The South Dakota House approved a bill on Tuesday to ban nearly all abortions in the state. Gov. Mike Rounds is now expected to sign the bill, which would carry a penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who performs an abortion, unless it is necessary in order to save the woman’s life. However, this bill would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. Although South Dakota is the first state to pass a ban on abortion, other states are considering similar actions.

Abortion is a touchy topic, but we’d like to stress that South Dakota is taking extreme measures without really thinking of women’s rights. Even though the bill would still allow abortions to save a woman’s life, banning abortions in the cases of rape and incest is an extremely rash decision.

Should a young woman not have the option of terminating a pregnancy that was the result of rape? This is already a painful and indescribable experience, so why should a victim be forced to endure nine more months of emotional trauma? Hasn’t she been through enough?

We don’t think any government should be able to make this choice for someone-it can’t empathize with a rape victim, so it simply isn’t cut out to make decisions for her. By not allowing a victim to have rights concerning this issue, the government would be punishing an innocent person for enduring a traumatic experience, as well as prolonging pain that could easily be prevented.

Planned Parenthood is already threatening to challenge the ban, which means it could climb the ladders of the court system, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. With two new conservatives on the Supreme Court, the chances of overturning the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade are much greater.

It’s a little scary that such a restrictive ban could reverse a decision that was made over 30 years ago.

Ed Board thinks other states should consider the severity of South Dakota’s ban. Legislators should try to put themselves in the shoes of women who could not only endure the anguish of rape or incest, but potentially the torment of carrying a child to full term once their options have been completely stripped from the government. Even President Bush, who opposes abortion, still thinks there should be exception in cases of rape and incest.

The government’s job, first and foremost, is to protect its citizens. By taking away the rights of rape victims, the government is completely foregoing its responsibility.

States need to remember that they are putting a woman in further danger by forcing them to endure further mental and physical anguish. We encourage proponents of South Dakota’s ban to try to see the situation from a helpless victim’s point of view.