A 10-year old girl in Ohio, six weeks and three days pregnant, traveled across state lines to get an abortion. Ohio's trigger law prohibited the procedure after six weeks.
Asked whether South Dakota would force a 10-year old to have a baby, Governor Kristi Noem replied (after condemning the rapist and expressing horror about a situation that no one in her family has experienced), "I can't even imagine. But in South Dakota the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother."
After a brief back and forth, CNN's Dana Bash asks, "So will you try to change the law to have an exception in a situation like that?" The reply:
In my view, the welfare of a 10-year old girl eclipses any purported rights of a six-week embryo and it's not a close call. While it may or may not be a close call for Governor Noem, she recognizes the dilemma, since she acknowledges the shattered life of the girl.
In my view, the damage to the girl would only be compounded by forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term. That would be, were it to come to pass, "one tragic situation ... perpetuated by another tragedy."
Governor Noem is careful not to say too much or too little. While never questioning the zealots in her party, she doesn't wish to offend those who don't share the zealotry. Is it the abortion, or the forced delivery, that would constitute for her the tragedy perpetuated by the sexual assault? That's not clear, but the sounds were soothing. It's a difficult business navigating such issues while taking care not to offend a critical faction of the voting base of your party, no matter how extreme and inflexible the views of that faction are.
While holding the party line during the interview, the governor provides an escape hatch of sorts to folks (in South Dakota and the country) who find the state's draconian ban barbaric: She signals that traveling out of state is a viable option!
... in that situation, the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decisions there for that family. But that's what's interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books. The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That's appropriate. It's the way our Constitution intended.
And I think that South Dakota's laws may look very different than California's, may look very different than New York's, where that governor has said she wants to become a destination known for providing abortions. That's not our story here in South Dakota.
What a nimble dancer. Noem doesn't repudiate the South Dakota trigger law (passed before she was governor). She's on the side of the extremists. But she acknowledges the shattered life of the girl who was molested and, best of all, she provides a way out for the girl's family -- Travel out of state to get the abortion, an option she professes to find in the wisdom of the Constitution, which provides (along with the Republican majority on the current Supreme Court) that legislators in each state will either permit or deny doctors, families, and individuals closest to situations regarding pregnancy to make their own decisions.
Don't like the law in South Dakota because legislators deny women and families such liberty? Not to worry. Head to California or New York, as the founders intended.
Governor Noem’s pointing to blue states (as a convenient escape from the untenable) is a version of having your cake and eating it too, which may have worked to get her through a Sunday interview and might work for a MAGA campaign in South Dakota. But for anyone with national ambitions, it’s not a sustainable response. Not with calls to federalize the abortion ban or to pass personhood amendments. Not in today’s GOP, never mind the wisdom of the founders.