Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Abortion showdown looms after S. Dakota ban

I can't help but ask...

In this quote:
State Democratic Rep. Pat Haley voted against the measure, saying that while he opposes abortion he could not vote for the bill because it contains an exception only for the life of a woman.
“Not allowing an exception for rape, incest and the health of the mother is a radical position,”
What exactly are we talking about when we describe allowing abortion for the "health of the mother," if we've just stated explicitly that an exception DOES exist to preserve the LIFE of the mother? Seriously. Can anyone shed any light on this strange distinction?

Also, can it truly be said that an exception does not exist for rape and incest if:

"It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest but such victims could get emergency contraception."
If you can get the "morning after" pill in such cases, aren't you covered?

And finallly, shouldn't it be abundantly clear that Planned Parenthood has a clear conflict of interest in this case? Abortion is their biggest money maker, perhaps arguably their primary reason for being in business. Yes, Planned Parenthood is a corporation, a business, not a government health care organization.

So, they can talk all they want about women's rights, but it's pretty clear that their opposition to this law is really about opposing the loss of their biggest their cash cow.