SOUTH DAKOTA MAKES A MOVE

South Dakota earned yesterday the distinction of beating Utah as my number one choice for the state of the Union where I will never, ever live. And for that matter, probably not even visit at this point.

At least Utah once had Stockton and Malone.

But South Dakota is not only flat (well, a large part of it is) and square but also regressive. After all, they managed to vote for the criminalization of almost all abortions - 23 to 12. If this bill becomes a law (meaning, if Gov. Mike Rounds really decides to make his well-known opposition to abortion more than just a personal opinion by signing this bill), the only way a woman can obtain an abortion in South Dakota is if her life is endangered by her pregnancy.

The message is clear: South Dakota believes that it all begins at conception. And therefore any act to terminate a pregnancy would entail murder. If this becomes law, any doctor caught performing abortions in South Dakota will incur felony charges.

This is considered one of the strictest attacks on abortion rights in the last 14 years; it does not provide for any exception in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. It basically strips the pregnant mother of any individual rights in a decision that has long-term repercussions for all involved - including the child.

This is so depressing. Really. In other parts of the world, women are finally gaining a momentum in their fight for abortion rights, meaning - in their fight for control over their lives, their personal decisions and even the well-being of children born out of unwanted pregnancies. In Chile and other South American nations, for instance, things are slowly but surely moving towards a pro-choice society, and one should not forget that even though abortion is illegal in most of these countries, it is still performed regularly (and sometimes these procedures are incredibly dangerous to the woman's life and health, obviously).

Here in the United States, where the literacy rate is high and there is access to information from literally every corner of the country, the focus should go into sex education and family planning in order to deter unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and therefore the need for abortions. But instead, a lot of energy and money goes into fostering these debates which, frankly, should not be carried at the public level other than provide those seeking abortions with the legal frame and medical infrastructure to do so.

South Dakota is the first state to openly try to take advantage of the current Supreme Court composition, also taking into account the fact that Justice Stevens is already 85 years old and his replacing could very well happen under El Presidente still. Imagine the consequences - if this bill becomes law, it will surely be challenged and argued before a Supreme Court that has been reshaped entirely by a president who considers other people's pregancies, lifestyle and will/how-to-die choices his own personal business - among other things.

As a work colleague pointed out today: "basically, we are screwed."

Not to mention that such a law would drive hundreds of South Dakota women (I'd say thousands, but then it occurred to me that there are only about 770,000 people in South Dakota, and annual abortions stay in the 700-800 range) to seek abortion procedures in Minnesota, for instance.

That, of course, is the best case scenario. The worst one involves secretly performed abortions in shady (and duly expensive) clinics or even at home, both of which present great risk and unnecessary distress to the women in question.