extreme means ‘not in the mainstream.’ if this law is ‘mainstream’ with respect to prolife beliefs then one should assume that the prolife advocates on the task force were largely in agreement with the content of the report issued by the task force.

In [...] the task force members recommended a full ban on all abortions, explicitly rejecting a proposal by the task force’s pro-life chair that would allow exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. [link]

let’s consider this dictionary definition of extremism:

extremism — any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies [Link]

let’s consider the consequences of fetal rights legislation for the medical care of pregnant women:

For example, in 2005, a self-described true believer in the Bible went to a Pennsylvania hospital to deliver her seventh wanted child. The hospital decided she needed a Caesarean section and, when she refused, went to court using the argument recommended by the South Dakota Legislature: that the fetus had full, separate constitutional rights. The hospital won. The court gave the hospital custody of the fetus before, during and after delivery and the right to take custody of the pregnant woman to force her to undergo surgery. In the end, she and her husband fled the hospital and delivered a perfectly health baby without surgery. [link]

to clarify my position, i want to add that i also consider extreme any legislation that blatently ignores or attempts to overturn established legal precedent. fetal rights legislation has been challenged and defeated time and again in court. the ACLU has been fighting these cases and winning them for years:

A decade ago, we saw a rash of cases in which government officials zealously embraced a misguided mission to protect fetuses by attempting to control the conduct of pregnant women. Some women were forced to accept unwanted medical treatment; others were punished for their conduct during pregnancy. Inevitably, such actions backfire: women who fear the government’s “pregnancy police” will avoid prenatal care altogether, and both they and their fetuses will suffer as a result.

The ACLU, drawing upon the expertise of both its Reproductive Freedom and Women’s Rights Projects, defended many of the women who were subject to coercive or punitive state actions. We won case after case, and attempts to bully and punish pregnant women eventually diminished. [link]

i also consider legislation extreme when it ignores professional expertise surrounding the subject of the legislation. the American Medical Association is firmly against legal intervention in the medical care and medical decisions of pregnant women:

To address this problem, the American Medical Association has advised its members that in the unusual instances when they encounter pregnant women who refuse a suggested treatment, they should respect their patients’ wishes, without recourse to a court. Legal intervention will only result in scaring women away from prenatal care: “While the health of a few infants may be preserved by overriding a pregnant woman’s decision, the health of a great many more may be sacrificed.” [link]

on particularly notorious court-mandated surgery resulted in the death of a woman and her fetus:

In the most notorious incident, in 1987 administrators of George Washington University Hospital went to court to force Angela Carder, a pregnant woman ill with cancer, to undergo a cesarean section. When both she and her critically premature baby died shortly after the surgery, the c-section was listed as a contributing cause of her death. [link]

again, professional medical opinion went against legal intervention in pregnant women’s medical care and medical decisions:

The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and 118 other organizations, including medical groups, women’s groups, religious and civil rights groups, disability rights organizations, and leading bioethicists supported us by filing friend-of-the-court briefs. [...] [T]he court resoundingly concluded that in virtually all circumstances a woman — not doctors or a judge — should make medical decisions on behalf of herself and her fetus. The opinion emphasized an argument made in the American Public Health Association’s friend-of-the court brief, that court-ordered intervention “drives women at high risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth out of the health care system to avoid coerced treatment.” [link]

just one more case for good measure:

“T.B.,” an Illinois woman, ran into similar difficulties in 1993 when she resisted a c-section because of religious objections. A hospital took her to court to force her to have an immediate c-section because it feared that her fetus was not getting sufficient oxygen. [...]

