"The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them." -- Gov. Michael Rounds, R-South Dakota
While to some, the actions of Republican lawmakers in South Dakota banning most abortions may seem oddly and perversely hateful, such unwarranted outrage is missing a larger and, I am happy to say, extremely encouraging issue.
What I find remarkably hopeful in Governor Rounds's statement is to discover that South Dakota Republicans have finally grasped the concept of actually protecting vulnerable and helpless members in our society. Who knew?!! For far too long, Liberals everywhere have painted Conservatives as being heartless, cold and uncaring about the underprivileged, but how unfair. For here is a group of Republican officials willing to take a progressive stand and say, "No! We have seen the light! We are finally for protecting the most vulnerable and the most helpless!" Bravo, I say. Bravo, Governor Michael Rounds and his Republican nobles. A new champion for the destitute is come.
Taking the extraordinary governor at his word, certain that there isn't a hypocritical bone in his entire being -- for no open-hearted man devoted to protecting the most vulnerable and most helpless in our society could be anything but upstandingly honest -- I look forward now, as should we all, to the bounty of new progressive legislation coming from South Dakota on behalf of the poor, the homeless, all minorities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, the handicapped, those without health insurance, anyone suffering religious prejudice, the undereducated and women everywhere (provided they're not pregnant or have the ability to ever become pregnant. Or were at some point in their lives or could have been pregnant).
Admit it, you never thought a state like South Dakota could be so progressive. But we have the governor's word. He is on the record in defense of the most vulnerable and most helpless in our society. Happy days are here again.
The disenfranchised of America have a new home, and thy name is South Dakota. The underclass will begin pouring into the state. No longer will San Francisco be the lightning rod that attracts all those in need; from this day forth they will leave their heart in South Dakota. Power to the people. We shall overcome. Brother, can you spare a shelter?
To be clear, there are a few skeptics who argue that unborn children are actually the most protected and most helped members of society. After all, they don't have to eat, think or breathe for themselves, or twiddle their thumbs (provided they had thumbs), just lounge inside a warm, comfortable environment and let their host mother unit do everything for them. But such skeptics are in the minority -- which actually qualifies them for assistance under the South Dakota Vulnerable and Helpless Act.
(There is just one admittedly-troubling question: Why does Governor Rounds refer to only unborn children? Who knows what they will become once they actually are born and become human beings? Why presume that these unborn will only grow up to be children? What about all those unborn teenagers and unborn adults out there? Aren't they allowed the same protections? I say yes.)
In the end, the profound good that will come from this proposed law by South Dakota Republicans dismissing all the women of the state should not be overlooked. After all, the great benefits from the progressive action on behalf of all those who are vulnerable and all who are helpless -- not just for the unborn, non-existent residents -- will help lead the way for greater compassion and concern for the needy everywhere in the United States.
Except New Orleans.
Follow Robert J. Elisberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RobertElisberg