It doesn't stop with abortion

On Friday, Orange wrote a great post on South Dakota's attempt to ban abortion which inspired me to write this rather emphatic comment. I thought I'd repost a slightly revised version here.

Orange detailed several medical reasons why South Dakota's law would impact her were she living there, and then ended with this:

I know most of my readers are pro-choice, but there may be a few of you who don’t object to South Dakota’s abortion ban and its lack of an exception for preserving the woman’s health. Such a law sends the message that my life isn’t worth it, that my life and health don’t matter, that an embryo has more right to a full lifespan than I do. I beg to differ. If you don’t support a woman’s right to choose abortion, if you think preserving a woman’s health isn’t a good enough reason for abortion—tell me why you'd want me to die early.

Orange's conclusion got me thinking about the recent history of the women's rights movement. Women's rights in this country have generally been on a downward slide since Phyllis Schlafly and her cronies helped kill the Equal Rights Amendment, which read:

SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

It boggles my mind to think that standing in opposition to equality is a tenable political strategy, but there you have it.

We've probably all read state senator Bill Napoli's (R-SD) repugnant statement on just what it would take to warrant an abortion. If there is anyone reading this who is still anti-choice, here's another choice quote of his, this time in support of shotgun weddings:

When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.

You see, these people aren't content to outlaw a woman's ability to control her own body. They want to force your daughter to marry her rapist. They want to make sure she stays at home with her rapist's child. They want to take away her right to control how many children she has. Eventually, they'll go after her right to vote, and after that they'll clamor for the good ol' days when women were property owned by men. And if at any point you decide enough is enough, any more would be going too far, they'll call you a liberal and a traitor and say that you aren't a real Christian and quote 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

And when they've got women's rights under their thumb, they'll go after science education: first biology, of course, but also astronomy and geology and physics. And next up after science will be founding cities and even entire states on their particular conceptions of morality.

But you know what? That's not quite right. They won't go after these one at a time. There's no point in waiting when you can attack all at once. Which is exactly what we're seeing.

So you don't support a woman's right to choose? Well, first they came for women's rights...