The ACLU of Illinois, in consultation with RFP, represented the woman and persuaded the appellate court to uphold the lower court’s decision denying an order. The court recognized “T.B.’s” rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and religious liberty. Efforts by the Public Guardian to involve the Illinois Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court failed. “T.B.” was doubly vindicated: the law upheld her rights and she vaginally delivered a healthy baby boy. [link]

now, what does all this have to do with the abortion law passed in South Dakota? plenty. the law does not make any exception for the health of the woman. this is an illegitimate attempt by the state to interfere with the medical care of pregnant women. time and again courts have ruled against the perceived right of some legislators to dictate the health care of pregnant women to protect fetal rights. the South Dakota bill is not merely an anti-abortion bill. it is a fetal rights bill, and these have been found invalid by courts all over the country. courts have stated repeatedly that fetal rights cannot and do not displace the constitutional rights of pregnant women.

there are clear and compelling reasons to oppose this law because medical opinion, past experience, and LEGAL precedent find that these laws encourage and sanction the violation of the constitutional rights of pregnant women. laws that cause people to flee from hospitals in order to avoid coerced treatment are extreme laws. the South Dakota law goes much further than previous fetal rights legislation, and there’s no reason to assume that this even more extreme legislation will result in better outcomes.

i have more to say, but i need to go to work. i will address the pseudoscience of the task force report later this weekend.

The ban itself can only be described as extremist, going so far as to ban abortions in all cases except for medical necessities. Cases of incest and rape are not included in the exceptions.
…..
Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance … even in a case of rape or incest … can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.
—————————————————

I am far off being a sympathizer for US-feminism and I am totally on the side of MRA. But yes, this ban is extremist and a law back to the Stone Age.

This SD abortion ban law is an impertinence, a totally unreasonable hardship for every woman. Nice to hear, at least the mother, a victim of rape or incest, cannot be charged for her crime to remove such ‘products’ out of her body.

Should the victim of such a crime be a married woman, to give birth in case of rape and incest and raising such children is also an impertinence for her husband.

Daily life will not change however very much in South Dakota, except that abortion will become more expensive in this region. Just get on an airplane - abortion is available in many places in this world.

Section 2. The Legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm. The Legislature finds that the explosion of knowledge derived from new recombinant DNA technologies over the past twenty-five years has reinforced the validity of the finding of this scientific fact.

It is not, in fact, scientifically established that “the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.” As others have already mentioned, a more commonly accepted opinion among the scientific community is that the life of a human being begins when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. As has also been pointed out, what kind of sperm other than male is there? The “male sperm” phrase is a red flag that non-scientific opinion is being couched in phrasing that sounds like it came from the scientific community. What would the motivation for this be?

Let’s move on to…
Section 4. The Legislature finds that abortion procedures impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including subjecting women to significant risk of severe depression, suicidal ideation, suicide, attempted suicide, post traumatic stress disorders, adverse impact in the lives of women, physical injury, and a greater risk of death than risks associated with carrying the unborn child to full term and childbirth.

What risks associated with carrying a pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) did the legislature find? Why isn’t it included? This is hardly a balanced disclosure of the “science” relating to this bill. What would the motivation be for this?

Now, why don’t we take a look at the report by the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion?

From II(Findings of the Task Force) A(The Practice Of Abortion Since Its Legalization) 2(What Has Been Learned From the Practice of Abortion Since the Roe v. WadeDecision)
It can no longer be doubted that the unborn child from the moment of conception is awhole separate human being.

Really? Where is the scientific evidence produced to support this allegation? Oh, they didn’t provide any. That’s damned scientific. In fact, the testimony that they summarize (and sometimes quote) establishes nothing of the sort. What the testimony does support is that abortion ends the life of a human being (Dr. Nathanson) and that new molecular biological,”… techniques…permits scientists toobserve human existence and development at a molecular level, which isapplicable in determining genetic uniqueness, genetic diseases and relatedinformation through the analysis of human genes well in advance of the old gross, anatomical observation.” Nowhere in that section do they provide any supporting evidence to their stunning pronouncement of what can no longer be doubted. Drawing an unrelated conclusion from the evidence presented is simply not scientific.

Also, in section B, page 25, the task force provides the evidence that was really used for their stunning pronouncement above. That evidence is this quote from Dr. Mark:
There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.
I find their interpretation to be open for debate at best, dishonest at worst. Dr. Mark says that it can’t be doubted that each human being is totally unique, not that it can’t be doubted that life begins at conception.

