In America, women are not required to walk three paces behind their husbands nor are they submitted to genital-mutation to ensure marital fidelity. After decades of collective struggle, they have achieved many of the rights that are clearly provided under the constitution. That does not mean that the same dark forces which reduced women to second class citizens have vanished. Rather, just below the placid surface of civility, the primitive impulse to dominate women still thrives and is visible everywhere that women are not protected by strongly-enforced laws.
No one has done more to activate those primordial instincts than our doltish-executive, George Bush. By reenergizing the abortion-debate he’s emboldened the tribe of backwards-thinking traditionalists who see his tenure as an opportunity to apply their narrow-minded fanaticism to the rights of women.
Isn’t this what the abortion furor is all about; controlling women?
Behind the gauzy curtain of religious devotion the same ravenous appetite for domination continues to flourish.
In South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill that bans all abortions in the state except to save the mother’s life. The new law will require a women bear a child conceived in rape or incest; forcing her to relive her trauma for the rest of her life.
There are no exceptions.
The legislation was passed by a meager 12 vote margin in the South Dakota House; 12 votes that transferred the ownership of a woman’s womb over to the state.
Even state Republicans oppose the new bill. In a recent survey, 73% of Republicans supported a “pro-choice” position.
No matter. The fanatics have taken over.
Is Governor Rounds sincere in his defense of the unborn, or is this just political maneuvering to reward his constituents?
If Rounds actions are heartfelt, then where else has he distinguished himself in the area of human rights? Nothing on the Internet suggests that he’s ever lifted a finger to defend, civil liberties, human rights, or social justice. Has he spoken out against the well-documented cases of prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib?
No.
Anything on Guantanamo?
No, sirree.
How about the rampant misuse of the death penalty?
Nada, zippo, zilch.
His blustery indignation seems limited to one issue alone; stripping women of their right to reproductive freedom and reducing them to breeding-machines. Hasn’t this always been the cornerstone of evangelical chauvinism?
Rounds’ spearheads a coterie of finger-wagging zealots who see it as their religious duty to force others to accept their blinkered dogma. Their contempt for individual freedom is barely concealed behind their pretensions about “loving their fellow man” or “turning the other cheek”. Love, however, never enters into the equation; their real intention is to imbue their convictions with the power of the law; ensuring that others conform to their wacky ideas. This is how they seek political vindication for, what amounts to, self-righteous discrimination.
The right to choose is the right to have sovereignty over one’s own body. It is protected under Roe vs. Wade because the Supreme Court recognized that the state has no constitutional authority to insert itself into the most private areas of the citizens’ life. This principle cannot be violated without depriving women of the benefits to full citizenship.
That’s why we should take the South Dakota challenge seriously. It is an attempt to subordinate the principles of secular democracy (choice) with religious conviction.
This isn’t just about women. This is about the relentless attack on secular values by fundamentalist-extremists. The ideals of the French Revolution and the 18th Century Enlightenment have come under withering assault by religious fanatics who openly despise democracy.
Do I exaggerate?
Don’t fundamentalists openly flaunt their contempt for the First Amendment’s separation of church and state? Don’t they advocate the death penalty for adulterers, blasphemers, incorrigible teenagers, gays, and “witches”? Don’t they support bringing prayer back into the classroom, depriving homosexuals of their civil liberties, and substituting the Constitution with the Old Testament?
Isn’t the ultimate goal to replace American democracy with Christian theocracy?
Once the evangelical piety-police are in charge; the skids are greased for hell.
Terri Schiavo is just the beginning. We’ll see birth-control swept off the pharmacy shelves, moral watchdogs hacking away at free speech, and high-school girls waltzing around with scarlet letters’ stuck to their chests.
The religious nutbars will insinuate themselves into every area of the body-politic; attaching themselves to venal congressmen to ensure their dogma is scribbled into law. The change has already taken place on the High Court where Federalist Society brown-shirts are now preparing to apply their moral-straitjacket to every area of social interaction. The effects of their smug self-righteousness will soon be felt throughout the culture.
The assault on personal freedom has never been greater. Our basic liberties are now in the hands of proselytizing, Christian-extremists who see independence and personal-autonomy as a sign of moral decline.
South Dakota is just the first domino.
Mike is a freelance writer living in Washington state.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
This is the punishment scale that Gov. Rounds new law would pass onto doctors found guilty of performing abortions.
If these right wing neo-tards really truly believe abortion is murder--why will the punishment not fit the so called crime? I'm not certain, but what I have heard quoted is that a Class 5 felony is what they mete out in SD to those found guilty of DUII.
Personally, I will not set foot in any state that denies basic human and civil rights to any woman. If that means driving 400 miles out of my way to avoid contributing one cent to their economy--I will.
I will explain to my pre-teen son that the beautiful Mt. Rushmore is something we will NOT visit as long as women in that state are treated as unwanted baby incubaters.
by
Esjaydee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 at 2:08:37 PM
Certainly Republixcans have lost any moral authority on abortion. They want to make us believe they care about life of the unborn...yet they have no problem murdering innocent lives women, children, babies, the elderly, the handicapped by their phospherous bombs, their indiscriminate killing in Iraq.
Making a law to ban abortion does not bring any sort of legitimacy to the Republixcans. In fact it is probably done to assure more males survive in their facist state to be used in their army to kill more people in the world in future wars.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:31:49 PM
The passage of this law will have little effect on the residents of South Dakota. South Dakota is surrounded by states that still allow abortion, so this is mostly grandstanding. It is also a clear indicator of the agenda of the fundies, of course.
What I hope the real effect will be is a massive avoidance of South Dakota by tourists and businesses. The one thing that the political and religious leaders of the fundies hold more important than their fanatical religion is money.
I was born in South Dakota and have family there still. I frequently visit the state for recreation and fishing, but I guess I'll just stop doing that. I am not pro-abortion, far from it, but I am just too sick and tired of hypocritical fanatics sticking their nose in other people's business.
by
m_astera (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:44:18 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
