South Dakota & Draconian Law

Church & State - The United States is a secular nation based on separation of Church & State.
United States
February 20, 2011 10:59pm CST
The "Pro Life" folks (and I use the term loosely, you will understand why in a moment) are at it again in South Dakota with a new Draconian bill that they hope to make law. This particular bill is designed not only to trample Roe Vs. Wade but also the separation of Church & State. ~ If a woman wants to obtain an abortion within the state of South Dakota under HB 1217, she will have to go to a crisis pregnancy center. This is to "prove that she isn't being coerced into aborting her pregnancy". Most of these crisis centers are Christian and very coercive themselves. ~ A woman should not have to involve herself with a Christian organization with regards to a medical matter. There are several reasons why. One: She may not be Christian herself. Two: The employees and volunteers of Christian organizations are not required to keep medical records quiet as they are not medical professionals. Three: Crisis pregnancy centers may not have sufficient knowledge of medical issues or complications of pregnancy or why an abortion would be advised for a woman's safety or life. ~ Last but not least, the United States is a secular nation based on separation of Church & State. http://www.alternet.org/story/149969/will_draconian_south_dakota_force_women_to_visit_religious_pregnancy_centers_before_abortions?page=entire
2 people like this
4 responses
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
21 Feb 11
IMO this has little hope of becoming law. A woman has the same rights as a man when it comes to her physical health and wellbeing. Pregnancy is a personal condition and any discussions or decisions regarding one should only be between her and the medical facility of her choice.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Feb 11
Agreed, and as I said to the poster above, this reaches far beyond abortion.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
22 Feb 11
Well the woman gets to choose the facility that she goes to. Despite the lies by the blog that Crafty linked to the bill makes it very clear that the facilities be run by "a medical director who is licensed to practice medicine in the state of South Dakota", so it's not like there's some priest or Bishop running the show at pregnancy centers.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
22 Feb 11
Maybe you weren't paying attention, taskr. Limitations on the facilities women are *allowed* to go to for any medical concern or treatment is wrong. If someone tried to pass a bill telling you that you were only permitted to go to certain, approved medical facilites, I'd hear you screaming about it from here.
@webearn99 (1744)
• India
21 Feb 11
I am pro life by conviction. But I am rational too and agree completely with the points you have made. I think the state is shirking from its responsibility and putting this touchy issue in the hands of rabble trousers. There seems a lack if thinking on the part of law makers in the entire world about what they are doing. I am concerned that now secret and illegal MTP will flourish and lives of both the women who choose will be put to risk. Unborn babies, of course have no say at all. Both of these are sad, really sad. Hope the law gets voted down.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Feb 11
I dislike the erosion of church & state and the danger of release of private medical data into religious hands. This stretches far beyond abortion.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
21 Feb 11
Maybe you should check the FACTS rather than blindly believing everything you read on a blog, which cites ITSELF as a source for most of its garbage. First, here's the bill. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1217HJU.htm Read it and educate yourself. Second, nothing in the bill says ANYTHING about people being required to go to any "Cristian" Pregnancy center, nor are these places "crisis" pregnancy centers, that crap was added by your blog and is not in the legislation at all. I have no doubt that some of these pregnancy centers are run by Christians just like many HOSPITALS are run by Christians. Just as with hospitals if you don't want to go to a Christian one than choose one that is NOT Christian.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
22 Feb 11
Oooh, thanks for clearing that up for me, taskr. So, basically the bill is saying that women in general are mindless sheep who are too stupid to make a decision like this on their own without legislation forcing conditions on them. I was laughing too hard to read the entire thing. Does it happen to mention anywhere in the bill where they obtained the data to back up the claims made at the top?
