South Dakota Lawmakers Stomp on Women's Rights
Even God Gave Us Freedom of Will
Prior to Roe V Wade, abortions were either limited to the "life of the mother" standard, or no allowed at all. The Supreme Courts ruling meant that individual states could not force a women to have a child, because it did not have the right to interfere with her right to determine the issue for herself. The court did not use the rhetoric or public displays of support by either side of the issue to make its decision. Instead the justices used the Constitution of the United States as the basis for their ruling. To my knowledge, the Constitution has not changed.
What the Supreme Court did in its decision was to free women, rich and poor, from back alley abortions that threatened the life of the woman. It saved them from potential black mail. And it saved rape and incest victims from having to carry to term and raise a child whose conception was not of their choice and a horrific event in their lives. North Dakota's legislature would ban abortion in cases of rape and incest, and potentially allow rapist to have a part in the child's life with full parental rights. This would force women to deal with the rapist repeatedly. For the women it would be like being raped over and over again.
If the Constitution hasn't change, what has? An ultra conservative, religiously inspired zealots who wish to force their moral values on the rest of us now drives the politics of this nation politics. Slowly, and not so subtly they have been chipping away at the freedoms that we all assumed were unassailable. The governor of South Dakota stated publicly he was a staunch Christian and "Right to Lifer" and would sign the bill. Does that mean he has the right to stomp on not only women's rights but on a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution of the United States? No, no, a thousand times no, this country is based on the separation of church and state. That means that the state cannot interfere in the church, and that the church is to be kept out of state affairs. The only way the church can effect the affairs of state is by voting as an individual.
Perhaps, it's time for all the women in the United States to put aside their petty differences and unite to protect their sisters from the whims and dogmas of men who want to again trap us into the hell of being considered chattel. Lincoln freed the slaves, isn't it time that we women freed ourselves from second class citizen status and took the lead. We are the majority, now is the time to act like it. Get out and vote for candidates who espouse our point of view. Vote for qualified women-there are plenty of them out there. Let's prove for once and for all that this is not a man's world, it's an equal world. Where women can expect to be protected under the law the same way men are.
Published by Bobbi Duffy
I write articles, poetry, book reviews and abstracts. And I tutor in English. I hold a BA from the University of South FL, I love to learn new things. I am inspired by nature, baby's smiles, the moon and... View profile
- Supreme Court History and TraditionsThe United States Supreme Court is an institution with many traditions, and there are some aspects of the Justice selection process and the operation of the Court that will likely hold true this go-round, and for year...
- United States Supreme Court Declines to Legalize Polygamy The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a case that might have recognized a right of polygamy, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
The Pechanga American Indian Tribe and the U.S. Supreme CourtAfter over two years working it's way through the court systems, a fight that started in an Indian Enrollment Committee has ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, with the Court refus...- Religious Freedom Law Signed by Then Governor George Bush to Be Interpreted by Tex...A religious freedom law in Texas signed by then Governor George Bush will soon be interpreted by the Texas Supreme Court.
- Amnesty International Pleads with Supreme Court to Uphold Prisoners' Rights to Hab..."The Supreme Court has twice delivered the message to the Bush administration that judicial review and civil liberties cannot be discarded."
- South Dakota Bar Exam: A Basic Gudie
- Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Late Term Abortion
- South Dakota Vietnam War Memorial Dedication
- Romantic Weekend Getaways in South Dakota
- Supreme Court Attorney Adresses Hot Button Issue
- University of South Dakota Legend "Doc" Farber Who Mentored Tom Brokaw, Al Neuhart...
- Politics in the Supreme Court
- Has separation of church and state been suspended in America
- If women are the majority shouldn't we have the greater say
- Bush got his wish, he has wanted Roe V Wade overturned since before he was elected
6 Comments
Post a Comment"A Modest Proposal"* apparently there's a length limit. -Andrew Kleypas
(Not Steve Young) Upon reading your article I can't really help but laugh. Sending women back into the dark ages... seems a bit extreme. Personally, I am for abortion; however your arguement is terrible, and the comparison of women's current status to that of slavery is just insulting. Also, I highly doubt there would be any court decision granting any custody of a child conceived from rape to the rapist. There are divorce cases which prevent or significantly limit visitation rights of the father for his children. Granted these cases are more towards when the father really is not a good influence to the child... But with that being said, if a bad father can not see his son or daughter, how would a rapist get rights to his genetic child? Perhaps they would be required to pay child support, but if you really needed it, would you care where the money's coming from? If one reads this in a satyrical view, congrats. Excellent work, although still light years a from Swift's "A Mode
The right to an abortion was never mentioned in the Costitution neither was privacy, both were implied by our court system. And actually the Constitution has changed since Roe V. Wade ever heard of an ammendment? You shouldn't claim it would cost less to save the lives of 30,000 children then to overturn Roe V. Wade, because abortion has already killed over 50 million American children. And this is not a matter of seperation of church and state. Yes the Christian religion has taken a stance against abortion, but that does not mean we can't overturn the law or that abortion is only a religous issue. The Catholic Church is formally against the War in Iraq. Does that make Iraq a non political issue? This article is a disgrace. I hope the website didn't really pay for this. Why don't you femnist go back in the kitchen where you belong.
Your article might be the worst argument I've ever heard. Show me where in the Constitution is there the right to have an abortion. Better yet, tell me where in the Constitution is the right to privacy. Supreme Court ruling are overturned all the time. If the Dread Scott case wasn't overturned by our govnment we'd still have slavery. It's lesbian femnist like you that hold women back.
Maybe if men kept their pants on and didn't treat women as sex objects there would be no need for abortion
Maybe if women decided to keep their pants on they wouldn't have that problem to begin with. Abortion is murder. It's not a women's rights issue, killing should never be a civil right. it sounds like the author is a feminist and sence most feminist are lesbians the issue doesn't really concern the author anyways.