South Dakota Abortion Doctors Given Pro-Life Script to Read

[Random Precision]

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post

CHICAGO -- In a victory for antiabortion forces, doctors in South Dakota are now required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit last week lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented the language from taking effect. A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which runs the state's only abortion clinic, said doctors will begin reciting the script to patients as early as this week.

On another front, South Dakota voters will be asked in a Nov. 4 referendum to consider broad limits on abortion for the second time since 2006. The ballot measure includes exceptions for rape, incest and the woman's health that were not part of the 2006 wording rejected by voters.

Antiabortion forces in South Dakota have been trying for years to halt the procedure and to build a winnable challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

A law that took effect July 1 requires doctors to ask a woman seeking an abortion if she wants to see a sonogram of the fetus. About 700 abortions are performed in South Dakota each year.

The doctors' script that officially took effect Friday has been tied up in court since 2005, when Planned Parenthood challenged a law that instructed physicians what to tell abortion patients. Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

The message must be delivered no earlier than two hours before the procedure. The woman must say in writing that she understands.

"The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life."

Stoesz also called the impetus for the law "ideological" and "non-science-based."

Mailee Smith, staff counsel at Chicago-based Americans United for Life, praised the regulations. "We do think it's a good law, because it does provide a woman with the broadest spectrum of information," she said.

While 32 states have informed consent regulations, Smith said, South Dakota alone includes the reference to a fetus as "a whole, separate, unique living human being."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071901586.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[Random Precision]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, you would think that given the level of concern about abortion on this site at least a few people would be concerned about encroachment on abortion rights in the US. I guess the actual battle for abortion rights doesn't really matter- just as long as we're restricting anyone who has a moral objection to it for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

You posted it yesterday, give people a chance!:blink:

[Decolonize The Left]

You posted it yesterday, give people a chance!:blink:

Indeed, this is the first time I saw it - a very interesting article.

All in all, sounds like one enormous guilt trip being forced on women by the state. Not only is it scientifically unsound, indirectly a violation of the separation of church and state, and childish, it once again demonstrates the fact that as a culture we are incapable of recognizing women's freedom.

- August

[Luís Henrique]

Bad news.

Now say, it seems that the anti-choice crowd adopts a curious tactic - not challenging directly the legal status of abortion, but just working to increase the guilt and discomfort associated with the procedure.

Is this based on their perception that they don't stand a real chance of passing legislation against abortion, or do they effectively prefer to keep abortion legal as long as it provides them a rallying cry?

Luís Henrique

PS. All people who don't comment on this thread until this Saturday are obviously cripto-prolifers, and must be banned from this site.

[Decolonize The Left]

Bad news.

Now say, it seems that the anti-choice crowd adopts a curious tactic - not challenging directly the legal status of abortion, but just working to increase the guilt and discomfort associated with the procedure.

Indeed.


Is this based on their perception that they don't stand a real chance of passing legislation against abortion, or do they effectively prefer to keep abortion legal as long as it provides them a rallying cry?

Most likely it is a dual-tactic. I'm sure anti-abortion folks want to change legislation and change the social/moral stance of people towards abortion. Hence they will try and legislate against abortion and increase the personal guilt of women.


PS. All people who don't comment on this thread until this Saturday are obviously cripto-prolifers, and must be banned from this site.

:lol:

- August

[Random Precision]

Bad news.

Now say, it seems that the anti-choice crowd adopts a curious tactic - not challenging directly the legal status of abortion, but just working to increase the guilt and discomfort associated with the procedure.

Is this based on their perception that they don't stand a real chance of passing legislation against abortion, or do they effectively prefer to keep abortion legal as long as it provides them a rallying cry?