On page 34 in section 4(Ethical Impact), this quote screams bias:
We can only try to understand its nature and we find that the tears of the women who have given us their testimonies best help us to understand

What about the testimony of women who are thankful that they were allowed to have an abortion? I didn’t see that quoted anywhere. Were any pro-choice women who have had abortions allowed to present their testimony? I don’t know.

Other reasons that I don’t find the report to be scientific? The big one for me is the fact that there are almost no dissenting facts or opinions presented in the whole thing. That hardly represents an unbiased report from a task force. The way in which the report is written and the virtual lack of any area studied on which they cannot come to a conclusion reeks of a predetermined outcome. If that is the case, this is certainly not scientifically done.

I’m sure that I have made mistakes here & missed some things, but my (undoubtedly pro-choice) PC is having a hard time displaying the report for me.

Gengwall, I read the report from the task force. The science they are basing personhood on is the fact that a fertilized egg has a unique DNA signature that does not change as the cells develop and divide. That doesn’t make the mass of cells a person. It just means there is a unique DNA signature.

A few pages later, much is made of the fact that some congenital physical abnormalities can be surgically repaired in utero as early as 16 weeks. Just because you can perform surgery on some thing does not make it a person.

The whole task force report is littered through with pro-life phrasing. “Unborn child” is the term used though out, even to describe a just fertilized egg. It is not an unborn child, it is a mass of cells.

This task force did not come to the conclusion that a fertilized egg has personhood though scientific proof, it started out with that theory and then went looking for anything that seemed to support the conclusion they wanted.

I have not read the SD report justifying the abortion ban so I am speaking from ignorance. Moreso than usual, even. But why let angles have all the fun treading on this turf?

I understand gengwall to argue that the report authors cite factual evidence, perhaps even the results of scientific studies, to support their policy conclusions. Although gengwall says that the study was “completely scientific,” I did not understand gengwall to mean that the policy conclusions themselves are the result of a scientific study. While gengwall has made me curious about what scientists have to say about “personhood,” I suspect they aren’t reporting on the results of a study entitled, “Comparative Degrees of Personhood in Fetusi, Platipi, and Cow Pies: a regression analysis of the 2000 Census track data.”

I understand emily1 and Jake to argue that the conclusions provide an insufficient grounding to justify the legislation. While emily1 criticizes the report for failing to “present reliable evidence,” I did not see her quote any evidence that she regarded to be unreliable. Rather, I understand her to mean to the evidence presented - whether reliable or not - doesn’t adequately support the conclusions because the evidence is incomplete, selectively drawn, misinterpreted, etc., and/or she disagrees with the reasoning applied to the facts. The weakness of the report’s rationale leads emily1 and Jake to infer that it is merely a pretext for an unstated rationale. Emily1 and Jake then opine that the unstated rationale is religious. I understand emily1 and Jake to draw this opinion from the larger social context, not from the text of the report itself.

In short, and without benefit of reading the report itself, my powers of ESP give me four intuitions:
1. The SD report applies a philosophical framework (likely influenced by religion) to a set of reasonably accurate facts, and purports to draw a policy conclusion on that basis.
2. A different philosophical framework applied to different set of facts would support a different policy conclusion.
3. The report does not contain any testable hypothesis for the proposition “abortions should be banned,” and gengwall didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.
4. The report does not contain the phrase “cuz Jesus says so,” and emily1 and Jake didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.

Boy Jake, I continue to be baffled at what report you all are reading.

Section B, pages 22-30, is the section regarding personhood. It is a summary of the testimony of real scientists quoting real scientific research and development about the personhood of the unborn. Now, I know that scientists use “sciency” sounding words. After all, they are scientists. And one may not agree with the conclusions the task force came to about personhood. But they were still articulated from a scientific perspective.

You ask where the religion in the 5 points mentioned by emily1 are. Well, religion (or faith or philosophy) is certainly present in all 5 points if those 5 points are being used as the reasons to ban abortion. Not a single one of the 5 bullet points can be said to be a “scientific” reason for banning abortion. Only 3 of those points can be held as objectively true & all 3 of those are completely irrelevant.

