From my friends (and yours!) at the South Dakota ACLU, in the wake of the South Dakota Senate's appalling, misogynist approval of HB 1217:
Unprecedented South Dakota Law Creates Major Obstacles For Women's Health
State Legislature Approves Law That Creates Barriers To Abortion Care And Endangers Abortion Providers
PIERRE, S.D.—The South Dakota Legislature today passed a law that would require any woman seeking an abortion to first visit anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs)" and report the name of her abortion provider to CPC staff. CPCs are unregulated facilities that are not required to have trained medical personnel counsel women, and are primarily run by private groups that seek to discourage women from having abortions, often by promoting false information. CPCs are also not required to follow standard medical privacy procedures that ensure a patient's medical information is kept confidential. The bill would also require abortion providers to discuss the entire body of research literature related to possible health risks with their patients, even though much of this information may be outdated, irrelevant, false or misleading. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of South Dakota strongly denounced the law.
Says ACLU-SD director Robert Doody, "The South Dakota legislature should be ashamed of this demeaning and destructive law. It is bad enough that this law inserts a government mandate. into a woman's private medical decision by forcing her to first visit a facility with a blatant agenda. To further require that the woman report the name of her abortion provider to these groups places those who provide badly needed medical services to women in harm's way."
Says Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, "This is one of the most shocking laws in a disturbing national trend of attempting to deny basic medical services and humiliate women who seek abortion care. The government has no business intruding on a woman's private and personal health care decisions. The unprecedented and unjust assault on access to abortion care at the federal and state level must stop, and the rights, privacy and safety of women and their medical providers must be protected."
My little girl turns 5 tomorrow. She is sitting across from me at the table talking about silver papers and sprinkles for her cupcakes. I am relieved only that I don't have to explain to her—yet—why Senator Russell Olson and the majority of our State Legislature think she should grow up to be a second-class citizen. I don't have to explain why some of her neighbors claim they'll spend $3 million to prove in court that she is a mere vessel for reproduction instead of doing something nice with that money, like buying some toys for kids who don't have any (that's her suggestion, honest).
Governor Daugaard, how about a birthday present for my daughter? One signature. One veto. Please?
Republicans and Rapist Rights go together like a horse and carriage.
Oh, and in a conversation today, I heard the idea that we need an initiative requiring legislators to personally pay for legal costs of legislation known to be unconstitutional or anathema to more than half of our citizens.
It's official...as someone who's been on a steering committee for a CPC, and never thought I would say this, I am officially pro-choice, now.
This law doesn't only treat women like mindless animals who can't think for themselves, but it also breaks apart the understood separation of church and state this country was founded on...since all CPC's are religion based organizations. So what that they serve 'all,' that doesn't change the fact that this bill is mandating participation in a religious based organization.
The political reporter from the RCJ tweeted that there are private individual(s) that have pledged $3,000,000 to defend the new law in court as it wastes our state's time and the federal court's time. I'm sure that someone with principals and a commitment to transparency like Marty Jackley will let us know who to thank for footing the bill for the legal work.
So all these legislators who voted for this are obviously working for someone else than the people of SD. Love to see a FOIA on all emails, public and private, of these same legislators to see what the back story is on this one.
Now that there is a Republican passed health care mandate and a government mandate for untrained and un-regulated people between me and my doctor, I would assume that Marty Jackley will drop his lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (some mouth breathers might know this as Obamacare.) It no longer has standing in SD.
Dear Wikileaks and Anonymous, we would really like it if you could make a visit to South Dakota. We love visitors.
Guessing that there is something in here that is making Republicans nervous as the War College has stayed away from this discussion.
I disagree with a couple portions of the above ACLU article.
Doesn't Section 5 of the bill regulate these pregnancy help centers, requiring them to "have a medical director licensed by South Dakota to practice medicine or that they have a collaborative agreement with a physician licensed in South Dakota to practice medicine to whom women can be referred"? I checked the South Dakota Department of Health website, and could not find anything specifically called a "registry", but I did find a list of various State run services (so not faith based). There is the Bright Start Initiative, but I was thinking actually the Department of Social Services. They already have a medical referral program in place, so they would meet the criteria of having a "collaborative agreement with a physician licensed in South Dakota to practice medicine to whom women can be referred". I was also thinking of all the Community Health Services through out the State that already offer health counseling. Not sure if they refer women to have abortions though, that would rule them out as pregnancy help centers. But, if they qualify, they would be state run, i.e. regulated, and not be faith based.