Well, South Dakota's state government is a rare activist pro-life body. In 2006 it passed a sweeping ban on all abortion except in cases of grave risk to the mother's life- none of the usual rape or incest exceptions were included. Fortunately that was struck down in a referendum that year, but I suspect this new thing is Plan B (no pun intended). Typically pro-life forces in government do not operate like this- while many state governments have "hair-trigger laws" that would enact full or partial bans on abortion the second Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, for the most part socially conservative politicians and the pro-life campaigns have turned their focus to whittling the right to abortion down bit by bit, for example the ban on "partial birth abortion" last year, as well as state laws that require consent from parents, husband etc. This is met with at best weak opposition and at worst utter indifference from liberals. The Democratic party in general does not have much stake in fighting pro-life campaigns, its national committee will be quite happy as long as abortion is available in practice for upper and middle class white women, and in theory available for everyone else. Plus, they have no problem justifying their compromises on abortion by pointing out the most rabidly pro-life forces on the right to say "look at how much worse things could be, so keep voting for us". In regards to your question, I think that at endgame the Republicans would be happy to settle for having abortion still legal in theory so they can wave it like a red flag in front of the "values voters" each election.

I think that, if this law goes through, it might become the new wave for anti-choice state governments, and eventually for the national government as well. With groups like Planned Parenthood tied to the Democratic Party, I think the only real hope for abortion rights in this country lies at the grassroots, although we have our work cut out for us for sure.

[Random Precision]

Here is the actual wording of the South Dakota law:


No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a medical emergency and further determines that delaying in performing the procedure until an informed consent can be obtained from the pregnant woman or her next of kin in accordance with chapter 34-12C is impossible due to the medical emergency, which determinations shall then be documented in the medical records of the patient. A consent to an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine, the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following information:

(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;

***

(2) A statement by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by the referring physician, or by an agent of both, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, providing the following information:
(a) That medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care;
(b) That the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth, and that this legal obligation of the father exists in all instances, even in instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion;
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of a pregnancy help center in reasonable proximity of the abortion facility where the abortion will be performed;

***

[¶ 2] Prior to the pregnant woman signing a consent to the abortion, she shall sign a written statement that indicates that the requirements of this section have been complied with. Prior to the performance of the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion shall receive a copy of the written disclosure documents required by this section, and shall certify in writing that all of the information described in those subdivisions has been provided to the pregnant woman, that the physician is, to the best of his or her ability, satisfied that the pregnant woman has read the materials which are required to be disclosed, and that the physician believes she understands the information imparted.

[TC]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, you would think that given the level of concern about abortion on this site at least a few people would be concerned about encroachment on abortion rights in the US. I guess the actual battle for abortion rights doesn't really matter- just as long as we're restricting anyone who has a moral objection to it for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

Uh, i'm sorry but not replying doesn't indicate not caring.

I heard about this a while ago, but you just posted an article without providing any commentary or anything...what did you expect people to say "obviously, we think this is bad", I mean, how conducive to generating interesting discussion is that?

Yes obviously I (and everyone else who isn't a rightwing extremist) agree that this is horrible...the reactionary right does lots of reactionary things and the presence or absence of affirming this fact every time they actually do some reactionary thing doesn't reflect on whether or not you see it as the case.

[TC]

Indeed, this is the first time I saw it - a very interesting article.

All in all, sounds like one enormous guilt trip being forced on women by the state. Not only is it scientifically unsound, indirectly a violation of the separation of church and state, and childish, it once again demonstrates the fact that as a culture we are incapable of recognizing women's freedom.

- August

Thats a rather mild way to put it;

Its essentially state mandated emotional battery and sexual humiliation, performed by people in a position of general professional responsibility (doctors) and a particularly sensitive and intimate responsibility (ob/gyn's), on people who both depend on them for their health and safety, and are in an especially personally vulnerable position.

Its simply depraved and demonstrates their utter lack of respect for the human dignity of women who need to access abortion services.

But, thats pretty typical of anti-choicers isn't it so why be suprized?

[jake williams]

That's fucked up right there.

One interesting thought I had. It says there's about 700 abortions per year, but I looked it up and South Dakota only has like 800 000 people. So that's about 1 abortion per thousand people per year, or 1 abortion per 500 women per year.

[superiority]

Its essentially state mandated emotional battery and sexual humiliation, performed by people in a position of general professional responsibility (doctors) and a particularly sensitive and intimate responsibility (ob/gyn's), on people who both depend on them for their health and safety, and are in an especially personally vulnerable position.

Its simply depraved and demonstrates their utter lack of respect for the human dignity of women who need to access abortion services.

But, thats pretty typical of anti-choicers isn't it so why be suprized?

TragicClown is my favourite Maoist (Maoist, right?). What she said, pretty much.

