Monday, March 13, 2006

Abortion, Federalism and Hypocrisy

All,

I hope that you all heard about the abortion bill recently signed into law by Governor Rounds of S. Dakota. You may be thinking, “What does this have to do with me? What do I care if the people of S. Dakota are insane/wonderful [fill in the adjective appropriate to your beliefs]?” Well, here’s two reasons why you should care, regardless of your beliefs on abortion.

1. Allow me to quote a couple of people who were integrally involved in the writing and passage of the bill. State Rep. Napoli (R) said, "I believe the message from Roe v. Wade is simple -- abortion on demand, abortion as a means of birth control, abortion as a means to destroy human life -- however you want to define it. That's the message from Roe v. Wade that I believe should not be the message from this country or this state," said Napoli. State Rep. Bartling (D), said, "There is still another chance that President Bush will have to place another justice on that bench, as Justice Stevens is 87 years old and nearing his retirement years," Bartling reminded fellow lawmakers. "In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and the rights of unborn children." OK. They think they are doing the right thing.

However, I have two problems with this. First is the issue of their being representatives of the people. Interestingly enough, the supporters of the bill blocked four attempts to modify it. These included attempts to amend the bill with exceptions involving rape, incest, health (beyond life). Most important, some lawmakers attempted to refer the ban to a vote of the people. Each amendment was blocked.

Now I am not in favor of rampant article votes. California has been a testament to the kind of unfortunate abuse that these votes incur, alongside of massive amounts of money paid both by government and NGO groups in an attempt to inform (read: convince, skew) the public’s interest in the particular issue. In other words, there is a reason we opted for a representative government (even though that reason was originally, according to the “Founders,” because the people is too stupid to decide on its own what is just). There is also the issue of protecting the minority from tyranny. Indeed, given the option of plebiscite referendum vote, many or even most states in America would (1) make homosexuality illegal; (2) force creationism to be taught in schools; (3) deport anyone who looks Arab. Yet I would like you to note that regarding an issue as important, controversial, divisive, etc., as abortion legislation, the state legislature was loath to offer the public the option of weighing in and deciding the issue for themselves.

Second, there is that old argument about Federalism. The supporters of the bill, as quoted above, prove that they are not acting in their roles as state legislators. Rather, they specifically wrote the bill with the intent of changing federal law. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want South Dakota’s legislature to be poking its nose in my Pennsylvania business. Aside from the already questionable recantation involved in the passage of a bill that is unquestionably unconstitutional (insofar as it directly contradicts the interpretation of the Constitution by Supreme Court precedent; remember that elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution), there is the further concern that they did it not necessarily in the interests of their constituents, but of the nation as a whole. Quite frankly, if you want to craft national legislation, and if you blame activist judges for butting into the legislative process, why not run for national office? Indeed, instead these people, who might be dubbed “activist state legislators,” have attempted to manipulate national legislation by forcing the Supreme Court to look at a law that was intentionally written for their eyes, in order to change it without the input of Congress. Remember: activist judges are not defined by their political leanings, they are defined by their attempts to overturn or write laws. It’s awfully interesting that conservatives don’t use the term when referring to incidents like this S. Dakota law going before conservative justices, or their hopes that Bush might appoint a third such justice.

2. Allow me to quote the Governor’s comments, when he signed the law. "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.”

I tend to agree with the first part. I agree with most of the words in the second part.

However, lets see whether Governor Rounds, or those in the legislature that he “agrees” with, actually believe what they say.

(My thanks go to Kitten for all the following stats and cites.)

As of January 2005, 14.4% of S. Dakota’s children were living in poverty.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/childwelfare/financing/factsheets/sd.pdf

Out of 50 states, SD is ranked 34th in child poverty (1 being the best).

66-67% of 4th graders in the state test below age levels in both reading and math.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/childreninthestates/sd.pdf

In 2003, SD was evaluated for its child welfare according to seven federal measures. To pass, 90% of reviewed cases had to be in compliance with the measures. SD passed zero of the seven. As for the reasons SD failed, here are just some of the highlights:

1/4 of the kids surveyed did not receive sufficient physical health care.

When children were put in foster care due to neglect or abuse, psychological services were not part of the normal process of dealing with the child. In 21% of the cases reviewed, mental health care was deemed insufficient.

SD did not meet requirements for providing sufficient and ongoing training to its case workers.

22% of SD's kids in foster care suffer "repeat maltreatment," as opposed to 6.1% (the national standard).

27% of child welfare cases were not investigated in the amount of time proscribed by the state's laws.

14.2% of children who left foster care returned to it, which is above the ~8% nationally established average.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/08/19/loc_wwwloc4awelf19.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/08/19/loc_wwwloc4awelf19.html

If you are still reading this, I congratulate you on your ability to simultaneously endure infuriating statistics on the treatment of children alongside nauseating tripe spewed at us by politicians. In all honesty, if any government in the world could boast honest, efficient, adequate and complete care for all its children in all areas (health, education, etc.), then I MIGHT consider the Governor’s statements worthy of discussion and dialogue. (They still completely overlook the rights of women, but at least then he would be presenting a consistent position.) As it stands, the nation as a whole has a pathetic record in most every area related to child care. That S. Dakota’s record exceeds the nation’s in its ineptitude is shameful. But that the Governor would then actually encourage us to consider the state’s record in this area as a reason to support the bill, that takes the issue into the realm of the hysterical.

Poor Madison.

-W.





0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home