Yet another feminist post on the SD abortion ban


Unless, you’ve spent significant time lately under a nice cozy rock, you know that South Dakota voters will soon decide whether or not to repeal the state’s sweeping abortion ban. The law allows exception only if the woman’s life is in danger. Honest supporters of this law acknowledge it does not include a health exception.

What constitutes a threat to the mother’s health anyway?

I have glaucoma, which is rare in women of childbearing age. Large-scale studies are nigh on impossible due to the small number of women affected in their fertile years. What little data is available is not reassuring. Some doctors try to put the best face on it by pointing out that women who have glaucoma can and do have children. However, this is not without risk of damaged vision due to pregnancy. The largest study of pregnant glaucoma patients, (abstract available here: http://archopht.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/8/1089) showed 57% of the women made it through pregnancy with no loss of vision or increase in intra-ocular pressure. However, 36% of women experienced some ill effect, either an increase in IOP with no immediate loss of vision or a loss of vision.

Some women would look at these numbers and decide the risk was worth it. Maybe they are sure they will be in the 57% who experience no ill effects, or maybe the rewards of motherhood out weight the possibility of some vision loss. It is their right to decide pregnancy is worth the risk.

It is just as much my right to look at the numbers, consider the possible risks of glaucoma medicines on a pregnancy and my general lack of interest in motherhood, and conclude that the risks outweigh the benefits by a wide margin.

The truth is that any pregnancy carries health risks. Look at any edition of Our Bodies Ourselves to find the raw numbers. I’m using the 1998 edition. (Note to self: buy newest edition.) Carrying a pregnancy to term carries a 1 in 10,000 risk of death per pregnancy. (other reputable sources cite an even higher risk.) Legal abortions performed between 9 and 13 weeks have a death risk of 1 in 100,100 with earlier abortion having less than half that risk. A tenfold increase in the risk of mortality certainly constitutes a health risk! For the record, the risk of death from illegal abortion is 1 in 3,000

I honestly cannot understand why such blatantly misogynist laws are even being considered. One human being cannot demand another human being surrender a kidney or even a single drop of blood. This is true even if that person is the only one in the world with a compatible blood type and they would suffer no ill effects. Yet somehow because the person in question is a woman she is expected to turn her entire body over to another creature for nine months even with the strong risk of ill effects.

This line of reasoning transforms a person into a mere receptacle. I cannot think of anything that objectifies women more than a ban on abortion. On November 7, stand with the thinking people of South Dakota and vote against anti-abortion legislation and for pro-choice candidates.