Lawmakers in South Dakota approved a ban on nearly all abortions last week, which could create an assault on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 law that made it legal for women to have abortions in the country. The ban could have a ripple affect across the country and severely limit a woman’s right to choose.Republican Gov. Mike Rounds signed the bill after it was approved in the state Senate 23-12 and in the state House 50-18. The bill makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion, unless it is necessary to save a woman’s life. Doctors could face up to five years in prison if they perform an abortion.
The bill does not even allow an abortion in the cases of rape or incest. It utterly strips women in South Dakota of their right to choose.
The bill is detrimental to women because it will cause back-room abortions, which are performed illegally and are unsafe. For lower-income women, it will create a financial burden because if they need to have an abortion, they will have to pay the expenses to travel to a state where abortion is legal.
The ban is even more troubling because it has the potential to reach the Supreme Court and challenge Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, plans to sue over the ban. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may have to re-examine Roe v. Wade.
Because Justice Samuel Alito has replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, Roe v. Wade is in greater trouble than it has been in decades. In the past, O’Connor provided the crucial swing vote and protected abortion rights. Justice Alito has a record against abortion rights. When he worked for the Reagan administration, he wrote opinions against Roe v. Wade.
When he worked for the Justice Department as a lawyer in 1985, he wrote in a memo that the government should disagree with Roe v. Wade.
His anti-abortion record is also evident from the time when he served as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito wrote in his dissent for the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1991 that women should be required to notify their husbands about having an abortion. If Alito had his way, it would have lessened the right of a woman to choose and placed that right in the hands of men.
Even if the issue does not reach the Supreme Court, the ban in South Dakota could influence other lawmakers in conservative states to limit abortion rights. Similar abortion limitations are underway in Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Oklahoma, according to Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington.
The abortion ban in South Dakota is a step backwards for the country. If the trend continues across the country, then women will be forced to have back-door abortions that are dangerous to their health. The decision to have an abortion should be left to women, not male conservative lawmakers.
Brian Fanelli is a senior majoring in comparative literature with minors in creative writing and journalism.