[jake williams]

TragicClown is right about almost everything.

[RedAnarchist]

TragicClown is my favourite Maoist (Maoist, right?). What she said, pretty much.

I think she's more of a Leninist or Trotskyist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Now say, it seems that the anti-choice crowd adopts a curious tactic - not challenging directly the legal status of abortion, but just working to increase the guilt and discomfort associated with the procedure.

Constitutional limits and dominant opinion prevent an immediate ban on abortion, and so gradual measures such as lowering the date up to which abortion can be obtained, or forcing doctors to discourage women from having abortions even when women have made a clear choice, are used by the anti-choice movement to shape public opinion (the social messaging function) and establish a precedent for further change.

[TC]

Really the fact that they haven't banned abortion when the majority of the legislature so clearly wants to has nothing to do with public opinion (which they routinely ignore) or legislative tactics (when the majority of state legislators in fact do want to ban abortion) but that the US federal constitution prevents state legislatures from doing so under equal protection/due process amendment.

If the 14th amendment were repealed or the US supreme court reinterpreted it to not include abortion rights, abortion would almost certainly be outlawed in Republican controlled parts of the American midwest.

[Luís Henrique]

Constitutional limits and dominant opinion prevent an immediate ban on abortion, and so gradual measures such as lowering the date up to which abortion can be obtained, or forcing doctors to discourage women from having abortions even when women have made a clear choice, are used by the anti-choice movement to shape public opinion (the social messaging function) and establish a precedent for further change.

Interesting. Do you think it works?

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

Do you think it works?

I think it could. If it effects public sentiments there will be less and less opposition to abortion being overturned.

[Luís Henrique]

I think it could. If it effects public sentiments there will be less and less opposition to abortion being overturned.

Could it work the other way round too, ie, to foster left-wing views?

Why, or why not?

Luís Henrique

[ChristianV777]

I have doubts, since most people here in the States seem to think that "limiting" but not overturning abortion is a sensible idea.
It depends on how active the Left is, I guess.
There needs to be far more fighting to promote education and to frame the debate so that it is about women's right to control their bodies, and nothing else.
Most of the Liberal Feminists, who are the most vocal and visible (for obvious reasons) opponents of anti-abortion laws in America like to make excuses and frame the arguments in a way that is conducive to "Right-Wingers". After all, the Democrats must try to be as much like the Republicans as possible for a flourishing democracy (read:sarcasm). So, this limits the militancy of those fighting to protect a woman's right.
People who truly do support the right to choose, without excuses, also need to stop supporting the Democrats as some sort of answer, seeing as their record on abortion rights isn't much better than the Republicans.

Personally, I've known many females who have made the choice to have an abortion, and I can see first-hand their experiences, and I'm guessing most of these people who are being reeled in by these anti-abortion activists have not...which seems a bit odd, since so many women have to have abortions.
There's so many reactionary views about women choosing abortions. There's already so much guilt amongst so many women who need abortions....
I don't think you often see this first-hand perspective of what women go through when they make this choice on the media. It's always so impersonal and clinical, so that people create their own opinions of the issue based on wider socio-cultural propaganda. I think actually hearing about personal experiences could change a lot of peoples' negative ideas about women who choose to have an abortion.

[RHIZOMES]

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, you would think that given the level of concern about abortion on this site at least a few people would be concerned about encroachment on abortion rights in the US. I guess the actual battle for abortion rights doesn't really matter- just as long as we're restricting anyone who has a moral objection to it for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

I only just saw this article.

And jesus christ it pisses me the fuck off.

[Lector Malibu]

Indeed, this is the first time I saw it - a very interesting article.

All in all, sounds like one enormous guilt trip being forced on women by the state. Not only is it scientifically unsound, indirectly a violation of the separation of church and state, and childish, it once again demonstrates the fact that as a culture we are incapable of recognizing women's freedom.

- August

This!

And wasn't Dakota that was the state that introduced intelligent design into the classrooms recently ??

Anyway August is right on the money.

[ChristianV777]

I think that was Kansas where intelligent design was approved to be taught alongside evolution.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

South Dakota, land of the insane. Its really weird seeing these anti-choice laws, cause by and large I don't seem to encounter that many anti-choice people. Man I miss the days of water balloons on the anti choicers.