Well, I just don’t see it. I fail to see how religion or God have been invoked anywhere in the task force report or the bill as reasons why abortion should be banned. I don’t deny that religion might have been, (probably was), the motivation behind seeking a ban by many or all of the people involved. But I have not had anyone illustrate one religious argument that was made by them.

I disagree. I think that emily1 is correct that it is not, in fact, scientific. It attempts to fool the reader into thinking that the reasoning is scientific by using “sciency” sounding words & phraseology. But the reasoning used is pretty much faith based or, if you prefer, philosophically based rather than scientific.

You ask where the religion in the 5 points mentioned by emily1 are. Well, religion (or faith or philosophy) is certainly present in all 5 points if those 5 points are being used as the reasons to ban abortion. Not a single one of the 5 bullet points can be said to be a “scientific” reason for banning abortion. Only 3 of those points can be held as objectively true & all 3 of those are completely irrelevant.

That’s what it looks like to me, anyway.

A similar debate might be same sex marriage. I certainly have very strong religious views about same sex marriage. And although there are forums for those views which I appreciate, they get a collective, as nobody.really would put it, “to damn bad”, as far as being relevant to any legal argument about same sex marriage. Unless I can demonstrate that those religious beliefs ALSO have pertinent social, economic, or health ramifications, I’d best keep them out of any reasoning for or against the legalization of same sex marriage.

That is what is happening in SD. Certainly many people have very strong religious convictions about abortion in SD. But those religious convictions do not form the basis for the argument they are making in attempting to ban abortion.

thank you for joining. that was an amazing comment. i’ll say more after i get out of work.

We’ve been discussing the relevance of majority religious views on the abortion debate. I see two points in the argument where majority religious views might influence the debate, and I sense that different people may be discussing different points without realizing it.

For me, the issue is 1) whether a woman has an autonomy interest in being able to choose not to bear a fetus to term, and 2) whether government has a legitimate interest adequate to justify impinging on the rights of the woman.

I suspect even Robert would agree with the general proposition that government should not impinge upon a person’s autonomy, absent a legitimate interest, even if the majority wants it to. A majority may be offended by seeing a cross submerged in urine or burning flags. Too damn bad; there’s no legit gov. interest in stopping it. Similarly, even if a majority of people don’t like abortion, too damn bad. Majority opinion is not relevant. Doesn’t seem so hard, right?

But is there a legit. gov. interest in stopping abortion? This gets tougher. Sure, pro-lifers object that abortion offends their religious views; too damn bad. But they also argue something else. They say that the fetus has a right in being born, and the state needs to defend those rights. And they say that the state has an interest in the fetus being born. This is different than those arguments raised above; no one argued that the state needed to defend the rights of crosses or flags.

So, what standards should apply for deciding whether the state should act to defend the interest of a potential citizen in becoming born, even at the expense of impinging on someone’s autonomy? Some possible decision standards:

1. The interest of life trumps all others because no other interests matter if you are never born, and birth is a necessary step in life.
2. A fetus has no standing, no legally-recognizable interest.
3. Government should intervene to protect the weak against the strong, especially where there is a conflict in their interests.
4. Where the interests of an entity with standing conflicts with the interests of an entity with doubtful standing, the interests of the entity with standing prevail.
5. When in doubt, government should act to avoid the greatest irreversible harm, and the harm of bringing a fetus to term is less than the harm of ending a potential life.
6. Where a cognizant person’s interests arguably conflict with an incognizant family member, the cognizant person is in the best position to balance the interests. (Consider adults caring for a parent with Alzheimer’s.)
7. Avoid risk; when in doubt, preserve the natural outcome.
8. The cost of prohibiting acts that lack autonomous victims exceeds its benefits.
9. Where a conflict arises between a party who bears no responsibility for the situation and a party who bears responsibility for the situation, err on the side of the innocent party.
10. ….

How should government (courts or legislatures) decide among these decision options? It looks like a flat-out policy decision to me. And policy decisions inevitably rest on people’s opinions about the good and the right. World views. Religions, if you will.

