The reason South Dakota is getting away with it

I've seen a lot about the Port Authority scandal, and while I agree with Glenn Greenwald that it has a lot of potential to act as a catalyst for the warrantless wiretapping scandal, which is an issue that actually matters. And that's good, I suppose. I wish I could get more excited about it. But to be honest, this whole idea of playing politics to win back support for your party just doesn't do a lot for me. Frankly, it's just more of the same. At blogs like Glenn's, the issues that really matter take a backseat to the win-at-any-cost strategy, as though winning is even possible without a frank discussion and strong stance on the issues. As though it's worth winning when you don't have a strong stance on any issue of significance.

Much has been made of Kos's willingness to throw out so-called "women issues" because of his belief that it hurts the Democrats' chances of winning elections. But frankly, I think Markos gets way too much credit for damaging women's rights. The fact is Markos is one of the few bloggers willing to directly speak his mind and admit that "women's issues" just aren't important to him. And every time he does it, there's another big uproar among those of us who think that women's rights are just a different way of saying human rights. His willingness to speak directly goes a long way toward undoing the damage that he would otherwise inflict. It creates a target for people's ire.

No, Kos isn't the problem. The problem is the people who pay lip service to women's rights, but don't actually follow up. People like Kevin Drum, who whose recent mention of South Dakota's almost certain to succeed attempts to pass an unconstitutional law that would ban most abortions. Kevin's one and only post on the subject spends five paragraphs talking about campaign finance reform, and then ends with this hard hitter:

And in other state news, South Dakota is about to ban abortion in the hopes that John Paul Stevens will die soon and a new George Bushified Supreme Court will uphold their shiny new uterus regulation legislation. Yet another reason not to bother taking a vacation to see Mount Rushmore.

And in other state news, Kevin Drum mumbles something in favor of women being treated like full, live human beings with all the rights that implies. And look! Just like that, Kevin covers his ass to ensure that nobody can say that he doesn't care about women's rights. Except that, he doesn't. At least not very much. Given the amount of time he devotes to it, that comes across pretty clearly.

If it hasn't been completely obvious up to this point, this post is about the pending battle for a woman's right to her body that South Dakota is apparently so proud of started.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that Greenwald and Drum are actually attempting to fight the same battle I am by using different tactics. The problem is that those tactics actually aren't any different than the ones progressive pundits and politicians have been using for several years now. And they aren't getting us anywhere. It does no good to argue convincingly that your opponent has flaws if you don't simultaneously present a vision of the alternative.

So instead of relegating the news of abortion to a single paragraph -- a single sentence, really -- I'd like to see some of the following points mentioned:

• Even if you grant that a fetus should have the same rights as full human being the law would force women to use their bodies to support another human being. Such laws do not exist anywhere else. For example, nobody is forced to donate a kidney to a dying man in order to save his life.


• The proposed law would punish doctors instead of the women who actually buy abortions, which implies that women do not possess moral autonomy


• The proposal harms minorities and poor women more than white middle class women, because women with money can still travel out of state for an abortion, and because "emergency D&Cs" have historically been available to white women


• The proposed law is distinctly religious in nature, using non-medical terms as "conception" instead of "fertilization," and ignoring the medical definition of pregnancy

There are people writing about all of this and more, in haunting detail. If you can't figure out what to say about it, try sampling this not-at-all comprehensive roundup of links that I found through a cursory examination of the blogs on my blogroll:

The Set-Up at Bark Bark Woof Woof

Forecast: frigidity in South Dakota at Bitch Ph.D.

Innocent Life at Digby's

Keep An Eye on South Dakota by Jill at Feministe

Welcome To South Dakota: Bring Your Own Coathanger! by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money

Women in South Dakota are to become Dehumanized Birthing Chattel-- Nothing More! at Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal-Feminist Bias

South Dakota women might as well die for fucking by Amanda at Pandagon

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/02/south-dakota-abortion-bill-passes.html by Shakespeare's Sister

Your baby's daddy is your daddy and I don't care by tbogg

I hope this helps. Now help me get the message out.

Please.