South Dakota’s Legislature has approved a ban on virtually all abortions, and their governor is expected to sign it into law. The end plan seems to be to force the issue in the U.S. Supreme Court, which has had a more conservative swing lately.

    I don’t want to open the entire abortion debate. I believe that for roughly 98 percent of adults, their minds are made up past the point of swaying.

    But a woman from South Dakota who works with victims of family violence and sexual assault said something so ludicrous it bears addressing. She contends that the new law should have more exceptions built in than to save a woman’s life, currently the only one listed. She specifically cited a hypothetical instance in which a woman becomes pregnant through a rape, and the rapist has the same parental rights as the mother. The fear for the child’s safety, the argument goes, means the option for abortion must stay open.

    Excuse me? South Dakota can try to overturn Roe v. Wade, which remains contentious after 33 years, but doesn’t have the gumption to figure out how to keep a rapist away from his offspring?

    People all over the country have parental rights severed for much less violence than a rape. Surely South Dakota could find a way –- if protecting children really is the issue.

    This post originally appeared on ourMidland.com, the online home of the Midland (MI) Daily News. Republished with permission.