So I object when people argue “We need to ban abortions because Jesus sez life trumps all other concerns.” But not strenuously, because I think it’s legitimate to argue “We need to ban abortions because I think life trumps all other concerns.” I may disagree or find that view simplistic, but I recognize that my point of view has not much firmer grounding. At the level of policy, we’re just arguing our world views.

Whether or not it is “good” science is not my point. My point is that the reasoning is scientific, not religious.

And I did not ignore your comments. I am simply pointing out that nowhere in them have you demonstrated what the religious arguments or conclusions of the report are.

State Rep. Bill Napoli (R) (and probable sexual pervert) that the only ‘real’ rape victim is a girl who was a *religious* (surprise surprise) virgin (surprise surprise) who was saving herself for marriage (surprise surprise) and was brutally sodomized (i think he threw that one in because… well.. he’s a sicko) in addition to being vaginally raped.

Are you contending that this is the legislature’s sole reasoning (or even any part of their reasoning) for not having a rape exclusion? You’ll have to show me in the text of the bill or the report where this is outlined. I must have missed it.

(In reality, they gave no reasoning for not having rape and incest exclusions. No doubt, some feel as Sen. Napoli does. That is sad but his limited definition of rape is irrelevant. Even those who he would consider legitimately raped would be banned from abortion. Whether your definition of rape is narrow or broad - remember some feminists consider any sex that is not female initiated to be rape, after all - it has no impact on the reasoning for including or excluding rape based abortions)

i’m going to decline to particpate in any further discussion with you. you’re intellectually dishonest in your approach. you ignore everything that might be even the least bit challenging to your position. it’s a waste of my time to continue. please don’t bother responding to my comments anymore because i won’t bother to engage with you. if i’m going to take the time to compose a thoughtful response to your statements, you own me the same.

and you have not demonstrated that it was based on good science.

this law is rooted in traditional religious beliefs about sexuality and gender.
So says you (and you may be correct) but you still have not demonstrated how those “traditional religious beliefs about sexuality and gender” are in away associated with the report or the law it is based on.

yes, i have read the report. it is, like Intelligent Design, a trojan horse. it is an attempt to endow a religious and philosophical idea with scientific authority by adopting language that sounds ’science-y’. it is nothing more than a collection of the same old crap that the anti-choice agenda has been spouting for years:

1) Because some women regret their abortions, abortion is bad and must be banned.

this would be a compelling argument for outlawing abortion if you bought into the idea that it’s acceptable to infantalize women by assuming they need the government to protect them from their own choices. this is not a scientific viewpoint, and it is not a legitimate exercise of state power to prevent women from making choices they might regret later.

2) A fetus feels pain

sure, it feels pain when it has sufficiently developed the brain structures necessary in order to experience pain. these structures do not exist until very late in pregnancy. the report completely elided this fact. i happen to believe that this was deliberate. ‘response to painful stimuli’ is not the same as ‘experiencing pain.’ a brain dead person is not considered ‘alive’ medically, but they still have reflex responses. the fact that this report conflates the two makes me think that the authors are being deliberately dishonest or they don’t know enough about biological and neurological development to make that distinction.

3) There are always pregnancy help centers!

yes, there are. however, this does not scientifically prove that from the moment of conception onward, there is a human being.

4) Abortion violates the rights of women

really? even the ones who report feeling nothing but relief after having one? again, this is not a scientific viewpoint. it is a marketing strategy for LIMITING the rights of women.

5) when sperm meets egg, a unique genetic combination is formed

Duh. This does not proof that the product of conception is a person.

this law is rooted in traditional religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. that is clear enough to me just from watching the shining eyes of State Rep. Bill Napoli (R) (and probable sexual pervert) that the only ‘real’ rape victim is a girl who was a *religious* (surprise surprise) virgin (surprise surprise) who was saving herself for marriage (surprise surprise) and was brutally sodomized (i think he threw that one in because… well.. he’s a sicko) in addition to being vaginally raped.

btw, where in the 14 amendment does it state that the rights recognized by the amendment include the right to use the body parts of another person against their will for life support? that notion is in conflict with the prohibition against indentured servitude.