S.D. Requires Visit to Pregnancy Center Before Abortion

Really South Dakota?

Is this decision not difficult enough to make, and does not inflict enough emotional pain on women and even men? Women forced to visit a center dedicated to stopping abortion before they have an abortion. Perhaps one of the more disgusting and sexist laws I have ever heard of.

Let's go farther. Who in the (*)(*)(*)(*) is the government to regulate and prescribe and amend a medical decision for a medical procedure? What about a bit of privacy that one should expect between a doctor and a patient?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23sdakota.html

The sign out front of the old abortion center advertises free pregnancy tests, information about abortion and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, but it has been years since Planned Parenthood occupied this building in Sioux Falls, S.D.

nstead, it is home to the Alpha Center, one of a growing number of organizations dedicated to encouraging women to bring their babies to term.

As the choice of location and the vaguely worded sign might suggest, these centers have often used confusion as a way to draw in women seeking abortions so they can try to change their minds.

Now such visits will be obligatory in South Dakota.

A law signed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Tuesday makes the state the first to require women who are seeking abortions to first attend a consultation at one of these centers, to learn what assistance is available “to help the mother keep and care for her child.”

The legislation, which passed easily in a state Legislature where Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 3 to 1, also establishes the nation’s longest waiting period — three days — after an initial visit with an abortion provider before the procedure can be done. It makes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Many states require counseling from doctors or other clinic staff members before an abortion to cover topics like health risks. What makes the new South Dakota law different is that the mandated counseling will come from people whose central qualification is that they are opposed to abortion.

“I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,” Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, said in a statement Tuesday.

The law has provoked vehement opposition from supporters of abortion rights, both locally and nationally, who describe the requirements as unconstitutional obstacles for women seeking to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood said it would challenge the law in court, which is scheduled to take effect July 1.

Peggy Gibson, a Democratic state representative who voted against the measure, said the law amounted to “government intrusion into people’s medical decisions.”

“South Dakota women should not need to submit to an in-person lecture from an unqualified, noncertified, faith-based counselor or volunteer at an antichoice crisis pregnancy center,” Ms. Gibson said.

In statehouses around the country, Republicans have used their success in the midterm elections in November to push bills aimed at reducing abortions.

More than half the states have introduced such legislation, including restricting health insurance coverage for abortion, requiring women to receive an ultrasound before an abortion, and banning abortion after 20 weeks, said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks abortion legislation for the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization.

The South Dakota legislation, known as HB 1217, is the most far-reaching of the bills to become law, Ms. Nash said. Despite an abortion rate that is among the lowest in the nation, the state has become a battleground over the issue in recent years, with the Legislature passing a number of laws aimed at curbing abortions, some of which have been overturned by the courts and by voters in two ballot referendums.

Those laws that remain are already restrictive by national standards. The state, for example, requires a one-day waiting period as well as some counseling from clinic staff, mandating that women be told that an abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.”

Requiring visits to “pregnancy help” centers is a significant tactical shift among opponents of abortion.

Such centers — both secular and religiously affiliated — are eligible to provide counseling services under the law as long as their main mission is to “educate, counsel and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children.”

“There’s greater assurance that a woman considering an abortion is going to be fully informed about all the risks and about all the options,” said Roger Hunt, a Republican legislator who wrote the bill. “That’s not being done at the current time.”

The law appears likely to escalate the tensions between abortion providers and the “pregnancy help” centers, which often operate in close proximity and are listed alongside each other in the phonebook under abortion. Each side regularly accuses the other of manipulating and coercing women.

Leslee Unruh, the founder of the Alpha Center and a leader of antiabortion efforts, said that counseling sessions at her clinic would ensure that women were not being pressured into a decision by a boyfriend, husband or parents. The center already provides counseling sessions to women who regret the decision to have an abortion.

She was dismissive of any opposition to the law, saying that women remained free to have an abortion if they chose to.

“What are they so afraid of?” Ms. Unruh asked. “That women might change their minds?”

The nearby Planned Parenthood clinic is the sole provider of nonemergency abortions in the state and has found no local doctors willing to perform them, so doctors are flown in each week from Minnesota.

Patients often have to drive hours across the state to seek an abortion, so under the new law they would need to make several trips or find a place to stay for the three-day waiting period.

Sarah Stoesz, president of the local Planned Parenthood chapter, said that the clinic was careful to ensure that patients were making the decision themselves, sometimes turning away a woman who appeared to be making the decision under pressure.

In contrast, she said, employees at the “pregnancy help” centers have a record of providing misinformation about the physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure and use tactics like displaying graphic photos or quoting scripture in order to influence a woman’s decision.

“They’re not licensed, they’re not regulated, they’re not accredited and they’re openly ideological,” Ms. Stoesz said. “The idea that they are being legally mandated to be coerced by people who aren’t even medical professionals — not that they should be coerced by anyone — is really beyond the pale.”

