South Dakota: Not an Abortion Utopia

Two takes on the WaPo's story about a lack of doctors willing to do abortions.

From Tim Graham at the Corner:

When I talk to college students, I cite this kind of an article to explain that reporting isn't "pro-choice," it's pro-abortion. When you think something like this is a social good, you complain that it's not more readily available, cheaper, and easier. When you want more doctors to choose the specialty of abortion "providing," and want abortions provided in every small town, you're not just for "choice," you're for making that choice as leisurely as possible. If someone argued that smoking should be available in every bar and public office building, they wouldn't be called "pro-choice," but "pro-smoking." The same logic applies to these stories.

From Amanda at Pandagon:

Leslee Unruh, one of the prime lobbyists for the law that created the abortion task force, said, "I want abortion to end."

I wonder if her breath stinks with so much horseshit coming out of her mouth. Abortion isn't going to end when it's illegal. Abortion will end when unwanted pregnancy ends, but unwanted pregnancy is only going to get worse with anti-choice legislation that makes it harder for women to use contraception. Anti-choice laws only serve to punish women for having abortions by making abortion hard to find, painful, expensive and often a ticket to prison...

Go read the article. The assumption behind it is that fewer abortions is a bad thing. Clearly, it's vital that we get more abortions happening in South Dakota, and stat!

But here's what gets me: The WaPo story quotes the director of South Dakota's Planned Parenthood, which obviously means that the organization has a presence in the state. So why isn't PP simply building a clinic in some part of the state not currently slaughtering locally served by an abortuary? After all, as has been established on an earlier Pandagon thread, Planned Parenthood, although it shows a profit every year, isn't really in the abortion business for the money. No, they want to help women take control over their lives (by ending someone else's), keep healthy (by drastically increasing their risk of breast cancer), have access to information (by blocking informed consent and covering up risks) and feel good about themselves (by putting them through a dangerous procedure that will leave 80% of them in a deep depression). So if Planned Parenthood is so generous and concerned, why aren't they operating a clinic in western South Dakota?

Stop off and leave a comment for Amanda, if you feel the urge. But for heaven's sake, be polite! They call us trolls; let's not prove it.

Update: As usual, Mark Shea phrases it better than I could:

I like the thought of a world where abortionists are as highly regarded and as wealthily rewarded as circus geeks. There's much to be said for stigma, whispers and quiet contemptuous revulsion.