As a nerdy child, I was entranced gothic novels. The creepy castles and dreary moors were always filled with intrigue and danger from both mortal and more mysterious sources. And of course, the heroine was always trying to marry well or at very least avoid a fate worse then death.
A Fate Worse Than Death.... Silly when you hear about it now.. A Fate Worse Than Death was the loss of your virginity before marriage. In the olden days we know that women were shunned, marginalized and otherwise treated foully for defying convention and having sex... or worse, bearing a child out of wedlock. A woman might be able to avoid trouble if she didn't get pregnant... but if she did? Well, I guess she got what she deserved, right?
We all know that back in the Good Olde Days that scandal could be averted if the girl just married her seducer. And of course, we want a return to the good olde days, don't we?
Sure... Of course, that assumes that the man is willing to take responsibility for his actions. There is and was nothing requiring HIM to be compelled to accept his duty. After all, whatever scandal may come to pass doesn't effect him. He can leave the community and start anew. But a pregnant unmarried woman... well, no matter where she goes... she will carry the stain of her "shame" whether it was her shame or not.
What if he raped her? Well I guess she should have fought harder. As we know, in the good olde days, there was no way to prove that she was even a victim of a rape. All he had to do was deny the charge or worse, justify his behavior be demonstrating that the victim was lewd or otherwise behaving inappropriately. It was all very simple. For him at least. He has the power. He has the control over the entire situation.
In South Dakota, where a law banning virtually all abortions has been passed has a law maker that summed it up this way....
And of course, we assume that the man was free to marry his victim. What if he was already married or worse, a relative? Well, that level of scandal was always hushed up in the good olde days. For the sake of the delicate ears of us ladies.
Shame, blame and scandal... A Fate Worse Than Death, indeed.
But we don't live in the Good Olde Days. We live in the modern world of here and now. Where we (at least more often) prosecute rapists to the fullest extent of the law and not the victims. We protect children from incest. And we have had a way to keep a girl from suffering the most obvious secondary trauma of a rape or incest related pregnancy.
She could be offered an abortion.
Is this a way to clear the slate and make everything all right again? Absolutely not. But does it stop the continued physical suffering of the rape and incest victim. By removing the chance of physical injury related to a pregnancy (higher in younger victims).
Clearly the people of the great state of South Dakota are big thinkers... so clever to send us back to the notions of the past that have been completely blinded to the obvious problems with their thought processes. Like forced marriage and forced pregnancy...
When asked if he could foresee a situation that was worthy of an exception to the law:
During the period 1999-2003, eighty-three (83) women in South Dakota had abortions due to rape or incest. A small number given the nearly 5,400 abortions performed in the state during the same period. But that number is larger than the number performed to preserve the life and health than the mother (67). But South Dakota has decided that these women and girls should be forced to carry these children to term... unless they can prove their virtue, piety and mental state. (statistics from South Dakota Department of Health, "Induced Abortion," Nov. 2004, in 2003 South Dakota Vital Statistics Report: A State and County Comparison of Leading Health Indicators, on line at South Dakota Department of Health [http://www.state.sd.us/doh/Stats/10-InducedAbortion.pdf].)
What happens to these children once they are born is anyone's guess. I would suggest adoption, but we are all aware that a child can't be put up for adoption without the consent of the father. So without the consent of a rapist a child must stay with its mother or be abandoned to the foster care system which currently services nearly 1,400 other children. And we know that those kids get only the VERY best treatment. (statistics from the Children's Defense Fund, www.childrensdefense.org)
I wish that State's like South Dakota would concentrate on improving the lives of the children already living and breathing in their state. But this has been an exceptionally low priority for the state. According to their own statistics there are currently 41,800 child support cases in South Dakota. Only 7,800 are in the collection phase. (Statistics from South Dakota Division of Child Support www.state.sd.us/social/CSE/index.htm)
Unfortunately, South Dakota feels compelled to micro-manage the lives of its most desperate and victimized citizens. A shame when you consider how much more important work needs to be done.
Other South Dakota highlights (from Children's Defense Fund, www.childrensdefense.org):
A Fate Worse Than Death.... Silly when you hear about it now.. A Fate Worse Than Death was the loss of your virginity before marriage. In the olden days we know that women were shunned, marginalized and otherwise treated foully for defying convention and having sex... or worse, bearing a child out of wedlock. A woman might be able to avoid trouble if she didn't get pregnant... but if she did? Well, I guess she got what she deserved, right?
We all know that back in the Good Olde Days that scandal could be averted if the girl just married her seducer. And of course, we want a return to the good olde days, don't we?
Sure... Of course, that assumes that the man is willing to take responsibility for his actions. There is and was nothing requiring HIM to be compelled to accept his duty. After all, whatever scandal may come to pass doesn't effect him. He can leave the community and start anew. But a pregnant unmarried woman... well, no matter where she goes... she will carry the stain of her "shame" whether it was her shame or not.