I checked out that CPC website, http://cpcwatch.org/sdakota.php , but it did not seem to have any damning information on the CPCs in South Dakota, besides that they are faith-based. It is too bad, as it seems that there are bad CPCs out there, and South Dakota's CPCs are being lumped in with them. Does anyone have evidence that the CPCs in South Dakota are distributing false information? Just my two cents, I suppose.
Cory, I have a request, I hope it is not too daunting. You have previously said that this bill makes women second-class citizens, yet when I read the link you gave, you argument was not clear. You simply state "HB 1217 says women are second-class citizens. It assumes women can’t make their own decisions about their bodies, about reproduction, or about sex. It establishes a patriarchal society in which women’s rights are subordinate to “fetal rights,†in which women are mere vessels for reproduction, subject to government control the moment they pubesce." Could you please make the argument more clearly? At this point, this is what I gather it is:
Premise 1: The government regulates a person's actions.
Premise 2: A person's actions only need to be regulated by government if they are second-class citizens, i.e. incompetent or unable to make decisions on their own.
Premise 3: This bill regulates the actions of women.
Conclusion: Therefore, all women are second class citizens.
I am just curious if there is a logical argument in here, free of fallacies, or if this is just a forum for emotional, buzz-word filled diatribes. (meta discussion: Was my last sentence itself an "emotional, buzz-word filled diatribe"? Is "buzz-word" itself a buzz-word?)
(Tongue-in-cheek portion, but in reality how is it different portion) By comparison, Minnesota seems to declare anyone getting married is a second-class citizen: http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/ph/vr/marriage_licenses.htm
Can you believe that they will charge you an extra $75 for your marriage certificate if you do not show written proof of pre-marital counseling? And there is even a five day waiting period from the time you apply for the license and are able to pick it up?
Joe, see if this Feb. 13 blog post answers your questions on false information from SD CPCs and on the second-class citizen argument. Remember: this bill targets women only. The state places no similar burdens on men.
See also this article on deceptive CPCs.
Did you live in Spearditch back in the '80s by chance, Joe?
Cory,
I checked out your Feb 13 post, and it does not answer any questions, but did lead me to do some digging. You post refers to "A Congressional investigation found that 87% of pregnancy care centers provide false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion." I read the report, and it mentions that it surveyed 23 centers from 15 states that received funding from the Compassion Capital Fund. More digging revealed that the following organizations received money from the Compassion Capital Fund:
1. The Source: A Boys and Girls Club
2. Boys & Girls Clubs of the Black Hills
3. Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota
4. Sioux Empire Marriages Savers
5. Lakota Oyate Wakanyeja Owicakiyapi
6. Oti Kaga, Inc.
7. Boys & Girls Club of the Yankton Sioux
8. Boys & Girls Clubs of the Glacial Lakes
9. Native American Coalition of Healthy Alternatives 501
10. Rapid City Club for Boys Foundation, Inc
11. American Indian Social Research Institute (AISRI)
12. Miner County Community Revitalization
Additional digging of all of these organizations revealed that only Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota explicitly does pregnancy counseling (Boys and Girls Club of America offers health education services, but nothing explicitly stated as pregnancy). So, Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota was possibly one of the 23 contacted of the 25, and was possibly one of the 20 that gave false and misleading information.
So one person, at one center in South Dakota, may have given false/misleading information.....this does not lead me to conclude that all the others in SD are bad. I think the study done was relevant to what it sought to find out, but it does not serve as an indicator of CPCs, as it only investigated 23 of them back in 2004.
As for the second-class citizenship of women, you say "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."
So the argument still seems vague. If the government requires a person to receive information, it is calling that person dumb? And therefore a second-class citizen?
Larry,
Nope! I didn't breach the borders of South Dakota until the 90's (I was born in 1982 and mostly grew up in MN).
Whoa...hold up there. People who have worked with Carenet, a crisis pregnancy center umbrella know that indeed some CPCs have been nailed for false advertising. I have argued with Cory, myself, on some of that, because it's not all CPCs. However, that doesn't change the fact that this bill does refer SPECIFICALLY to CPCs, not family planning or county health, etc., and those are always religion-based. Examples are Alpha Center, Birthright (a hotline actually, though they have offices in some places for tests), and Elizabeth's House in Brookings (not affiliated with either CPC).
I will defend CPCs mission...as I have helped start one, but I will not defend government mandating women to attend them. CPCs exist as a pro-life option in a world that can push abortion on women, especially those who are young or poor, etc. We are there to be a shoulder to lean on.
That said, I also find myself dissatisfied by some CPCs, because I don't think they go far enough in supporting women holistically, but that is a discussion for another time and place.
You yourself, Mr. Nelson, have dug in a hole of bad information.
