Since I spent the evening last night volunteering as a model student for instructor trainees at my self-defense class, I'm feeling pretty strong-minded (and thanks to all of my trainer's efforts, strong-bodied as well). When I initially took my self-defense class as a student, I reconnected with my college self in some ways: the feminist, the women's studies minor. I don't think those things ever went away, but I think they had gotten so strangely quashed by law school and particularly by my experience as an associate right afterwards that the class helped me welcome all that back into my life the way it is today. So yesterday, when I read the article in the New Yorker about South Dakota's law banning abortion outright being put on the state ballot this November, I got pretty fired up.
The article pins down a particular flaw in the right-to-life argument that seems to be stumping even some of South Dakota's most staunch right-to-lifers:
If the premise is to remain intact, a person who professes to be pro-life but instists on a rape-and-incest exception (which covers most pro-life polititians in this country, including President Bush) is saying one of two things: either it is justifiable to kill children in some circumstances, or what grows in a woman's uterus is a child if the woman had sex voluntarily but not if she was forced into it.
Interestingly, many citizens of South Dakota who generally consider themselves to be pro-life will likely outlaw the legislation by a simple majority vote, due to the lack of any exceptions. I have to say that I am particularly curious as to how this plays out, as this is exactly the issue that got me interested in going to law school in the first place. If the law stays on the books, it is likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court; I hope it doesn't come to that.