South Dakota Bishop OKs Abortion Petition

About a month ago, a pro-life coalition under the umbrella of VoteYesForLife.com began circulating a petition to limit abortions in South Dakota.

Unlike the abortion ban which was rejected by voters in 2006, this ban would allow exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. The exceptions outlined in the proposed law are worded so as to prevent misuse and abuse.

For instance, the rape/incest exception requires that the crime be reported to law enforcement authorities, and DNA evidence must be obtained and stored for use in prosecuting the perpetrator.

The health exception is only allowed when there is "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system" which could be prevented by an abortion.

Since the petition was filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State, hundreds of pro-life people and churches across the state have been circulating the petition in pursuit of the nearly 17,000 signatures required to bring the proposed ban to a vote in November 2008.

Many pro-lifers believe that even the child conceived in rape or incest is a human being, endowed by its creator with dignity and the right to life. Because of this, some have been hesitant about supporting the proposed ban.

Yesterday, LifeNews.com reported that Bishop Paul Swain of the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese has spoken out in support of the ban because it is a move in the direction of stopping as many abortions as possible.

According to the latest statistics (for 2006) from the South Dakota Department of Health, only 0.4 percent of abortions were done for rape and incest. Those done for health reasons similar to the exception provided in the proposed ban comprised 1.5 percent of all abortions.

Therefore, under the proposed ban, 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota would be stopped. This includes the 84.6% done because "The mother did not desire to have the child," or abortion as outright retroactive birth control.

According to a statement by Bishop Swain at the Catholic Advocate Network, Catholics should approach this issue prayerfully, with an informed conscience.

Swain says that while Catholics may decide to oppose this referendum because it "does not reflect the fullness of the Church's teaching on the sanctity of all human life," but does say that it is alright to sign the petition and to help circulate the petition.

Bishop Swain says that despite the exceptions which make the proposed ban less than ideal, it is a move in the right direction that can be morally supported:

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and 'the art of the possible.' At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, 'limiting the harm done by such a law,' and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

Many in the pro-life community, and not only Catholics, continue to believe that the total ban on abortions offered in 2006 is the best, most consistent approach because it affirms human life regardless of origin, but in the end most have decided to support the proposed ban with exceptions because it would stop over 98% of abortions in South Dakota.

Saving everyone from danger is always preferable, but if given a choice of saving 98% or saving 0%, most caring people will opt to save the 98% today...and continue working to save the remaining 2% tomorrow.