Measure 11 brings abortion to the forefront again in 2008

Just when I thought that my decisions in the coming election couldn't be more difficult, I was reminded this afternoon that in fact, there is more. I had forgotten that South Dakota Measure 11 was going to be on the ballot again this election until a couple of kind women dropped by my house, asking me if I knew how I would vote on this issue.

This Measure is asking for what appears to be the most sweeping ban on abortion since before Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, on the information pamplet I just received it indicates "If Measure 11 passes, a woman would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if the fetus couldn't survive on its own after delivery."

Back in 2005, our legislature passed a statute that essentially instituted a "defacto" ban on abortion. Planned Parenthood successfully received an injunction on the controversial law, but that injuction expired July 18th of this year, making the statute actionable once again. According to a Ballot Question pamphlet compiled by the Office of Secretary of State, Measure 11, if passed, would:

prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a pregnancy, except for: abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system of the woman; and abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape or incest reported to law enforcement.

When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from
herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement.

The information pamphlet goes on to say that "Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution. The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs."

The law requires that a physician must inform women seeking an abortion that the fetus is "a whole, separate, unique living human being." A woman must then certify that she understands by signing a statement to such no sooner than two hours before the procedure is conducted (Slevin, Washington Post, 7/20).

Additionally, according to a LifeSiteNews report:

The law also mandates that a woman who seeks an abortion must be told that she is willingly putting herself at a higher risk of suicide and depression and that in choosing to end the life of her child she is terminating an 'existing relationship' that is protected by the US constitution and that her "existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated."

Currently doctors in South Dakota have been refusing to conduct abortions in Sioux Falls, the only city in the state sanctioned to perform abortions, essentially shutting the facility down.

The women I spoke with today indicated that the facility was flying physicians in from other states in order to stay open, though I imagine that could not continue for any length of time very efficiently.

This measures is a heavy weight that South Dakotans must carry this election year. As the only state to have implemented such strict measures, required in order to obtain services other states conduct as a course of assumption, it appears to be yet another way in which the electorate will become factious and divided.

Of course ours is a small state. I cannot imagine this happening in any other state (except maybe Alaska!) but clearly if the Republicans take office this next term, there will be at least one Supreme Court position to fill. That may change everything.

On a personal level, I am torn by this issue, as I assume many other women are as well. While I disagree with the idea of abortions, and feel that they are used subjectively as a way avoid having to face responsibility for our own actions and behaviors, I also don't feel qualified to answer that question for another woman. In fact, I don't think any of us should really be answering that question for anyone but ourselves, and possibly our minor children.

However added to this reality is the fact that the law is more and more becoming one favoring rights of minors that seem clearly within parental perogative. As an example, a few years ago in Illinois my oldest daughter was diagnosed with ADHD. When her testing was complete we were going through the paperwork necessary to have a perscription filled for ADHD medications (which I have since determined are not necessary nor helpful).

At the time my daughter was 14 years old; before my husband and I could obtain a prescription, however, a signature from my daughter was necessary by law. In Illinois (at least at the time) a child can refuse medication regardless of what the parent wants. At the time I was confused, and asked a nurse, "So, we are giving a child of 14 the decision making powers of an adult?" She basically said yes, that was the way the law was set up.

So ultimately, this abortion issue comes down to not only what is good for "a mother" in the case of an unplanned or dangerous pregnancy. But it comes down to what will be good for "a minor" in the same circumstances. Perhaps it is a woman's right to choose, but what of a minor child? At what point are they truly mature enough to make these decisions? And lets not forget, how many decisions did we make at that age that, looking back, we wished we would have followed the advice of our elders instead. Shouldn't we encourage families to have a signficant role in helping minors make decisions that are truly life-changing? If we're not allowing, and encouraging parents to have this vital role in the lives of their children, where could that lead our country?

So, as it turns out, this will be an election year for the history books in so many ways. But why, I wonder, am I not very thrilled at the prospects in store for our country? Instead, I have remorse, for a country that appears to be headed down a very dark path. I just hope there's a light somewhere at the end.

In this case, I really could use all the thoughts and opinions of others out there. How do you feel about this sweeping measure, due to be on the South Dakota ballot this election year?