Despite the pouring rain, I managed to hit the gym tonight, but in the rush out the door forgot my headphones. It turned out the be a good thing, as I randomly chose the treadmill in front of the television tuned into the Fox News Channel. And it was time for The O?Reilly Factor in Closed Captioning. Seriously, there?s more intelligent political discourse on an episode of Teletubbies. One of the letters he read off stated that if he wasn?t right, liberals wouldn?t hate him so much. Funny, but Jennifer gets pretty angry when I belch loudly. That doesn?t mean I?m saying something profound. And given what a windbag O?Reilly can be, it just made that treadmill timer move all the slower.
In any case?
It looks like the issue of a woman?s right to choose will be challenged by the state legislature of South Dakota. South Dakota. Of all the states in the union, it?s hard to believe that Roe v Wade could be overturned because of South Dakota. Honestly, Florida was the state I was betting on leading this effort, given Florida?s tendency for screwing the rest of the country out of? well, everything. Or maybe Texas. Texas seemed like a pretty good candidate. Kansas would be acceptable as well.
No, it is South Dakota that is dropping the gauntlet. I guess I should have expected it. According to the Washington Post, South Dakota has waged a war against abortion rights via social stigma and legal requirements prior to their recent ban. South Dakota is one of three states to have only one abortion provider in the entire state ? the others being North Dakota and Mississippi. Great company. In fact, the doctors providing abortion services all come from out of state. It seems South Dakota has waited for this opportunity for quite some time.
The Guttmacher Institute had some interesting statistics on South Dakota?s view on reproductive rights :
? In 2000, 870 women obtained abortions in South Dakota, producing a rate of 5.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some South Dakota residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate declined 15% since 1996, when it was 6.5 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in South Dakota represent 0.1 of all abortions in the United States.
? In South Dakota, 13,540 of the 158,436 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2000. 76% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 8% in induced abortions.
? In 2000, 98% of South Dakota counties had no abortion provider. 78% of South Dakota women lived in these counties. In the Midwest census region, where South Dakota is located, 28% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 10% traveled more than 100 miles.
All of these statistics are well below the national average for 2000. All the while, infant mortality rates in South Dakota have risen well above the national average. I had no luck finding maternal mortality rates for South Dakota ? a funny little omission in all of the political babble. Neither the Center for Disease Control nor a search done via the South Dakota Department of Health turned up recent statistics for maternal mortality rates - although you can find out how many people were killed by a tractor. Three.
But it?s not about the statistics. With the addition of Roberts and Alito, it?s pretty clear that the South Dakota legislature has waited until the opportunity finally presented itself to take down a women?s right to chose, and the cost will be great. The anti-abortion?s lobby has done an excellent job of labeling this as anything but a women?s health issue, which is exactly what it is:
Again, from the Guttmacher Institute :
? The risk of abortion complications is minimal; less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication.
? The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 1 death for every one million abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 29,000 at 16-20 weeks and 1 per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.
? The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.
? Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.
? The abortion rate increased in 2000 among poor and low-income women (those living at less than twice the poverty level or less than $28,300 for a family of three) and women on Medicaid.
But it?s not just about abortion statistics. The anti-abortion lobby has successfully removed from the debate any focus on women?s health and the access of the poor to contraception and general health care. No ? we?ll remove that from the debate entirely. It?s become entirely a debate about morality without any reality attached the equation. All the while, the Christian Right stands up and scream for the repealing Roe v Wade without any programs to help the people who need it the most. Once again, the poor are the ones who take the brunt.
So last weekend, we had some weather. Some serious weather. Hail in Isla Vista. Thunder and lightning. Snow in the Santa Ynez Mountains - less than 10 miles away as the crow flies, and at a mere 4028 feet above sea level. The works. Despite my SoCal upbringing, I usually enjoy weather like this on occasion. What I didn’t want, however, was our receiver’s antenna to be struck be lightning, which is EXACTLY what happened.
