Boycotting South Dakota

This year is the year that my family is taking our biennial vacation to our cabins just West of Glacier park. But that’s not what I’m going to blog about.

What I want to blog about is South Dakota.

I am on a mailing list for some motorcycle friends of mine. I made a comment that on my trip to Montana this year I would be going though North Dakota instead of South Dakota due to that state’s backwards views on abortion. For those of you living in a cave, South Dakota just outlawed abortions.

One of my friends (who happens to live in South Dakota) replied to my comment with this response:

Cool. I sure hope you apply the same policy towards every other state that voted for officials you don’t agree with. No? Thats more telling than anything. Selective outrage.

I let him have it with both barrels:

It is my right to have selective outrage. You don’t have to agree with my selection of issues to be outraged about, you don’t have to like my selection, but you should at least be able to admit that I have a right to be outraged by the issues of my choosing and I have the right to show my outrage in any manner I see fit.

So far, SD is the only state that I am aware of that is busy sanctimoniously pushing women back into the dark ages.

You should be embarrassed by the way your state is acting about the abortion issue. It’s not just that they are outlawing abortion, it’s the callous statements that your politicians are making about it and the fact that they (although SD is not alone in this regard) can’t figure out that the way to reduce the number of abortions is not to outlaw them, but rather to try and stop the unwanted pregnancies before they happen by providing EDUCATION about birth control.

Providing EDUCATION about sex and birth control to teenagers does NOT increase teenage sex. But it DOES reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Your politician says that the only case that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion is the following:

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.” (attibution)

How can any right minded person agree with a statement like that? I mean What the ever-loving Fuck? How can any right minded person even MAKE a statement like that?

This is one of my hot buttons and your off-hand denial of my right to be upset about it and of my right to boycott your state has got me all riled up.

I don’t want to start an abortion flame war on this list, but if you want to rationally discuss this with me, please send me a private email

Hopefully this doesn’t turn into a flame war, but still, how can anybody agree with what South Dakota is doing?

This is how I really feel about it –

%d bloggers like this: