It was a sad day for Leslee Unruh and other "family values" crusaders when President Obama defunded their subsidy for ineffective abstinence education.
But now Unruh is relying on state government to keep her in business. Not only does our legislature issue a marketing flyer (oh, pardon me: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1) praising the willfully deceptive practices of "pregnancy care centers," but comes now before House Judiciary House Bill 1217, our Legislature's Valentine to those determined to relegate women to second-class citizenship and make abortion even more difficult to obtain in South Dakota.
HB 1217 would impose a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. Worse, the law would require a woman during that waiting period to submit herself to counseling at Leslee Unruh's Alpha Center or another pregnancy care center dedicated to talking her out of the abortion. The bill would ban Planned Parenthood or any group that performs abortions or refers women for abortions from offering the mandated stalling (oh, pardon me: counseling).
HB 1217 pretends to be about protecting women from coercion (because, as we all know, women are frail, wilting creatures incapable of making their own decisions). Yet HB 1217 submits women to more coercion from clearly biased, non-medical sources:
...this bill has it backwards. Pregnant women certainly deserve accurate, unbiased medical information and high-quality care. These are best obtained from an actual health care provider, though. Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) have a single, strong mission: to steer pregnant women away from accessing abortion. They are more often than not simply outreach arms of religious groups and not actually health care facilities, and as such are not regulated at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with not offering abortion care or referrals, of course. However, CPCs do not offer accurate, honest information about the services they do and do not provide [Amie Newman, "Forcing Women to Visit Crisis Pregnancy Centers in South Dakota," Change.org, 2011.02.10].
A Congressional investigation found that 87% of pregnancy care centers provide false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. So our legislators, who think women can't make good health care decisions on their own, would force women to seek worse medical misinformation.
As a bonus complication, the woman has to give the pregnancy care center the name of her abortion provider. The pregnancy care center is not required to provide any confirmation that the woman came for her required counseling, but the pregnancy care center can submit a document to the abortion provider declaring that its staff sees indications the woman's choice to have an abortion is not voluntary or fully informed. This non-medical assessment becomes a part of the woman's medical record. And then, if the woman goes through with the abortion and a court later decides she was coerced or not fully informed, the doctor gets hit with a $10,000 civil penalty. I think we can all see the legal trap being set to scare doctors away from abortions here.
HB 1217's message to women is simple: Ladies, you are dumb. You are weak. Before you get an abortion, you need to sit in front of some people who will lie to you with bad science to stop you from making what we already know is a bad decision, you stupid little slut.
House Judiciary, pay attention: Representative Roger Hunt, Senator Al Novstrup, and the other sponsors of HB 1217 (including my own uninformed Senator Russell Olson) are just trying to ban abortion by any means other than a vote of the people, who have twice rejected such efforts. HB 1217 insults women, promotes bad science, and distracts you all from the state budget you still haven't fixed. Leave women and doctors alone, vote this bill down Monday, and get back to work.
Bonus Bonehead Legislation: DakotaWomen and that Sioux Falls paper recognize more woman-hating (and gay-hating!) deception in Rep. Hunt's HB 1218, an attempt to ban surrogate mothers. HB 1218 also hits House Judiciary tomorrow (Monday, Feb. 14). Let's go for a V-Day double and turn both of Hunt's misogynist tricks back to the trashbin.
Thanks for drawing attention to this Cory. Can't wait for tomorrow's committee hearing!
Many crisis pregnancy centers truly do want to simply support women who think abortion is their only choice, because they don't know what other options there are or that anyone cares. The problem is that the only people interested in staffing and caring for women through these 'ministries' are anti-choice in the first place. Leslee's outfit has some of the worst abuses...though I hope for better things with Brookings crisis pregnancy center, though I don't know if my hope is real.
I would love to see some pro-choice, all options CPCs, Tasi, but this bill actually makes it impossible for a woman to go to one of those even if one existed. It specifies that the woman has to go to a CPC that has the purpose of dissuading a woman from having an abortion and it cannot refer a woman to any organization that performs abortions. Meaning that if I wanted to start something like that and I hooked up a woman with resources to carry her pregnancy to term, I couldn't send her to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care even though the have a sliding scale and might be the best option for her. I think it's pretty clear that the people behind this bill are not interested in giving women more information.
I wasn't really discussing the bill, just the characterization of all cpc's. I am starting to think more and more than ever that Leslee just cares about her own bottom-line.
Also, fyi, not all cpc's receive abstinence programming money. If you want money, follow all the various groups that surround Unruh. It's not just the cpc, she has other 501c4's and whatnot.
I'm fine with a waiting period for abortions, but to make them go to counciling is way too far.
i am not fine with a waiting period. i am not fine with counciling. this is a matter that is strictly between the woman and her doctor. it is NO ONE else's business.
Unless we come to terms that most people on both sides of this issue are trying to do what they believe is best nothing will change.
Curious: for what other medical procedures does the state require women to undergo waiting periods, counseling, and/or a process to ascertain whether she is being coerced?
THere will be waiting periods for Medicade patients if Doogaurd gets his 10% cuts!
This is absurd and unacceptable: of course there aren't any other procedures for which women have to "undergo waiting periods, counseling, etc." before she's allowed to have the procedure done. All I can say is, all of you who SAY you want government out of your businesses, out of your wallets, out of your private lives? GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS. Specifically, women's bedrooms.
And it's always women's bedrooms. Look at SDLC 36-11-70, where pharmacists aren't required to dispense medication they believe MIGHT be used for abortion. This includes the birth control pill, patch, IUD and other devices which the extreme right wing are saying cause abortions. (Ever notice that no one seems to object to providing endless Viagra and Cialis for men?) Personally, I'm waiting for a Jehovah's Witness EMT to refuse someone a blood transfusion. After all, it's against their religion...
Point of clarification, Eve. Here, the government is regulating what's going on in a facility based on what happened in our bedrooms. I hope and pray no abortions are being conducted at home.
I confess I haven't taken a look at the bill, so I cannot speak to the particulars. I'm dubious that women rush to abortion clinics to have a life-changing procedure without giving it great thought already. I'm uncertain an extra 72 hours would make much difference.
Then again, the state requires me to wait 48 hours to purchase a handgun... apparently so I don't buy a pistol with a hot head. I disagree with that mandate, too, but apparently the state has a legitimate and constitutional interest in regulating activities in the interest of protecting people from harm to self and others.
If it could be done right, maybe it's not such a bad thing. However, I get the sense that the system doesn't really help provide the proper and appropriate support to would-be mothers who need to consider their options and responsibilities.
Does the bill provide for the waiver of the waiting period in cases of medical emergencies? What about borderline cases where someone waits till the 11th hour before abortions are no longer allowed?
One of the many issues is the fact that while there are many places to purchase a handgun in South Dakota, there is only one placee to obtain an abortion and it generally requires the patient to be there a good part of the day. While the 72 hour wait might not be a huge issue for someone who lives in Sioux Falls, most people in our state do not live in Sioux Falls. Requiring a woman to drive there several days in a row, or stay there for three days straight, especially when one considers the required time off of work, childcare, etc. has pretty much the same effect as a complete ban on abortion.
Cory, you ask "Curious: for what other medical procedures does the state require women to undergo waiting periods, counseling, and/or a process to ascertain whether she is being coerced?"
What other medical procedure for women involves taking another life? There should be more thought and time given to this decision than other operative procedures.
Indeed, pregnancy is a unique medical situation, so solid analogies are hard to come by. So let's try this thought experiment: Suppose my minor daughter is in a car wreck. She's on life support, little chance of recovery. My wife and I tell the doctor, "Pull the plug." Should there be a waiting period before the doctor carries out our order? Should the doctor require us to undergo counseling with anyone in particular before agreeing to perform the requested procedure?
