Monday, February 12, 2007

Politicians To Prohibit Giving Birth In South Dakota

Some South Dakota politicians have decided that, in the case of incest, a doctor and the woman would have to report the identity of the alleged perpetrator to police before a delivery could be allowed. Oh, wait, seems I'm a tad confused. There's only one medical procedure politicians would dare muck up in such a manner:

PIERRE, S.D. - Lawmakers who watched as a near-total ban on abortions failed in South Dakota voting booths last year have revived the legislation with changes that may make the difference in public acceptance. But the bill's success is far from assured.

None of the Legislature's leaders, notably some sponsors of last year's bill, are joining the effort this year because waging last year's fight was so exhausting.
[Awww, the poor little darlings. Since it's all about them, good to know they're focused on taking some time off to recharge.]

"It's far too soon to put our state through something of such a difficult nature again," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, a prime sponsor of last year's abortion bill.


The bill introduced in January includes exceptions for victims of rape or incest and if continuing the pregnancy would harm the woman's health significantly.
[The patient better be in danger of becoming significantly disabled or else, off with her head. No medical care for her.]

Last year's ban exempted only abortions needed to save a woman's life, and the lack of more exceptions was cited when voters repealed the ban in November. Public opinion polls have shown that a ban with rape and incest exceptions would pass muster with South Dakotans. [Finally, progress. It's no longer only women on the brink of death who are deemed worthy of being allowed to receive medical care. Now, being subjected to rape or incest also qualifies one for medical care. Yeepeee.]

A chief sponsor of the current bill, Republican Rep. Gordon Howie, said legislators must not lose their momentum and noted that the repeal passed with only 56 percent of the vote.

"What the voters told us was that they were uncomfortable with the rape and incest circumstances. And so this bill is one that was specifically designed for the majority of South Dakotans or with them in mind," Howie said.
[Principle, shminciple. What determines ones anti-abortion belief is how the electoral wind blows.]

The bill would allow rape victims to get abortions if they report the rapes to police within 50 days. Doctors would have to confirm those reports with police; doctors also would have to give blood from aborted fetuses to police for DNA testing in rape and incest cases. [Let me see if I have this right. Go to police and report rape. Go to ER to have rape exam. Insure doctor contacts police. Insure rape exam is performed. Insure doctor confirms rape exam with police. Insure police is present at time of exam to collect rape kit. Make appointment with doctor for termination. Go to doctor to have termination. Insure doctor notifies pathology that part of the specimen, once examined, is to be forwarded to police. Insure Path department and police are somehow in sync and your sample reaches police. Go wash all the OR floors. Launder all police uniforms. Empty all the trash cans. Ooops, sorry. I got carried away. But not by much.]

In the case of incest, a doctor and the woman would have to report the identity of the alleged perpetrator to police before an abortion could be done. [Abortion, the only medical procedure that can only be performed if a police report has been filed, and the perpetrator named. It would almost be preferable for the incest victim to be shot. At least, with a gunshot wound, ER personnel are allowed to start treating the patient before notifying the police. Even if the patient cannot, or does not want to, identify the perpetrator.]

Abortions could be done only until the 17th week of pregnancy in cases of incest and rape. [It's a known medical fact that, in cases of incest and rape, once the patient hits the 17 wks mark, the Earth's axis reverses, thus erasing the incest and rape out of existence.]

Opponents of both bills say this year's bill carries onerous reporting provisions for victims of sex crimes. [Commendable effort, but how hard would it be to point out the elephant-in-the-room problem? Namely, that politicians should never be the ones making medical decisions for you.]

"Rather than helping rape and incest survivors, this bill does nothing more than re-victimize them by forcing them and their families into a web of government bureaucracy and intrusion," said Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota. "Under this bill, the victim's privacy and confidentiality are lost entirely." [Puh-leeze, enough with all these demands, like privacy and confidentiality. Isn't it enough that rape and incest victims are the special ones? After all, they, and only they, but virtue of Fortuna smiling upon them and allowing them to be brutalized, are the ones deemed worthy enough to receive medical care.]

About 800 abortions are done each year in South Dakota, nearly all of them at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Sioux Falls, the state's largest city.

Howie and others who support this year's bill hope it can become a legal avenue that could cause the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortions.
['Cause what value does a patient's health have, other than as a pawn in some grandiose political game? Disgusting.]

Utah also has legislation in progress that would ban abortion except for rape, incest and saving the mother's health, and the bill would set up a trust fund to pay for the expected court challenge. [Forget setting up a trust fund. I say we tax the patients and their physicians to pay for all the expected legal challenges. And while we're at it, we also make them form a human carpet for lawyers and politicians to merrily step on...repeateadly.]

The Mississippi Legislature, which last year considered a near-ban, this year also added exemptions for rape or incest. Both versions allowed abortions to save a mother's life, but not her health.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican who signed the near-ban last year, said he was not prepared to say whether he would sign the current version.

Bartling doubts it will even pass both legislative chambers. Although support appears strong in the House, she doubts sentiment is the same in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Testimony on the bill was scheduled to start Monday.

"I just don't think it'll make it to the Senate floor," Bartling said. "I've even talked to very pro-life Republican legislators that are not in favor of bringing it back this year. I think it's just too soon."


Post a Comment

<< Home