MENU
south-carolina-low-income-abortion-ban (1)

South Carolina Pushes Abortion Ban for Low-Income Victims of Rape & Incest

Share with your friends










Submit

It looks like my right-wing friends in South Carolina are up to their usual foolishness again. This time, apparently an unborn fetus has more rights than a woman (or child) reliant on the state health insurance system — you know, mostly low-income women who happen to be a victims of rape, or incest? And, to preserve or ensure the rights to life of every fetus is recognized, officials are advancing legislation that would create a moratorium on abortions specifically for said victims.

Now, clearly to any rationally thinking mind, it is absurd to suggest anything as ridiculous as the aforementioned. But, don’t tell that to South Carolina State Senator Kevin Bryant, who argues that it is the unborn fetus conceived in an act of rape or incestuous relationship who is the real “victim,” and not its would-be-mother, Yes, I know, this is just re-damn-diculous.

This via The Columbia State:

The dispute focuses on the definition of “victim.” Supporters, like Bryant, say the unborn child is a victim who has rights that must be protected.

“We’re focusing on the rights and the liberty of an unborn child, and I can’t understand why the life of a child that’s a victim ought to be terminated,” Bryant said.

So what is an uninsured rape victim supposed to do? Well, she can pay-out-of-pocket for an abortion — something that isn’t likely given her financial status. Or, she can bare the shame and degradation of knowingly carrying and eventually going into labor and delivering the child of her attacker.

At that point, she can then make the decision to keep the child, or give it up for adoption. Now I’m not a woman, but this seems very wrong on so many levels. I could be wrong, but it seems too much like punishing a woman for 1) being a victim of rape, and 2) for being poor. According to the provisio — which is defined as a temporary one-year law — abortions would be paid for with tax payer dollars only in the event that the life of the mother is in danger.

The three exemptions in the state health plan — rape, incest or life of the mother — mirrors the policy of the federal government health plan, commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment, named for former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois. That federal policy has been in place for more than 30 years.

Since 2006, state taxpayers have paid for 6 abortions. All of them were to save the life of the mother, according to the state Budget and Control Board.

Currently the state’s health insurance plan covers 417,000 individuals — no word on just how many of them are raped annually. However, this is something SC Republicans have been trying to pass for the last two years. Here’s to hoping that they remain unsuccessful this time around. But whether they are or not, it can never be said that women without access to affordable health care were not under attack like they always have by our slightly-more-conservative friends in the Republican party.

[FULL STORY HERE]

 
Share The News
Share on Pinterest
Share with your friends










Submit

Comments

comments

Written by:

Published on: April 27, 2012

Filled Under: Politics, Uncategorized

Views: 1579

, ,

  • http://twitter.com/jerzygirl45 Nomad

    These people make my head explode.

     
  • Reggie

    Damn RiPPa, you’re gonna make me move aren’t you?!? And to think I was just getting used to Charleston.

     
  • Vikramsinghdafauti

    womens should free to do abortion after all its there baby & space where baby will grow

     
  • http://twitter.com/Saynsumthn Saynsumthn Blog

    Just curious, how do you conclude that a fetus has MORE rights? Protecting women from being killed by the state is the same as protecting the unborn person from being killed. You sound like the old time Slave Owners who moaned that the state had no right to dictate what could be done with THEIR property. A Fetus is a BABY- not property ! Get a grip !

     
    • http://rippdemup.com/ RiPPa

      Sorry, but a fetus is just that: a fetus. Contrary to what you say, a fetus is not, “a baby.” And, if you were able to read and comprehend. You would understand that it is not my position that an unborn fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it. This is the position of proponents for this measure, of which, I am not one of them. :-)