Some struggles never end, it seems

The Washington Post reports that this past Friday, a law went into effect in South Dakota requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that having one "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being." That is, to require them to tell those women "YOU'RE MURDERING YOUR BABY!"

They are also required to say - required, remember, meaning they must use these words - that

the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

The requirement had been blocked by federal court since 2005 under a suit filed by Planned Parenthood, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the stay, claiming against all logic and rationality that the law was not "ideological" because it made claims about biology. And I suppose then, that a law that required employers to favor whites over blacks on the grounds that "whites are smarter" would be found equally acceptable because it made claims about psychology.

South Dakotans also will be voting on a ballot measure in November that would ban abortion except for narrow exceptions for rape, incest and the woman's health, a measure regarded as a frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade in hopes of getting it overturned.

(Parenthetically, I wonder how abortion opponents, the anti-choicers, justify such exceptions. I mean, if "life begins at conception," so what if the "whole, separate, unique living human being" is the result of rape? Are you going to punish this "innocent baby," are you going to murder this sweet, precious child because of a crime committed against its mother? What kind of sense is that? Incest? Again, are you going to murder a baby because of the actions of its parents? The patent hypocrisy shows that what's at issue here is not "innocent life" but enforcement of ancient and stereotyped sex roles.)

South Dakota isn't the only state with such a measure; Colorado voters will be faced with a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have the words "person" or "persons" in any provision of the state constitution "relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law" be read to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization." It's the first such measure in the country to directly address the "when does life begin" question.

(Another parenthetical note to say that "when does life begin" seems to me an utterly irrelevant question. Life began on this planet something between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago, with scientists still debating just how that came about. Human life, defined as the emergence of modern humans, has been around 200,000-250,000 years. The only possibly relevant question is when does an independent human life begin. Since according to an anti-choice site the youngest fetus ever to have survived outside the womb was a day short of 23 weeks, meaning the fetus cannot be said by anyone to have an existence independent of the mother prior to that time, there is no rational way at all that anyone can claim "human life" begins as conception. And don't give me any of that "potential human life" crap unless you routinely refer to an apple blossom as "a potential apple," a caterpillar as "a potential butterfly," and a tadpole as "a potential frog.")

Because of the way it's written, giving fertilized eggs that same legal rights as a living person, the measure could affect a far wider range of laws than those applying to abortion. It could, for a start, ban the use of morning-after contraceptives and IUDs. A pregnant woman could be charged with neglect or even murder if she miscarries and is blamed for causing it. Smoking or drinking during pregnancy, or any other behavior believed to have a potential impact on the fetus, could be regarded as assault. It's not even clear if she could have medical treatment for some unrelated condition if that treatment might harm the fetus.

All that is in addition to putting a virtual halt to embryonic research and putting fertility clinics at risk of murder charges for disposing of unused fertilized eggs.

(Another note: Please don't tell me "oh, don't be silly, that won't happen." In addition to the fact that some of those behind this move most definitely would like to see that happen, it is insanely bad public policy to give power to people under the assumption that they will never use it.)

Supporters of the initiative, including the group Colorado for Equal Rights, submitted 130,000 signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, well in excess of the 76,000 required under the law.

Attempts to block the initiative, which is seen as another attempt to mount a challenge to Roe, failed and the state Supreme Court said the measure could go on the ballot. The upside is that it's "unclear" how much support there is.

Ya know, I remember that in the wake of the 2004 election, there was a lot of hand-wringing about how the Democrats had to "re-think" the party's stands, to drop "social issues" like abortion rights and gun control from the agenda. One well-known twit actually suggested it'd be a good thing if Roe got overturned because that would rouse people from their lethargy. In addition to finding it outrageous that someone would seriously suggest abandoning an established right for partisan political advantage, I said at the time that I'm old enough to remember the symbolism of a wire coat hanger and I have no desire whatsoever to see it return.