roseembolism (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
roseembolism) wrote2006-03-07 11:57 pm
roseembolism) wrote2006-03-07 11:57 pm
Entry tags:
Nasty Conspiratorial Thought for the Week
SO I've been thinking about the motives of South Dakota Governor Mike Round's signing of the recent anti-abortion law. True there's the obvious reasons that he may sincerely believe in challenging Roe vs. Wade, or he may be simply pandering to his conservative base. But I have to wonder if there’s a hidden motive. Consider this:
So my nasty suspicion? South Dakota is trying to stem it's population decline by encouraging more people to get pregnant, and then making sure they have babies. It won't work of course- that's not enough to get people to stay in that state. So in ten years, matters will escalate; pregnant women and women with children will be prohibited from leaving the state. In fifty years, SD will be sending out raiding parties across state lines to steal women, and lacing its milk products with fertility drugs.
Obviously we need to nip this in the bud: it's not too late to build a wall around South Dakota, and cut off all contact. That's a better option that being forced to call in UN Peackeaping troops.
- South Dakota is having a demographics problem- the majority of it's rural counties are losing population. 90% of the total number of cities in South Dakota have populations under 3,000, and the entire population f the state is less than that of San Jose.
- The same person who sponsored the anti-abortion bill, ALSO sponsored a teen sex education program where the only contraceptive method that allowed to be mentioned was abstinence. This was a duplicate of a program that, after it had been enacted elsewhere, was associated with a dramatic increase in the number of teen pregnancies.
So my nasty suspicion? South Dakota is trying to stem it's population decline by encouraging more people to get pregnant, and then making sure they have babies. It won't work of course- that's not enough to get people to stay in that state. So in ten years, matters will escalate; pregnant women and women with children will be prohibited from leaving the state. In fifty years, SD will be sending out raiding parties across state lines to steal women, and lacing its milk products with fertility drugs.
Obviously we need to nip this in the bud: it's not too late to build a wall around South Dakota, and cut off all contact. That's a better option that being forced to call in UN Peackeaping troops.
no subject