Dang it: try this link on second-class citizenry from the 2008 abortion ban.
PS I refer to Carenet here, because they advise centers to be honest and upfront and avoid those pitfalls of listing themselves under abortion services in the yellow pages, etc.
Tasiyagnunpa Livermont,
I was simply "digging" in the holes Cory himself provided via his blog. He cited a study from 2006 that may have contacted the Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota as proof that SD CPCs are bad. One bad apple doesn't make the whole tree rotten. If you could kindly direct me to the proper report/research study that "nails" CPCs in South Dakota, I will gladly read it. I hate to speculate, but is it not possible that this bill could lead to an increase in secular-based CPCs?
As for your argument that all CPCs are religiously based, here is an except from the bill:
All pregnancy help centers seeking to be listed on the registry shall be so listed without charge, if they submit an affidavit that certifies that:
(1) The pregnancy help center has a facility or office in the state of South Dakota in which it routinely consults with women for the purpose of helping them keep their relationship with their unborn children;
(2) That one of its principal missions is to educate, counsel, and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children;
(3) That they do not perform abortions at their facility, and have no affiliation with any organization or physician which performs abortions;
(4) That they do not now refer pregnant women for abortions, and have not referred any pregnant women for an abortion at any time in the three years immediately preceding 13 July 1, 2011;
(5) That they have a medical director licensed by South Dakota to practice medicine or that they have a collaborative agreement with a physician licensed in South Dakota to practice medicine to whom women can be referred;
(6) That they shall provide the counseling and interviews described in this Act upon request by pregnant mothers; and
(7) That they shall comply with the provisions of section 11 of this Act as it relates to discussion of religious beliefs.
Sorry for the long quote, but I ask what is to stop State agencies from becoming a pregnancy help center? I will concede to you that all CPCs in SD are religiously based, but that doesn't mean that they have to be. I do dislike the idea of the government mandating that I be required to attend a religious establishment, hopefully some secular based organization will spring up.
Also, you can call me Joe. I find that if we remember that the person on the other end is actually a person, we will not let the anonymous nature of the internet make us blind to that fact.
Cory,
I read the blog post you directed me towards. The only mention that it makes of citizenry is this:
"It creates a privileged class of citizens -- pregnant women who attempt to/perform an abortion upon themselves -- who, by virtue of the state of the lining of one of their internal organs, are not subject to any criminal conviction for performing an abortion. All others who perform an abortion are guilty of a Class 4 felony."
So it does not argue that women are second class citizens, but a privileged class? I appreciate the link, even if it confuses me why when I ask for sound and valid arguments, you lead me to a blog post riddled with genetic/ad hominim fallacies and Bulverisms.
I never said any CPCs in South Dakota have been nailed. I told you already that I argue with Cory myself on how to characterize CPCs. I think, however, that these 'points' you bring up are talking around the actual issues, and I really don't feel like engaging in that.
Tasiyagnunpa Livermont,
Let me be clear, I was critiquing the ALCU's arguments against this bill, as outlined in Cory's blog and here on the ACLU's website: http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/unprecedented-south-dakota-law-creates-major-obstacles-women-s-health
Their article uses misleading and false information, i.e. SD CPCs are bad. In conjunction with their reporting of the bill passing, a casual reader of that article, or that article in Cory's blog, may be led to think that SD CPCs are in fact bad. But this is not the case, is it?
I am arguing for sound and valid argumentation, and arguing against the use of misleading information (which I think the inclusion of the ACLU article with in this blog, with out checking the facts, is). I am also asking for those readers (and the author) of this blog to offer up the sound and valid arguments for why they think this bill makes women second-class citizens.
But what "actual" issues would you like to engage in?
Joe, the intent of this red state legislature is to incrementally raise the cost of a procedure as to ultimately make it unaffordable in South Dakota. It's a chilling effect on a woman's right to due process, nothing more.
Larry,
I agree that there are legislators out there whose ultimate aim is to make abortion to "costly", thereby decreasing an activity they define as murder. Similar (similar, not exactly the same, so please do not bite my head off) to the "sin" taxes imposed on tobacco products, whose aims are possibly tax revenue, as well as a decrease in tobacco users.
I understand that are government has set up a pseudo-democracy, where the majority rules, but minority rights are protected. So even if the majority of South Dakotans wanted abortion to be outright illegal, the Federal Government steps in to prevent it, protecting the minority of individuals. I suppose we will have to put out faith in the system. If the bill is unconstitutional, it will be repealed (as it actually states in the bill). However, if it proves to be constitutional, it will simple be another addition to the many-layered bureaucracy that possibly impedes due process. But when does impeding of due process become illegal? How many layers of legislation are needed? Is this Sorites paradox?
