively before making the decision, and women a significant distance away do not always have the liberty to take off work or have the money to make the long trek to one clinic.

Those who were in favor of the law have begun sending donations for the law’s legal defense and call this a victory for protecting unborn children.

All this talk of protecting the unborn continues to be nonsense — as it always has been. Instead of espousing individual liberties and then hypocritically proceeding to try and infringe upon them in arguably the most personal matter possible, why don’t lawmakers focus on the children that are already born first?

They’re willing to, with their moral confidence, champion the rights of the unborn, but have nothing to do with the child afterwards.

Forget paying taxes to educate the child, and ignore providing food and adequate healthcare. It’s not the quality of life for the living that seems to matter, but the hypothetical right to life obviously inspired by religious overtones that have no place in political discourse outside the dictations of our constitution.

If the goal is to present options to women in this situation, why cut funding for Planned Parenthood centers that give easier access to sex education, contraception and therefore discourage or limit effective programs in the process? Why so few centers? And why the obvious lack of enthusiasm for the centers in government?

Adoption is becoming increasingly less of an option with the overcrowding in foster homes, and those seeking the best place for a child may not find it.

Pro-choice does not always mean pro-abortion. Having an abortion is a choice, and one that should be made without illogical barriers or coercion.

Whether you agree with abortion or not isn’t the issue; what’s important is that above all, these difficult choices remain able to be freely chosen.

Back to Top ↑
  • Sign up for our Email Edition

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Polls

    What about UH will you miss the least this summer?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...