A little grey for the black and white.
So, South Dakota has a law outlawing abortions. Good. But did they think it through?
My question is did they think about the details? I mean the main issue is nice and all, certain to appeal to the Republican Base, but did they consider that technology has changed since 1973?
The law says that life begins at conception and that the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Section 5 defines "unborn human being" as "the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation." Is prohibited.
Good.
But what about in vitro? There are several embryos created by the procedure that are not used, would that still be allowed?
Rape or incest - If you forbid the termination even in those circumstances, will the rapist still have the rights of a father? Will we need a federal statute on that?
Medical need? That would need to be defined. In many multiple pregnancies the option is there to remove one of the fetuses, not due to medical emergency or the mother’s life is in danger, but to make the probability of a more healthy life for those remaining to be that much greater. How far into the medical arena are we prepared to go?
The Dakota law is nice, but leaves a lot to be desired.
I hope this won’t become a constitutional issue, or a federal one. It’s been over 200 years and we are still trying to figure out the First Amendment.
IG
"