The bill itself, which is what Cory was addressing, no matter how he attempted it.
I didn't have to endorse that all CPCs suck and swallow all the ACLU in this point to get to that, especially since they themselves didn't damn ALL CPCs.
Who am I to say that a few aren't outside the parameters of their supposed intent. Considering that one I know of doesn't actually do much more than make sure a woman isn't getting an abortion...then doesn't do any other support, I wouldn't call what the ACLU said totally out of line.
Stop making a big deal over tiny things that dissuade our focus from the issue at hand THE FREAKING BILL.
I'm done talking to you on this thread...this kind of go around is what our legislators are so good at...and what I'm so FED UP with.
As I've said many times in many fora throughout this process: If, by raising the price of procedures because of adding unenforceable (remember a law on texting while driving is unenforceable) demands on providers and, the poorest, who are now in jeopardy of losing Title X funding, are they instead really experiencing a chilling effect on their rights to due process? Or, is this is a chilling effect on the right to privacy now interpreted as doctor/client privilege?
For a state with a supposed budget crisis, interdiction, enforcement, litigation, and “corrections†seem limitless to the anti-civil rights movement. Protect the unborn but after that die quickly so we don’t have to spend money to educate you because you’re going to flee the state anyway.
Joe, here's my run-down of second-class citizenry:
HB 1217 declares that women's right to personal autonomy is subordinate to women's obligation to bear children for the state. Its intent, as you recognize, is to raise so many barriers to abortion as to make it practically impossible. It is thus an effort to force women to submit their bodies to the service of another living creature. That's servitude of a sort never imposed on men. Put "privileged" class in quotes: it's a lower class, with fewer rights.
Even if the bill sponors keep weaseling around with "it's not a ban," the bill still takes away rights from women that it does not take away from men. As Senator Buhl said, it denies women the right to choose their own counselor. They may want to go see a certified mental health professional but this bill says no, it's the CPC or nothing. The woman may want to see no counselor—she may think that her pregnancy is no one's business other than hers, her husband's, and maybe her pastor's—but this bill says no, woman, you don't deserve that privacy. This bill assumes that an entire class of Americans, those with vaginas, are incapable of making rational decisions about their own bodies and reproductive practices.
Church and state: In SCR 1, the Legislature acknowledges the "spiritual" nature of CPC care. The legislators are keenly aware that the only CPCs in operation are religous organizations. They are thus passing a law that, as enacted at the moment, will force women to seek services from a religious organization. (In policy debate, we call that the "plan in a vacuum" test: without any other mandates, this plan imposed by itself in the status quo violates the Constitution.) The prohibition on discussing religion doesn't require the CPC to take down the Jesus posters and other religious materials in the building. It doesn't stop the CPC from marching the woman past a prayer group fervently chanting to save her fetus. The bill doesn't even enforce the no-Jesus-talk ban. If the "counselor" does talk religion, there's no penalty and no recourse for the woman who is forced to sit through the religious lecture. Besides, since the bill mandates a private meeting (i.e., the woman is alone, no witnesses), it'll be the woman's word against the CPC staff.
On medical certification: the bill requires some certified medical person be associated with the CPC. It does not require some certified person deliver the lecture. There are no protections for the woman to guarantee she gets professional, fair, or balanced information in the session.
On privacy: There are no protections for the woman's privacy. Remember, these abortion opponents believe they are saving babies from death. It's not hard to imagine these centers posting the names of women coming to visit them online: "Please pray for Mary Jones and the little baby she plans to kill!" The CPCs claim that the market will solve, that their business model depends on respecting their clients' privacy, but when HB 1217 requires women to come to the clinics, they don't have to worry about losing those opportunities. The bill does not impose any privacy requirements in the conditions of being on the state list.
The bill supporters say it's about protecting women from misinformation and coercion, but the bill does nothing to really protect women from misinformation and coercion. It requires them to get information from agencies that, as a whole, have a record of providing bad, biased information. It forces women to reveal personal medical information to people whom they may not trust. It forces women to listen to persuasive (not informational, but persuasive) lectures from people they may want nothing to do with (remember, the First Amendment gives freedom to speak but creates no obligation to sit and listen). And the bill never holds accountable any individual who tries to coerce the woman in her reproductive decisions. That rat-bastard boyfriend who tries to pressure the woman to lose the baby never faces the lecture or hassle that the woman and her doctor do.
Tasi is right: we need to focus on the bill itself, the bad things its words make happen. This bill itself makes abortion impossible to obtain in South Dakota, and it does so by violating federal law (HIPAA) and rendering women second-class citizens.
