SD abortion law places unfair burden on low income women

By Natalie Garcia
The Collegian

SINCE SOUTH DAKOTA’S recent ban on abortion is contradictory to the national precedent of Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court showdown will soon ensue.

One of two things could happen: one, the Supreme Court rules the South Dakota law unconstitutional and not one woman suffers from lack of medical care, or two, the law is upheld changing national precedent and sending the decision of abortion rights back to individual states.

To the dismay of every pro-choicer in the country, let’s say the high court overturns the 1973 decision and women are left at the mercy of their state legislatures to decide their reproductive rights.

For many women in liberal states, reproductive rights are not likely to change at all but for women living in “red states,” their choices will be drastically reduced.

Sadly, poor women will suffer the most.

The possibility of denying abortions to women in some states and not others will create the burden of women having to cross state lines to receive medical care. Women with adequate means will also have to go travel the extra distance, but they can afford to.

In some more rural areas, women many have to drive a day or two to reach an abortion clinic. That means taking off work, paying for lodging and finding child care if necessary. Many women simply don’t have the time and money to pay for all the expenses.

Placing an undue burden on some women is wrong.

Why would we want to put women back into such a ghastly predicament? Should some women entitled to more complete health care than others?

Several other states have been considering passing legislation similar to that of South Dakota. Given the opportunity, entire regions of the United States such as the South and Midwest will outlaw abortion entirely, leaving poor women no safe method to obtain an abortion.

As history has shown, women seeking abortions will find a place to get one, even if it happens to be some unscrupulous “doctor” in a dirty back alley clinic.

Before Roe v. Wade, the incidence of death and injury among women from abortions was astronomically higher compared to after abortion was legalized and placed women in dangerous, inhumane situations.

Anti-abortion activists would like abortion to be eradicated, but overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion disappear. Instead, such as decision will make abortions harder to obtain for some people, namely poor women from conservative states.

This makes accessing an abortion unjustly difficult and delays it further into the pregnancy, putting the woman more likely at risk for complications and death.

So when the time comes, Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens, please make the right decision to not endanger the lives of women who deserve a choice.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>