During my college years in the 1960’s, I was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War; for which I make no apologies.  The experience, however, did impart to me of the importance of Group Names.

On the auditorium stage of a Brooklyn college in 1966, I was part of a student group advocating a sane nuclear policy: one that did not leave America defensively naked in the atomic age.  On the other side was a group that wanted the U.S. to commit to total nuclear disarmament – first and immediately - called “The Committee Against Nuclear War.”

Our side had better debaters and the better argument, but still couldn't prevail. Why?  Because the audience had difficulty rationalizing between our group's name and that of our opposition.  We were looked upon as people who must be - for nuclear war. 

In this hi-tech age of politics, the name of a political movement is very important.  It replaces the ‘slogans’ of an earlier pre-television/computer age, and forms the powerful edge that places them out front in any race or campaign.  The affect is referred to as 'first impressions.'    

Unfortunately, the present “Right to Life Movement” (sometimes referred to as The Pro- Life Movement) got there first with the best, if somewhat misleading, group name.  I don't know of a single person in America who is actually Anti Life: not even the infamous Dr. Jack Kavorkian.

By choice or chance, this good fortune allows them to spread their myopic view quite effectively: Pro-Life means Anti Abortion and, likewise, Pro-Choice means Anti-Life.

Settling in among a cluster of Christian based religious organizations makes the Right to Life Movement difficult to target or take legitimate shots at, without being assigned the politically deadly tag of being anti-religion.  That sort of cover forms a perfect nest for the ‘lunatic fringe’ in any movement, allowing them a vantage point from which to safely ambush reality and assassinate truth.

Many Americans are not cognizant of the inherent danger to our Constitutional way of life, posed by such seemingly insignificant but well-funded groups.  And should you be tempted to think them incapable of significant social impact, remember the Prohibition Act of 1919.

One such group in South Dakota, called The Abstinence Clearinghouse poses a perfect example of such pending national peril.  The group’s founder and President, a woman named Leslee Unruh, is, figuratively and philosophically, an icon for the given principal that ‘a bad idea never dies.’

Why do I think she and her group are extremists?  Well Ms. Unruh’s philosophy is, condoms don’t work and are an immoral advocacy. She instead advocates abstinence as the only true birth control and end to illegitimacy.  But she’s not just speaking of teenagers and unmarried adults.  Ms. Unruh, who incredible as it may seem is married, also advocates the same for married adults. 

In other words, when you and your spouse have achieved the children you want or can afford ( like the Soup Nazi on TV sit-com “Seinfeld”) –NO MORE SEX FOR YOU!  I’d say that viewpoint was –Extreme, wouldn’t you?

In demonstration of just how extreme these people are, I highlight their outright rejection of  highly promising Stem Cell Research.  But going just a bit further, consider Ms. Unruh's admission of once having an abortion (though never detailing why) which was, apparently, so traumatizing that she’s taken on the demeanor of a reformed drinker or smoker. In essence, 'it was so emotionally crippling for me, no other woman should even have the right to make such a decision for herself - period!'

Her group with the assistance of several organizations nationwide, and the aid of SD Republican State Rep. Roger W. Hunt (the bill’s chief sponsor), placed before the South Dakota House of Representatives the most restrictive anti abortion bill since the passage of Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

The bill would make it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion in South Dakota, even though the mother would not be charged with a crime. The language of the bill called - The Women’s Health and Human Protection Act” - states that ‘life begins at the time of conception”, and that scientific advances since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) have proven that the unborn is indeed life.

The bill also states that its goal is to “fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interests and life of her unborn child, and the mother’s natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child.” 

Purportedly, the bill was based on the findings of a state task force that studied all aspects of abortion.

HB 1215 was passed in the SD house by a vote of 47-22, but failed in its first try in the SD senate by one vote: 18-17.  The bill allows only one exception for an abortion to be performed, that being saving the mother’s life.

It does not take very much vision to see just how extreme this bill is: there is no compassionate allowance for an abortion of an 11 year old who is the victim of incest by her father, or a woman who was brutally raped. 

On February 9th, opponents of the bill tried to add a compromise amendment making rape an exception.  It failed.

The Senate sponsor of the bill is Democratic state Sen. Julie Bartling, who makes the following claim:

“I think South Dakota has always been what I call a pro-life state, and I think it’s ready to step up and be the forefront and make some of these first moves,” Bartling told The Baptist Press.  “I would say the majority of South Dakotans would favor a ban on abortions.”

This is an extreme legislative proposal in support of an extreme Christian based faction.  The immediate aim of this bill is to force a review by what it's sponsors and supporters fervently hope will be a ‘new’ Right-leaning Supreme Court. 

The ultimate long-term goal is to bring about the overturn of the Roe vs. Wade decision, which gave women the Constitutional right to choose.  For if the HB 1215 had passed, a legal challenge would most certainly have followed in it’s wake.

To demonstrate just how extreme these people are  (I’m doing my best not to say lunatic), consider Ms. Unruh’s statement in response to word of the successful trials of a possible vaccine that has been almost 100 percent effective in preventing the virus that causes cervical cancer: the second leading cancer killer of women in the world.

Quote Ms. Unruh of The National Abstinence Clearinghouse:

“I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior.”

No matter how you read or interpret that incredible to believe statement, it translates to a 'preference of death before sex': bringing to one's mind the horrific vision of a possible future America run by these people, as chillingly dipicted in Margaret Atwood's  brilliant 1990 novel, "The Handmaiden's Tale."

It is quite clear that these politicians and organizations don’t give a damn about American democracy as practiced or the 'Rights' of women.  What they want is democracy in the guise of a theological Christian garage door that can be opened and closed at will – their will.

These people want every child that is conceived to be born, regardless of it being by rape, incest, wanted or not, family status, or the health and physical viability of the child born to be whole and pain free. 

However, as they have consistently demonstrated by their non-support of child healthcare and affordable daycare legislation, they could care less about the child once it is born.

Still, one can easily understand this sort of attitude being embraced by people who follow the religious dictum that we are all ‘born in sin.’  So why should they allow little matters like a woman's 'Right' to control her body, democracy or the Constitution to get in their way?