SDPB's Dakota Midday features a conversation today on HB 1217, South Dakota's latest attempt to practically ban abortion. According to the on-air promo I heard, host Paul Guggenheimer will talk with Republican Senator Joni Cutler, who voted against the bill, and Democratic Senator Jason Frerichs, who voted for the bill.
Read that again: Republican against abortion restrictions, Democrat in favor.
Public broadcasting naysayers be darned: South Dakota Public Broadcasting offers the most balanced, insightful, and interesting discussion of state politics of any broadcast outlet in the state.
That said, Senator Frerichs, prepare to be grilled. Program airs today, noon Central, 11 Mountain.
SDPB has two fine senators for that debate. While Joni's a long time friend, have to cheer for my buddy Jason on this one. Jason, this one time you want to disappoint Corey and make this buddy of yours proud :)
I am really bothered that HB1217 requires a woman to get counseling from unlicensed counselors in unlicensed unregulated facilities and forces her to disclose confidential medical information to these unlicensed counselors and anyone else in those unlicensed facilities who might have access to the records. Additionally since no one at the crisis pregnancy centers is bound by the HIPAA regulations the woman has no confidence that her private medical information will remain private. I hope she isn't expected to pay for this "counseling session".
I do think it would be good if they had some licence or past experience that qualifies them, but at the same time I have been in to many discussions on abortion where a woman freaks out just from the discussion since she has past experience and can not face the issue to discuss it. If there is that much pain from such a past decision then they may have rather heard both sides of the issue before making that decision. The amount of stress it causes some for the rest of their lives is not reasonable. Some times a friend of theirs quickly tells me that some have to intense of issues with it to discuss it. That is not a sign of someone who is not regretting a past decision. More info before is better than a percentage of them having a lifetime of regret and freaking out from the mear mention of it.
[CAH: As a blogger, I'm all about more info. But forced info? We have waiting periods for guns, but do we force potential gun buyers to sit through a lecture from a pacifist?]
There is just a "hint" of a difference between choosing wehther or not to buy a gun, and choosing whether or not to end a life. Anyway you argue it, it is a life inside a woman's body, and an abortion ends it. That alone should be worthy of a waiting period and counseling. If a person has a problem with being counseled by a prolife agency as they consider that biased, why don't they have the same concern with counseling (if they even get that much) from PP which is definitely a biased agency in favor of abortion.
Linda, the problem with the bias is that the state is choosing the favored message, in South Dakota an inescapably religious message. The state isn't trying to inform; it's trying to persuade. And the key is that that life is inside a woman's body. That's outside the state's jurisdiction.
If the governor signs this bill, don't you think there will be a lawsuit filed? I wonder where they'll find the money to defend their decision?
Again - we need to vote Roger Hunt out of office!
[CAH: Yes, I'm sure there will be a lawsuit, and I'm sure South Dakota will lose. I'd just like Governor Daugaard to save us the trouble and veto the bill before it puts anyone at risk.]
Cori,
I may well warm your heart on this subject. You are well aware of my feelings on abortion, but....
In the last several weeks, as the subject of abortion raised it's head in South Dakota again, I started wondering if my attutude towards abortion was rooted in emotion or in fact and I started searching.
Just finished reading a book about society in the mid 1800's and was surprised to learn that abortion was looked at much differently then. Anti abortion laws were used to prosecute abortionists, not for performing abortions, but for performing abortions that harmed the woman.
In the years that I worked at the Court House I spent alot of time looking at the old criminal dockets. Several abortionists were prosecuted in Lake County, in the early 1900's, but all for abortions that resulted in the loss of the woman's life, not just for performing an abortion.
Apparently in the 1860's anyway, it was considered an abortion only after the "child" had quickened in the womb. In other words only after the "child" had the ability to move in the womb, until then anything could be done to terminate the pregnancy and it was not considered abortion.
That took me too the Apostles Creed. Something I was taught as a child. I think about those words most everyday, but I guess over the years I had forgot what some of those words meant, in particular the words "He shall set on the right hand of God, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead". Since Jesus will judge all who have souls the New Testament itself implies that until a "child" in the womb quickens the child has no soul and is not judged.
I am certainly not an expert. Would love to hear your wife's opinion.
Perhaps all these years I have been using emotion instead of fact(including religious fact) in my whole hearted opposition to abortion. Still not convinced but I am searching.
Joseph G Thompson