In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Targeting South Dakota

Shannon

Nowhere in the United States* is it more difficult to obtain an abortion than it is in South Dakota.  Women who are faced with abortion are also faced with a slew of regulations and restrictions.  We are a state of parental notification, 24 hour waiting periods, women must be asked if they wish to see their sonogram, and they go through mandatory education about their options.  A recent 8th Circuit Court ruling just changed that education to include a message from the doctor where he or she must tell the patient that she is “terminating the life of a whole, separate unique, living separate human being.”  On top of that, the doctor must tell the patient that having an abortion will increase her risk of suicide and depression despite the fact that there is absolutely no proof to support this claim.

It’s no wonder anti-choice extremists chose South Dakota as their battleground, and South Dakota residents as their pawns.

There is no doubt there is a larger agenda here than merely a ban with so-called “exceptions.”  These forces have their eyes on the United States Supreme Court.  They’ve set their sights on overturning Roe vs. Wade and they think South Dakota is the place to make that happen.

Last Tuesday, national leaders from the organizations fighting this battle joined together in Washington DC to announce the fight against this measure.  I think Cecile Richards, Executive Director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said it best:  “This law, if it was adopted, would be the most extreme anti-abortion law in the country… This ban would take the most important decision that a woman and her family can make about carrying a pregnancy to term – a complex, moral, very personal decision – and take it out of her hands and give it to Big Government.  Make no mistake, this ban would not help the health care of a single woman in the state of South Dakota.”

*edited to include “United States”

20 thoughts on Targeting South Dakota

  1. This is just so disturbing.

    I live in Oklahoma, where they recently passed the “abortion patients must have a mandatory ultrasound because they are obviously unaware that they are aborting an embryo or fetus” bill.

    Sometimes stuff like this just makes me want to pack up and leave rather than fight it.

  3. What precisely is wrong with parental notification laws? Any time a minor has surgury, at least in my state, they must notify parents. Why should abortion be special? What if something happens to their child? Wasn’t there a recent event in California where a girl died and her parents only found out after that it was complications from an abortion?

  4. How the hell do they get “separate unique, living separate human being” out of something that is physically attached and entirely dependent on the woman.

  5. “Make no mistake, this ban would not help the health care of a single woman in the state of South Dakota.”

    Ah, but that’s just it. This ban isn’t intended to HELP women, it’s intended to CONTROL them. Heaven forbid those dirty, dirty sluts should be able to get away with having sex and not paying for it.

    On top of that, the doctor must tell the patient that having an abortion will increase her risk of suicide and depression despite the fact that there is absolutely no proof to support this claim.

    There is, meanwhile, a huge amount of proof that pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing lead to an increased risk of suicide and depression, but you don’t see anyone forcing doctors to tell their patients about THAT, much less about the fact that pregnancy can KILL THEM. After all, who cares if the woman dies, as long as she does her duty and has teh pweshus baybee for Jesus?

    I am so very glad I don’t live in South Dakota, and horrified that this could be happening in this country. When are our lawmakers going to stop treating women as disposable baby-incubators in order to placate the sanctimonious – and mostly male – Christian right-wingers?

  6. I know I’m probably being a bit of an extremist here, but I can’t help but wonder how people would respond if another constitutional right were being attacked with this vigor. Proponents would be getting death threats, churches would be burned, legislators in support would be called fascists. Imagine if some bag of dicks in South Dakota was talking about using the state as a staging ground for bringing down the first amendment.

    A reasonable society would have left these backwards little theo-dictators in their proper place (the end of a rope) years ago.

  7. Something I’ve never been sure of: is the doctor required to present the lies with no comment, or are they allowed to say “The law requires that I tell you this, but it is factually wrong.”? What would happen if they did contradict what the law says? (I’m assuming there will be forced-birthers who go to doctors’ offices and ask them ‘Is that true, Doctor? Will I really be at greater risk of suicide?).

    I mean, the law just says “You must tell patient X lies about abortion”, right? It doesn’t actually forbid them from telling the truth, does it? Does it?

  8. Splendid Valor —

    What’s wrong is that most parents don’t try to prevent their children from having dental surgery against their will. Parents will and do try to prevent their children from having abortions. Further, teens aren’t afraid of saying “mom, I have a toothache/pain in my abdomen/broken leg” but are often very afraid of saying “mom, I’m pregnant and want an abortion.” You don’t hear about anyone drinking bleach to try to fix that kidney problem, now do you?

    And the girl you’re referring to is anti-choice propaganda. They are legally challenging her info from being on the ballot at all, because she was 18 and would not have been “helped” by the law or affected by it in any way. Look it up.

  10. Just wanted to add that I’m glad they’re bringing in the big guns, because I’m sure they’re needed. And that Kua makes a good point.

  11. Nowhere is it more difficult to obtain an abortion than it is in South Dakota.

    Nowhere in the US, you mean. Because it is much harder to get one in a lot of other places. Even in some places in Canada. Like PEI, where there is no abortion provider at all. One has to go to another province. And never mind third world countries, where it’s nigh on impossible.

  12. SplendidValor:
    I’ll tell you what’s wrong with parental notification laws. A good lot of pregnant teenagers are girls who face abuse at home. Tell their parents they’re pregnant, and you risk subjecting them to some pretty severe abuse, or even death.

    Abortion needs to be safe. Parental notification takes the safety out of it for a lot of young women.

  13. Yes…. to all of you who pointed out my first statement… you’re very correct. I did mean to say “Nowhere in the US…” Thank you for catching it.

  14. “terminating the life of a whole, separate unique, living separate human being.

    And here I thought abortion was terminating the life of a partial clone, dead nonhuman.

    I definitely quibble with separate, though, not when the fetus is dependent on the mother’s organs for survival.

  15. I wanted to add with the parental consent part… if a minor becomes pregnant than they can legally be considered an adult. Why should a minor require parental consent to have an abortion, but not give birth?

  16. in oregon, minors have the right to autonomous medical decisions (whether they involve abortions or dental work). hooray!

  18. In reference to the “whole, separate unique, living separate human being.”

    Ummm…yeah…can something be considered whole and/or unique without a heart beat. Answers to the question: “When does a fetus develop a heart beat?” can vary but most fall within the realm of 5-8wks. Food for thought.

    In reference to the increased risk of suicide and depression:

    A friend of mine gave birth to a child last fall after being raped. Since the birth, she gave the child up for adoption to an aquaintence unable to have children. Giving up the child she carried for 9 months sent her into a downward spiral of both depression and suicide attempts. Whether or not she would have encountered the same sense of loss with an abortion, I will never know, but having the child and then adopting it out left her bleeding on the bathroom floor. Point: having a child can increase the risk of suicide and depression.

    And as to the parental consent:

    Bad things happen, as with the case of the girl dying with complications due to an abortion, but what can be worse is a family making the decision for the woman in question (minor or not). She is going to have to live with the decision. We would like to think that the parents who made the decision for her do too, but if she is 16+ they can technically cut her off. Then where is she? Desperate? On wellfare? Unable to finish highschool so she can work some $7/ hr job to try to get by? Sometimes you have to chose the lesser of 2 evils, and not all parents are mindful of that.

  19. Yep, minors need consent for a tonsillectomy. A parent would also be seen as abusive for denying consent to a tonsillectomy.

    Cf. Jehovah’s Witness kids and transfusions.

  20. Pingback: One Utah » Blog Archive » It’s A Pro Choice Country

Comments are currently closed.