One of my favorite blogs used the metaphor of the boiling frog. Flogging? I crack myself up.
Taken in total with legislation coming from national Republicans it can only be seen as an assault on women that will have long ranging social and financial impact.
The House voted to defund Title X eliminating affordable reproductive care for women, including family planning. When you think about the fact that for every $1 spent on preventative planning saves $4 in costs to states.
Research on premature births was cut from the National Health Institute which will not only jeopardize the life of the baby and mother, but lead to even greater costs to the states.
The GOP has also cut funding for the Maternal and Child Health Service Block Grant program that provides prenatal care. Without adequate prenatal care and counseling the mother and her fetus face a slew of potential health problems. Her fetus has a much higher risk of being sicker and smaller when it is born.
The Women, Children and Infants (WIC) program is being slashed by the GOP deepening the pain of a mother in poverty and driving even more costs to underfunded medicaid programs.
And this is just the start for what will surely be more cuts to women and children.
Republicans even opposed the Lilly Leadbetter act to stop payroll discrimination against women.
So very, very, very sad.
If you have any question as to the accuracy of information from the Alpha Center (as an example), check out their page on STDs. Laughably incorrect when compared to the Centers for Disease Control information, but, I'm sure, idealogically correct.
[CAH: You can read Leslee Unruh's rundown on STDs and those darned useless condoms here.]
Add this to the Republican assault on women: From the Wisconsin Governor's budget:
He is also proposing to repeal Wisconsin’s Contraceptive Equity Law because, apparently for Walker, a budget also has to attack women’s health:
Gov. Scott Walker’s budget would repeal a state law requiring insurance companies cover prescription birth control.
If women are second-class citizens, then the unborn are third-class or less...and 50% of those are female. Stop with the age discrimination. I thought you on the left were egalitarians.
So... who's starting the paperwork on getting a Referendum?
Cory - I have not taken the time to read all the comments here but did want to jump on and say this--- five females co-sponsored this bill, and at least ten more testified as proponents in the House and Senate Committees. This is hardly male-driven legislation though you and the media only seem interested to quote the men. And you know I read what you write and give it consideration. I'll say that you fully lose me and many others when you continue to beat the "second class citizen" drum. You should listen to the women who gave testimony in the Committees, I can tell that you haven't. And I won't presume to speak for my wife and daughter here but I do know that if you were to ask them they'd both tell you those who sell abortions want to keep your wife and little girl from any medical advancements post-1973, like sonograms - it hurts sales, just as it will hurt sales when women get info from both sides. Talk about wanting to keep women suppressed in an era-gone by, those who sell abortions do this everyday.
Rep. Hickey, I have listened to the personal stories your side gets to trot out to heighten the emotion and sell your story. Those stories pose a problem: to respond in kind, women on my side who have had abortions or other medical procedures and can speak very personally about the implications they perceive to their autonomy and privacy would have to tell similarly gripping emotional stories. But that would force them to surrender exactly what they are trying to preserve from public intrusion. They would have to justify themselves in public, to you and the bill sponsors, by talking about matters that they consider no one's business but theirs and their doctors and maybe the small circle of family, friends, clergy, etc. whom they would permit to hear their stories. Your most passionate supporters believe these private issues are public concern and can go on a loud moral crusade to expiate their perceived sins. They do so knowing they will enjoy the forgiveness and moral praise of your side, and knowing that our side cannot really condemn them for making a personal choice. To fight on an equal footing, the women on my side must give up the very principles they want to defend for themselves, and while they will receive my support, they will also face the stigma and condemnation of people on your side. Seems like an unfair pathos fight.
When you speak of those trying to sell abortions trying to dupe my wife, you make exactly the same mistake that underpins the misogynist thinking of this bill: you assume my wife can be duped. You assume she is stupid, impressionable, and unable to make her own rational decisions. She knows (as do most women) about sonograms and other medical advancements. She knows full well what preganancy means, what grows inside a woman, and what burdens a woman bears. She can still make her own decision about her own body and whether she will place that body in the service of another life form.
And she still believes that decision is a private matter, not a public matter as HB 1217 would make it.
On medical advancements: the only medical advancement I can imagine that would change this debate is a fetal transplant procedure, where a woman who does not want to carry a preganancy to term could undergo an operation no more invasive than an abortion (or less so: I'm imagining a transporter beam) that would transplant a fetus into a willing mother or into a life-support vat in a hospital where the fetus could be nurtured to viability. And even then, we would have some questions about whether we could obligate that woman to undergo that procedure.