browser life

WARNING: controversial subject matter follows. I don't expect my readers to agree with me, but simply to allow me to express my thoughts. I hadn't ever planned on bringing up this issue here, but after today's events, I'm too upset to ignore the goings on in South Dakota.

Ok, this afternoon, I'm zonked out on the couch, which is what usually happens after aquacise. I am awakened by the ringing of the phone, which always annoys me since I'm on the do not call list. I was thinking it might be Dan, but it wasn't.

An automated message asks if I will participate in a 45 second survey about the upcoming election. I figure contributing to a poll might be considered an extension of my civic duty to vote, so I agree. But to be honest, I am sleepy as hell and just want to get the 45 seconds over with in the hope they won't bother me again.

I am asked if I am registered and plan to vote, which of course I answer in the affirmative. Then the voice asks me if I will vote in favor of Amendment 11, which prohibits abortion used as birth control (their words, not mine). I know this amendment to be in reality a pretty much total ban on abortion, but I'm still really sleepy, so I'm thinking it was a rather poorly worded question and reply no, expecting the next question to be about other ballot issues.

But then the voice says something along the lines of: "Amendment 11 would reduce the abortion rate in South Dakota by 95 percent. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 11?" WTF? Didn't I just say no? I believe abortion to be a private medical matter best decided on a case by case basis between a woman, her doctor and perhaps family members/significant others. I have no business telling a pregnant woman what to do, and neither does the government.

The voice continued: "Amendment 11 has exceptions in case of rape, incest and to save a woman's life. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 11?" Actually, no. Amendment 11 is an extremely complicated bill, six pages long. Buried amongst all the legalese are some very disturbing limits to these "exceptions". Yes, if a doctor is willing to testify that a woman will die if she carries to term, she will be allowed an abortion. But if the baby has a problem that would result in its death either in the womb or shortly after birth, there is no provision for that. That woman would be forced to carry to term. Also, in order for the victim of incest or rape to be allowed an abortion, she must agree to have a police report filed by her doctor, making public the perpetrator's name and other info if known. While I see the importance of not letting criminals go free, telling a traumatized woman that she must either tell the world the name of her abuser or be forced to carry to term is barbaric. Finally, a doctor who doesn't comply with these and other complicated provisions is subject to 10 years in prison! I won't support a bill that would create situations like this.

The voice went on to imply that Amendment 11 was written by very knowledgeable and qualified people. Uh, no. It was dreamed up by the same folks that had a no exceptions amendment on the ballot in 2006. A bill that was VOTED DOWN, which indicates to me South Dakota's government is unduly influenced by people who won't take no for an answer.

There was more: "Amendment 11 is supported by churches throughout South Dakota. Does knowing this make you more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 11?" Apparently they didn't talk to my church, which makes a point of NOT telling people how to vote. That's one of the reasons I like my church.

By now, I was disgusted beyond belief. And then voice asked, "Would you consider yourself pro life?" I hung up!

Thanks a lot, South Dakota. I am NEVER going to participate in any sort of poll again. I have half a mind to never answer the telephone again.