The South Dakota bill that would criminalize all abortions, including those occasioned by rape and incest, is a clarifying moment in the debate. National Review favors the substantive law involved (i.e. criminalizing all abortion even in cases of rape and incest), but believes it is a strategic miscalculation for the pro-life side. It’s a miscalculation because SCOTUS will probably dispense with it abruptly. But it is also a miscalculation because it changes the subject to how exactly criminalizing abortion will be enforced. The pro-life activists don’t want to go there yet, because it alienates a lot of people. But if we’re going to go there at some point, why not discuss it now?
Those skeptical of the absolutist pro-life position should ask serious questions about this: if not a charge of first degree murder for abortion, then what? Would women and doctors be liable for criminal charges? What legal distinctions will be brought bear here? What about the use of the morning-after pill? Would that also be a criminal offense at some point? These are legitimate questions that the South Dakota bill raises. I have no real love of the Roe decision. And one of the benefits of removing it from the debate will be the beginning of more nuance. The strategy I’d prefer is not the substantive one in South Dakota. It’s one where only first trimester abortion is legal, and where technology is deployed to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancy and allow abortions as early as humanly possible. One good thing to come of the South Dakota bill might be a discussion along these lines. And it’s already starting.
(Photo of SD governor, Mike Rounds, by Charles Dharapak/AP)
The Dish 