Thankfully, the proposal to create a total ban on abortion in South Dakota was defeated in the referendum on the law held at the same time as the Midterms.
Hopefully this will send a message that the majority of people think that this type of law is complete barbarity.
It’s not been all roses, however, as recently Nicaragua’s national assembly voted in favour of ban abortion under any circumstances (BBC article), though at least it’s not completely dogmatic: they are not going to prosecute a nine year old who had an abortion after being raped. Good to know that they actually feel the need to confirm that.
In the South Dakota side of the world, however, rape would not have been a good reason to want an abortion. One supporter of the planned ban legislation had a particularly interesting form of reasoning. Roger Hunt, the republican sponsor of the proposed ban, said, when asked whether a fourteen year old rape victim should be allowed an abortion, “I can live with that,”. In the case of incest, he seems to say that it would be right to force the child to carry the child too: “When you allow an uncle, father or brother to have an abortion, they are taking away the evidence of incest.” (via Guardian). So, the victim is merely a vessel for a child which is evidence for rape and incest. I’m sure that knowledge won’t screw up the mother or child.