Is Abortion "Child Abuse?" South Dakota Could Make it So

Is Abortion "Child Abuse?" South Dakota Could Make it So
Care2 Causes


The state of South Dakota has tried multiple times to make abortion completely illegal, always failing when they put the issue up to the residents in a popular vote. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-wont-south-dakota-ban-abortion/ Now, the state may inadvertently pass a backdoor abortion ban with a new twist — granting legal rights and protections to the fetus or embryo in the womb by protecting it from “child abuse.”

HB 1212, which was recently introduced, inherently takes the logical argument of “unborn victims of violence” bills one step further. According to the legislation, “Any person who abuses, exposes, tortures, torments, or cruelly punishes a minor in a manner which does not constitute aggravated assault, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. If the victim is less than seven years of age, the person is guilty of a Class 3 felony. … For purposes of this section, a child conceived, but not born, is deemed a minor.”

However, like most of South Dakota’s pro-fetus legislation, the bill wording is vague and open to interpretation. By applying this statute to include “unborn” children, abortion rights supporters worry it could open up opportunities even beyond the obviously problematic issues that come from setting up the pregnancy as something that must be protected from the person carrying it.  By stating “child conceived but not born,” the one thing that is definitely clear is that the legal protection would go back to the moment that sperm meets egg, so that includes pre-implantation and, in the case of IVF, pre-existing within the human body itself.

Less clear: what exactly is abuse? Currently, the state of Kansas is debating a second trimester abortion ban, claiming the procedure used there is “torture.” Would that be the same in South Dakota? Is abortion itself torture? Is the use of RU-486, which blocks the production of progesterone so a pregnancy can’t continue, considered “torment?” Is leaving a fertilized egg unimplanted a form of “exposure”?

If the bill were to create an opportunity to make abortion a punishable crime, the punishment being dictated by the legislature is even more offensive (and pointed). According to the bill as drafted, “If any person convicted of this offense is the minor’s parent, guardian, or custodian, the court shall include as part of the sentence, or conditions required as part of suspended execution or imposition of such sentence, that the person receive instruction on parenting approved or provided by the Department of Social Services.”

In other words, if abortion was indeed deemed a form of child abuse, and a pregnant person were found guilty of it anyway, part of the punishment for the crime would be undergoing parenting classes, despite the fact that the person would have obtained an abortion in order to no longer be pregnant. In essence what lawmakers are ironically proposing is that a pregnant person’s desire not to be a parent should be punished by classes to make her learn to be a better parent.

Even if the legislation were not actually to be used against abortion or infertility treatments, the message that the legislature is using HB 121 to make is abundantly clear: women must be punished for not having positive pregnancy outcomes. South Dakota is obviously attempting at a minimum to follow in the footsteps of states like Alabama, Tennessee and other states which have made it a more severe crime for a pregnant person to do any activity that could jeopardize the pregnancy, such as illicit drugs or alcohol.

In fact, it was a promise the legislature made last year, http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/local/judge-rules-state-abuse-laws-don-t-apply-to-unborn/article_48db3e5a-3440-5cbe-a5e4-f17c7cf9a11c.html when police were unable to mete out a more severe punishment to a woman that they charged with child abuse for drinking and smoking marijuana while pregnant. In dismissing the case, Federal magistrate William Gerdes wrote, “Unborn children are clearly not included in the definition of ‘minor’ under South Dakota statute that defines the criminal offense of abuse or cruelty to a minor. Even if there is an ambiguity (which does not seem to be the case), the statute must be construed in favor of the defendant.”

Now, the state itself is fixing that loophole.

Once again, state legislators are creating special definitions of crimes that can only be committed by those who are pregnant, seeking to ensure that these pregnant people make producing a healthy child their ultimate concern. If that doesn’t occur, it’s a crime. And, if in the process they can manage to inadvertently ban abortion, too? Well, no doubt that is just icing on the cake.

http://www.care2.com/causes/is-abortion-child-abuse-south-dakota-could-make-it-so.html

..
(emphasis added)

..