Let's try to keep our thought experiments closer to apples:apples comparisons. It isn't so much what the doctor should require of you (professional - personal relationship), but rater what the state should require in that relationship.
I accept that the state has an interest in protecting the life and security of those in its society (draw from John Locke). However, I don't think the state has much ground to interfere in your decision to "pull the plug" because doing so would allow "nature to take its course". Your daughter may live or die once taken off support, but there isn't a lot of justification for the state to tell doctors and parents they must wait before discontinuing live-preserving services. DNRs are widely accepted and legally enforced, so ~allowing~ people to die from illness or disease seems something the state shouldn't interfere with.
But when you go from a passive denial(removing extraordinary life-saving technology) to active denial (deliberate termination), the state seems to have a keen interest. Doctor-assisted suicides are - to the extent of my knowledge - universally outlawed... and I think there's a much better case for that than abortion; at least the person seeking suicide is able to make his/her case personally. Even there, the state probably has a good leg to stand on for interfering with that relationship and ensuring the decision was deliberate.
The Courts have deliberated and concluded the state has a reasonable and justifiable interest in preventing abortions - specifically in establishing waiting periods. South Dakota already has a 24-hour waiting period. Is 72 hours significantly more unreasonable than 24? Is it significantly more effective? Will it save a life and improve the quality of life and the relationship between a mother and her fetus -> baby? I don't know. South Dakota is already way below the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1000, at 5.6 per 1000 women age 15-44. I have a feeling that we'd be better suited in further lowering that rate through proper and thorough sex-education than in extending waiting periods.
It's an interesting argument that the state has a reasonable and justifiable interest in preventing abortions, considering that, after that, the state does not appear to have a reasonable and justifiable interest in educating, providing medical care, employing, or otherwise taking care of people once they're actually born.
Wayne, 72 hours is significantly more unreasonable than 24. See Kelsey's comment above. If you live in Mission and you're driving to Sioux Falls, under a 24-hour period, you maybe can make one trip, impose on relatives or pay for a room for just one night, miss just one day of work, etc. 72 hours guarantees you can't do it over a single weekend and not miss work. It guarantees two long trips across a state with occasionally inhospitable road conditions. The sponsor deliberately amended the bill yesterday to ensure that a woman can't at least take care of the initial doctor consult via telemedicine (a tech tool we use for all sorts of other serious medical procedures). That amendment alone makes clear this isn't about due diligence; it's about punishing women who decide that what's right for them differs from Roger Hunt's agenda.
On pulling-the-plug: why is nature normative? Medicine is all an intrusion on the natural course of affliction.
Hunt is talking about preserving life. If the state has an interest in dictating that a pregnant woman continue to submit her body to the service of another living entity, why can the state not mandate that my wife and I continue to provide life-support for, say, a brain-dead child who may live on in a coma for years?
Don't give them any ideas, Cory! There are too many legislators who would love to introduce just such a bill.
You know it's all of the bills rolled looked at in perspective that give you the greater sense that while the voters of the state said no twice to the abortion ban, the legislators have no respect for that mandate of the people. Guess they must be better than the electorate.
Add to that this piece from the Great Plains Observer and some national blogs/media that HB1171 actually makes it legal to shoot and kill a abortion provider or anyone who could be interpreted as an enabler of abortion.
Here's the link to the bill: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1171
Here's the links to the stories, ht to GPO: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/15/944855/-South-Dakota-To-Make-Killing-Abortion-Docs-Justifiable-Homicide-
Hey, Cory. For me, Jana's got it right. I am pro-choice. I understand that others are pro-life, and that I will not change their mind. HOWEVER, the people in SD have voted twice to keep gov't out of the decision. The fascinating thing is, when asked at recent crackerbarrels, legislators have said, almost to a person, that "I am pro-life, and I will vote for pro-life bills." Even though they should have said - I am pro-life, but my constituents, whom I represent, do not want to see any more anti-choice bills.
This article from today's New York Times sheds some very disturbing light on why HB 1217 is a terrible bill.
Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/research/15pregnant.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper