Well, the South Dakota legislature is at it again. Only a few short months after citizens of that state soundly rejected a law that would have made abortion illegal unless a woman's life was at stake, legislators have introduced a slightly more moderate version of the same bill. The new bill provides exceptions in cases of health-threatening as well as life-threatening pregnancies (though doctors seeking to perform abortions for health reasons must seek confirmation from a second doctor that the woman's health is indeed at risk—I wonder how that works in an emergency), as well as pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The bill hasn't yet been approved by the legislature, but its introduction gives us an opportunity to survey the strategic landscape that currently lies before advocates for safe and legal abortion in South Dakota and nationwide.

Though infuriating, the reintroduction of an extreme anti-abortion bill in South Dakota is not necessarily surprising. This is a crusade, after all. Literally hundreds of state-level restrictions on abortion have been proposed nationwide over the past decade, and it is fairly evident at this point that the current strategy of the U.S. anti-abortion movement is not to challenge the core right to abortion head-on, but rather to chip away at it until the only women who can still obtain safe abortions are the ones who would be able to obtain them even if the procedure was illegal. A key piece of this strategy is the creation of a climate of fear, shame, stigma, manipulation, and tragedy around a woman's decision to seek abortions—a decision that 1 million American women make every year. Thus, in addition to the shrill, aggressive sidewalk "counselling" and general moral disapprobation for the selfish, selfish women who seek abortions for reasons perceived to be illegitimate, we get a relentless focus on the fictional "post-abortion syndrome" and campaigns like Feminist for Life's "Abortion: Women Deserve Better."

We also get a corresponding shift in the discourse of politicians who used to support reproductive rights based on values like justice, equality, autonomy, and privacy. Abortion is now a "necessary evil" at best, a sad and tragic choice, a toxic issue to be avoided on the campaign trail unless absolutely necessary, or unless one is attending a NARAL fundraiser. Opponents of abortion are welcomed into the Democratic party with open arms. In response to federal legislation that seeks to limit women's access to safe abortions, we get federal legislation that seeks to prevent women from needing to access them. That's all well and good—advocates for safe and legal abortion also support increased access to contraception, sexuality education, maternal health care, and child care. But we support it as part of a wider belief in people's access to complete information about their bodies and respectful, affordable, comprehensive health services—including, not instead of, safe and legal abortion. In terms of ensuring women's access to abortions should they need them, or providing moral leadership on the need to eliminate devastating restrictions like the Hyde Amendment, we get nothing.

I understand that it's a strategy. The Democrats swept the 2006 midterm elections, so no one is allowed to complain. But let's open our eyes to the long-term for just a couple of seconds: now that they're in office, what happens? And now that they've dragged the discourse to where it currently is, who will be brave enough to stand up for women's right to safe and legal abortion now?

What happened last week in South Dakota is a prime example. I don't blame the campaign to overturn the 2006 abortion ban for playing it safe—they were up against all kinds of deplorable tactics, and as we can see, their strategy successfully defeated a law that was dreadful and damaging in the extreme. But now that we know that anti-abortion legislators in South Dakota (and across the country, for that matter) have no interest in backing down any time soon, it's time to move beyond the message of "It Just Goes Too Far" and start reclaiming and naming the values that drive our deep commitment to reproductive justice.

Luckily, a lot of thinking and writing have recently been done on the subject. The following must-read resources each offer a clear, reasoned, and visionary take on where to go from here:

• Beyond Apocalypse and Apology: A Moral Defense of Abortion by Caitlin Borgmann and Catherine Weiss
• Testimony to the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion by Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women
• A New Vision for Reproductive Justice by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice
• More Than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights by The Center for American Progress
• Should Abortion Be Prevented? by Frances Kissling