@Rollo1 (16691)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Feb 11
The bill basically makes it necessary for a woman to see a doctor prior to the abortion, rather than a receptionist at a clinic scheduling the procedure and the doctor being present for the procedure only. Women are not mindless sheep, but if they intend to make informed decisions, wouldn't it make sense to see a doctor prior to scheduling a surgical procedure? And if the clinic makes money from abortion, why would anyone expect them to give a woman information that might change their minds? In 1952, Planned Parenthood literature said that abortion "kills the life of the baby" and now their literature says it is a "ball of cells". The difference is that in 1952, they couldn't make money from abortion and now they can.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
22 Feb 11
The two of you love throwing Planned Parenthood out there as the only purveyor of abortions. This is untrue but don't let the facts get in the way...kinda like you're both doing when it comes to this bill. This bill strives to place unreasonable time delaying restrictions upon adult women and to assign the final determination of her right to freely choose when it comes to her own body to others. According to the Bill, a woman must first schedule an appt. with the physician in order to be evaluated. After this evaluation, she is then required to schedule and attend a second evaluation at a facility that is required by state law to be against the legal medical procedure she is seeking. The pregnancy help center is under no obligation to submit any written or other form of confirmation that the pregnant mother consulted with them, however, they may voluntarily provide a written statement of assessment to the abortion provider if the pregnancy help center obtains information that indicates that the pregnant mother has been subjected to coercion or that her decision to consider an abortion is otherwise not voluntary or not informed. The woman is required to disclose the name of the abortion provider to the pregnancy help center at the time of the assessment and the pregnancy help center is allowed to forward this information without the woman's consent...strikes me as a few violations of HIPAA there. I'm always suspicious of legal wording that gives one party the right to deny written confirmation to the other under one circumstance but allows them to provide it to a third party at their discretion. These evaluations are subjective and the definitions in the Bill are too vague.
@Rollo1 (16691)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Feb 11
Crisis pregnancy centers may not have sufficient knowledge of medical issues or complications of pregnancy or why an abortion would be advised for a woman's safety or life. Part of the bill requires that women have an actual consultation with a doctor prior to the scheduling of the procedure. Most abortions are scheduled with no one higher than a receptionist and the woman meets the doctor on the date of the procedure only. Most abortions are not sought for reasons of medical health, very few are obtained to save the mother's life. Those cases would definitely be ones where a woman had seen a doctor and been advised by him to seek the procedure. But in clinics it is regular practice for a woman to get a pregnancy test and schedule a procedure, without ever being examined by a doctor at the facility. This bill aims to put a physician into the picture before the actual abortion procedure. The bill doesn't state women must seek religious counseling, or even crisis pregnancy centers, it says "pregnancy help" centers and one reason they want this is because these facilities are not making money from abortion procedures. You cannot expect independent and unbiased information from a facility that loses money if you DON'T abort your child. Why would it be so wrong for someone to get information from people who don't stand to make financial profit from your decision?
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
22 Feb 11
These pregnancy help centers are biased against abortion so are you suggesting that bias in one form is okay as long as you agree with it? Read the requirements for being listed in the registry from the Bill: [i]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 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. For purposes of placing the name of a pregnancy help center on the state registry of pregnancy help centers maintained by the Department of Health, it is irrelevant whether the pregnancy help center is secular or faith based. The Department of Health shall immediately [/i]
@Rollo1 (16691)
• Boston, Massachusetts
22 Feb 11
At an abortion clinic they will not get counseling that does any of the above, therefore, if a woman goes to both facilities, she will get information from both sides of the situation. Why shouldn't she get information from those that do perform abortions and those who do not? Why is information about abortion the only information she should receive? What is wrong with information? I am not going to pretend that the purpose of this bill is not to reduce the number of abortions performed. Most pro-choice people say they want abortion to be "safe and rare" so I guess I am a little confused when they resist all efforts to help make it more rare. Education is key. Unfortunately, only one side of the information is currently being given to women at these facilities. If you don't really believe they would be more likely to push abortion because they make a profit from abortion, I am not sure why you think they are in business.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
22 Feb 11
Why are you assuming that women don't already have this information or are unable to get it? Why are you assuming that they are unaware of these pregnancy help centers or that they don't have the ability to call, go there or read the information on their websites before making the decision to terminate the pregnancy? You are voluntarily placing women in a second class category of adults who need to be *required* to have multiple evaluations before they're allowed to make a decision about their own lives...THAT is one of the things I object to. Should we also be required to get a second opinion before having any other kind of surgery or medical care since we're obviously too stupid and uninformed to make decisions on our own? My other objection is that this Bill allows these "help" centers, which are required to be anti-abortion in order to be listed, to use any standard they please when writing their completely subjective assessments. Anything can be construed as coercion according to the way the Bill is written...from threats/intimidation all the way down to the opinion offered by a friend or family member.