The Daily Sandwich

"We have to learn the lesson that intellectual honesty is fundamental for everything we cherish." -Sir Karl Popper

Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States


Sunday, March 05, 2006

North Dakota to allow abortions in the case of fundamentalism

Sure, we all get annoyed with the hypocrisy of evangelists like Pat Roberts proclaiming their love for the teachings of Jesus and then calling for assassinations. But how about a State Senator who wants to ban abortions-- except for fundamentalist Christians?

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Here's a handy-dandy menmonic device for you South Dakota gals: "If you don't want to have a rape baby, get raped real hard and try sodomy."

Don't you just love the culture wars? As much as the neo-fascists like to frame it as liberal elitists versus mainstream America, this argument makes it pretty clear that it's motivated by a reactionary elitism that believes legal rights are only for some people. This is pure classism, likely fueled by racism (remember Bill Bennett's 'hypothetical' comment that you could abort every black baby in the US and reduce the crime rate?), and absolutely insane.

UPDATE (3/6): The governor signed the bill into law today, although it apparently won't be put into action until it clears the inevitable courts challenges.

Also, a spokesman for John McCain announced that the Senator "would have signed the South Dakota legislation." Good to see that he's still trying to shore up his report among the right-wing fundamentalists in anticipation of a presidential run. Wouldn't want those sensible folks losing any influence in government, would we?