What if he raped her? Well I guess she should have fought harder. As we know, in the good olde days, there was no way to prove that she was even a victim of a rape. All he had to do was deny the charge or worse, justify his behavior be demonstrating that the victim was lewd or otherwise behaving inappropriately. It was all very simple. For him at least. He has the power. He has the control over the entire situation.
In South Dakota, where a law banning virtually all abortions has been passed has a law maker that summed it up this way....
BILL NAPOLI: 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.Charming, eh? Yes, let's marry a rape victim off to her abuser... There is a Norman Rockwell portrait for you. Well the child has two parents so I guess that is for the best. Never mind that any such marriage is likely to come with additional abuse and the child itself may become a victim of it as well.
And of course, we assume that the man was free to marry his victim. What if he was already married or worse, a relative? Well, that level of scandal was always hushed up in the good olde days. For the sake of the delicate ears of us ladies.
Shame, blame and scandal... A Fate Worse Than Death, indeed.
But we don't live in the Good Olde Days. We live in the modern world of here and now. Where we (at least more often) prosecute rapists to the fullest extent of the law and not the victims. We protect children from incest. And we have had a way to keep a girl from suffering the most obvious secondary trauma of a rape or incest related pregnancy.
She could be offered an abortion.
Is this a way to clear the slate and make everything all right again? Absolutely not. But does it stop the continued physical suffering of the rape and incest victim. By removing the chance of physical injury related to a pregnancy (higher in younger victims).
Clearly the people of the great state of South Dakota are big thinkers... so clever to send us back to the notions of the past that have been completely blinded to the obvious problems with their thought processes. Like forced marriage and forced pregnancy...
When asked if he could foresee a situation that was worthy of an exception to the law:
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.Soooo basically, to deserve the mercy of the State of South Dakota a girl needs to be religious, virtuous and somewhat unstable. Even married, religious and unstable women don't rate an exception. Well I guess if you have ever had sex, rape is less traumatic. Or at least that is what Mr. Napoli seems to believe.
During the period 1999-2003, eighty-three (83) women in South Dakota had abortions due to rape or incest. A small number given the nearly 5,400 abortions performed in the state during the same period. But that number is larger than the number performed to preserve the life and health than the mother (67). But South Dakota has decided that these women and girls should be forced to carry these children to term... unless they can prove their virtue, piety and mental state. (statistics from South Dakota Department of Health, "Induced Abortion," Nov. 2004, in 2003 South Dakota Vital Statistics Report: A State and County Comparison of Leading Health Indicators, on line at South Dakota Department of Health [http://www.state.sd.us/doh/Stats/10-InducedAbortion.pdf].)
What happens to these children once they are born is anyone's guess. I would suggest adoption, but we are all aware that a child can't be put up for adoption without the consent of the father. So without the consent of a rapist a child must stay with its mother or be abandoned to the foster care system which currently services nearly 1,400 other children. And we know that those kids get only the VERY best treatment. (statistics from the Children's Defense Fund, www.childrensdefense.org)
I wish that State's like South Dakota would concentrate on improving the lives of the children already living and breathing in their state. But this has been an exceptionally low priority for the state. According to their own statistics there are currently 41,800 child support cases in South Dakota. Only 7,800 are in the collection phase. (Statistics from South Dakota Division of Child Support www.state.sd.us/social/CSE/index.htm)
Unfortunately, South Dakota feels compelled to micro-manage the lives of its most desperate and victimized citizens. A shame when you consider how much more important work needs to be done.
Other South Dakota highlights (from Children's Defense Fund, www.childrensdefense.org):
- Number of children who were victims of abuse and neglect 3,961
- Number of children adopted from foster care 145 (that is only about 10%)
- Number of grandparents raising their grandchildren 2,625
- Percent of fourth graders reading below grade level 67%
- Percent of fourth graders below grade level in math 66%
- Number of children without health insurance 18,000
- Percent of two-year-olds who are not fully immunized 20.1%
- South Dakota ranks 31st among states in infant mortality.
- South Dakota ranks 34th among states in the percent of children who are poor.
- South Dakota ranks 44th among states in per pupil expenditures.
- South Dakota ranks 46th among states in the percent of babies born to mothers who received early prenatal care.
2 comments:
Why don't we pass another law that all children born to women who are refused abortions shall (not may but shall) be adopted by the assinine lawmakers who pass laws regulating what a woman can and can't do with her own body. I think you may see a few changes then.
This is very interesting site... Va houses cheap laptop rechargeable batteries Relationship sex advice American damsels bondage View european patents kitchen remodeling Really free credit cards Regionless dvd player Linux hard drives dual boot index.php http://www.web-hosting-3.info rhinoplasty nj football rules Monstrous blowjobs
Post a Comment