I know everyoneâÄôs tired of hearing about abortion in the letters to the editor, but why is no one talking about South Dakota? Remember in 2006, when they put an abortion ban on the ballot that was barely defeated? TheyâÄôve got another one on the ballot this year, but I havenâÄôt heard a thing about it in The Minnesota Daily or anywhere else. The reason why the 2006 ban didnâÄôt pass was because it had no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother. This one does, on paper. In order to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest, the survivor must report it within ten days, and submit to DNA testing âÄî all of which is absurd to ask of a woman who has just gone through what will probably be the most traumatic experience of her life. The âÄúhealth of the motherâÄù exception is so vaguely worded that a woman with cancer who becomes pregnant may be forced to stop her treatment and carry the pregnancy to term. A woman would even be forced to carry the pregnancy to term if she and her doctor know that the baby wonâÄôt survive outside the womb. Our generation has been told again and again that we take the right to choose for granted; that because weâÄôve never known a time when abortion was illegal that we will let it slip through our fingers. If anything can jar us out of complacency, this must be it. Erika Wurst University Student