An entry from yesterday makes me wonder if some pro-choice leaders have the ability to take the prolife position seriously and makes it harder and harder for me to respect the intellects of pro-choice leaders.
Sanger post asks what South Dakota was trying to do by banning abortion and then answers by saying,(emphasis mine)
"Were they trying to enforce their version of a religious/moral code? Make Christianity state law? Demean women? Keep women barefoot and pregnant? Bring back patriarchy?
My answer is, all of the above. But the motivation behind all this becomes clear only when we look at the demographic/societal context.
You probably haven't read much about what the law will mean for the childbearing rate in South Dakota, because no one has focused on it. That, in my view, is what this law is all about: increasing the childbearing rate, especially the white childbearing rate.
I don't if Mr. Sanger is unbelievably ignorant about abortion in South Dakota and the rest of America but to assert that banning abortion is about increasing the white childbearing rate is probably one of the most laughable things I've heard from a pro-choice advocate in a while.
First, one has to point out that only 814 abortions occurred in South Dakota in 2004 and only 670 were performed on residents of South Dakota. Further more, In 2004, there were 11,339 births to women who reside in South Dakota. If all resident abortions were stopped in South Dakota, the childbearing rate would go up a mere 5.9%.
Later Sanger uses old statistics to try to prove his point when he says, "BUT, there were fewer births in South Dakota in 2002 than 1990, 10,698 versus 10,999. The white births dropped from 9,076 to 8,376." I'm guessing he didn't use the 2004 number (11,339) because it didn't help him.
Sanger also fails to mention what percentage of abortions are performed on white women compared to Native Americans. Whites makes up 88.7% of South Dakota's population, 78.7% of South Dakota's births and receive 81% of South Dakota's abortions where patient's race is known (there were 44 abortions where the race wasn't reported). Native Americans are 8.3% of South Dakota's population, have 18.5% of South Dakota's births and receive 9.4% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known. Other races make up 3% South Dakota's population and 2.8% of South Dakota's births yet receive 9.6% of South Dakota's abortions where the patient's race is known.
Whites in South Dakota have a lower percentage of the state's abortions compared to their population while Native Americans and the other races both have a higher percent of the state's abortions compared to their population. Stopping all abortions in South Dakota would have a greater impact on the childbearing rates of minorities than it would on the childbearing rates of whites.
What dingleberry would look at these statistics and think that banning abortion would be about raising the white childbearing rate? I wonder if Sanger thinks prolifers in the numerous states where more than 30% of the state's abortions are performed on Black women are also just trying to increase the white childbirth rate.
Later Sanger reasons that the motive behind not imprisoning women who have abortions is:
"And what is the penalty, you might ask, for women who get the abortion, who are equally guilty with the doc? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No time in the pen. Nope, the folks running the South Dakota patriarchal reproductive system can't put women of reproductive age in the chair or in prison. Then they can't reproduce! We need them in the game, as George H. W. Bush said of his granddaughter, in the game making babies."
I find it sad when pro-choicers can't take claims about the humanity of unborn and prolife respect for the lives of unborn human beings seriously. Trying to reduce the prolife position to racist motivations and the desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant is childish, futile and embarassing.
Naaman (back strong after a rest on the blogging bench) adds his thoughts.