« Vote Inflation
Nepal’s First President: Dr. Ram Baran Yadav »



On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law

July 21st, 2008
By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor

Print Print

In this morning’s civil rights roundup David brought us the headline — 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 handing a victory to antiabortion forces:

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.

Emily Bazelon, who did a background story on the law a few weeks ago, blames Justice Kennedy’s SCOTUS blathering and won’t be surprised if other states copy follow suit:

The 8th Circuit’s decision to uphold the South Dakota law, even though it compels doctors to say things they don’t believe, is in part the fault of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In his 2007 decision banning a method of late-term abortion, Kennedy worried a lot about women who regret having abortions. With paternalistic abandon, he wrote about their “distress” in terms of their “lack of information” about abortion. Kennedy was talking, in graphic specifics, about lack of information on the way a so-called partial-birth abortion unfolds. Whether or not he’s right, these details have nothing to do with philosophical musings about whether the fetus is a human being. But that didn’t stop the 8th Circuit from quoting him at length in the very different context of the South Dakota law.

The fraught claim that abortion harms women, which I’ve written about before, was languishing in legal Nowheresville until Kennedy unexpectedly raised it up and blessed it. Now that notion, and the small minority of women who attest to it, are a handy new tool for abortion opponents. The 8th Circuit includes six other states—Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Laws that compel doctors’ speech, as this one does, would now be legal in all those places, should state legislators adopt them. And if states in other regions want to try passing such laws, they’ll have a great precedent to cite to the other circuit courts.

Also from Slate William Saletan weighed in on fetal separation, then wound up talking birth control again. Jessica@Feministing points to the AP story, the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota statement — “We remain optimistic that, in time, the court will find that the law is unconstitutional,” says PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz — and Get Involved page, and her co-blogger Ann on the politics of “informed consent.”



This entry was posted on Monday, July 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm and is filed under Moral Values, Culture Wars, Women, Women's Issues, Abortion, Life, Law & Legal Matters. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Here's an interesting thought. If S.D. has a law that permits medical practitioners to refuse to conduct certain procedures (say, dispense a morning after pill) can they use that same standard of law to refuse to quote this "pledge". Every other medical procedure is left up to doctors, patent holders and professional licensing boards to work among themselves and agree upon standards that are followed. If we are going to allow a practitioner to refuse a procedure based on whatever standard s/he wants, be it religious, personal, or professional, they have that right. Whether they are kept on as a worthwhile employee is up to their boss and whether they keep a license to practice is up to the boards.
    • ^
    • v
    The tide is turning against abortion, especially since teens seem to have a visceral reaction against it. Roe v. Wade may stand, but it's being hedged-in by enough laws to bring some balance to the issue. About time.
    • ^
    • v
    This ruling represents a step forward for those who believe women should be discouraged from considering their bodies their own, and should ultimately not have the right to make important decisions regarding their own reproductive systems. The wording, "whole, separate, unique living human being" suggests that a zygote is somehow equivalent to a mature human being, which is of course, absurd. Keep in mind, before abortion was legal in the USA, illegal abortions were one of the leading causes of death among women. I have no doubt there are many anti-choice folks who are far gone enough to consider that some sort of divine justice. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the rational nature of my remarks.
    • ^
    • v
    What is wrong with these people. It seems the fundies are trying to take over the country and impose their own law on us.
    • ^
    • v
    Is this country going mad by slow degrees?

    First, creationism, now this.
    Creationism is taught in LA and this law (which doesn't even pretend to have a connection to science and denies a woman's ability to reason) is effective in SD. Science and reason are losing on every front.
    The separation of church and state is becoming dangerously blurred.

    What's next - burning witches at the stake? Priests deciding the consittutionalty of laws? The Christian version of Sharia law? While we're out bringing democracy to the wrold, what's happening to ours?

    Although I'm an atheist, I make a concerted effort to respect the religious nature of others - as long as they confine their beleifs to their own lives. . With this, however, these particular religious people have crossed the line, and I can't respect those who have no respect for others.

    Just a short while ago, I relented and agreed to Obama's plan for a cooperative effort between government and faith based groups. Now, I'm reconsidering.
    In some areas, if you give an inch, they take a mile.
    • ^
    • v
    Maybe doctors can say it as fast as those disclaimers on drug ads. Wonder if they can use a recording, like a NY cabbie.

    Seriously, though, this tramples the doctor's first amendment right to free speech. And should anti-abortionists succeed in getting abortion outlawed, it will be the first time (but doubtful the last) that ANY American could be compelled by the government to make a medical decision that could threaten her life, for the sake of another human, in this case only a potential human, since many factors could keep the fetus from a live birth. In no other area can the government tell you what medical procedures on your own body to accept or decline. A very dangerous trend. Could a woman on chemotherapy, cholesterol or blood pressure medication or other drug treatment be forced to stop treating her own disease to increase the chances for her fetus? (Why not, if the fetus's rights are more important than the woman's?) Could we be forced to donate a kidney (by the same argument anti-abortionists use, if you don't, it's murder)?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Vote Inflation
Nepal’s First President: Dr. Ram Baran Yadav »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.