 

I definitely think women should be thoroughly informed on the entire issue before they have an abortion. All her options should be presented to her and all the medical risks and such should be known both for abortion and for carrying a pregnancy to term. But that is something that should be privately discussed with her doctor, not with some unqualified religiously affiliated person.

I definitely like the idea of letting a woman know how and where she can get assistance to raise a child if she doesn't want to have an abortion because I have always disliked women feeling obligated to abort when they really don't want to.

But again that's something she'd discuss with her doctor or research on her own.

If a woman wants to visit one of these 'pregnancy clinics', the fake ones that are all about coercing a woman out of abortion either through guilt trips and emotional tactics, then that's her business if she'd like to do that. But it definitely shouldn't be forced on her. Chances are she's already thoroughly thought about it and weighed all her options and current situation and made the decision she intends to make. She shouldn't have to have her pregnancy and desire to abort put on display for a bunch of other people she doesn't know and be humiliated for it.

Her pregnancy is nobody else's business but her own and those she wants to involve. This is a very serious invasion of privacy. I hope it gets overturned soon.

 

Considering young women go into Planned Parenthood for advice from medical professionals and are told straight up lies about their babies, I don't find the South Dakota law bad at all.

I mean OK, PP is against this. Who could imagine? PP depends on young women walking into their clinics and having abortions b/c it provides them with jobs. Imagine PP without the ability to abort kids. Would they stay solvent as an entity? So of course PP is gonna attack the law & sue to get it repealed, it hits them directly in the pocketbook...lol.

 

abortion panels now...really america?

 

They could always not get pregnant. Then it wouldn't be an issue.
We all know what causes pregnancies.
If it were up to me if a woman wanted an abortion that wasn't to save her own life then she would have one of her fingers removed also. After all, it's just a lump of cells.
If the woman wanted to claim rape then DNA would be extracted from the fetus and placed in a registry. If a man is found that matches the DNA on file then he would be charged with the rape.

 

That's absurd! PP does NOT depend on women having abortions to provide jobs for them. Are you aware that PP provides sliding-scale prenatal care for pregnant women? Now every woman who doesn't abort will need prenatal care, right? Prenatal care goes on for the entire pregnancy, 8 months or so, multiple visits. Abortion is no more than 2 visits. Which provides MORE jobs?

 

Of course he is NOT aware. Sheding ignorance would undermine his position.

 

Abortion makes up less than 15% of PP's revenue.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102180003

 

Murder is a business to Planned Parenthood. They're not going to do anything that hurts their profits. Asking them to give honest, objective advice about abortion is like asking a drug dealer if what he's selling you is addictive. He's going to tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get your business.

 

Planned Parenthood also provides prenatal care for women. Abortion means one or at the most, two, office calls. Prenatal care is continuing for the eight months or so for multiple office calls. Why would a "business" elect to promote the service that requires only 2 office calls?

 

The thing is most of the far righters want abortion illegal no matter the circumstances.....JUst ask Sarah Palin she has publicaly stated that abortion should be illegal even if there is a 100% chance that a woman would die in childbirth....she claims that only god should be allowed todecide when someone dies and not a doctor.......(strange concept coming from someone who openly supports the death penalty, huh?)

 

Umm, why should a woman, who wants an abortion, be forced to go see a bunch of anti choicers so they can ram their opinions down her throat?

Would you be okay if a woman who chose to keep her baby was forced to see a group of choicers who would push her to have an abortion? Of course not.

 

Yes.
A woman who has made the conscious decision to keep her child would have no problem to endure he same turmoils that every mother has since the dawn of time.
It's a thing we call "nature".

 

No woman should ever be pushed into having an abortion, and no woman should ever be pushed into keeping an unwanted child.

 

Why should the child be punished/executed/murdered for the crime of being "unwanted"?

 

Whether it should be or not is not a reason to force women who have already made their decisions to see anti choice people. Women are smart enough to know what they want - they shouldn't be made to see someone who will try and change their mind, or make them feel guilty, or lie to them.

Let women make their own choices in life.

 

Are you suggesting that women who give birth never regret it? Absurd!

 

It's called Planned Parenthood Makedde.

 

Pro-aborts oppose this legislation for the simple reason that women will be informed that abortion is not the only answer, and therefore, there will be fewer babies aborted.

"Pro-choice" people should be all in favor of this bill, if they really think "choice" is what matters.

 

This like every other S.D. will be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

What pregnant woman doesn't know she has the option of giving birth? The goal of the CPC is to convince her that is her ONLY option.

 

So would you be okay with a woman, who has chosen to keep her baby, to be forced to visit a group of pro choicers who would push her toward having an abortion?

 

Who is forcing who to keep their baby Makedde? You argue situations that don't exist to try and bolster your own deranged and losing arguements.

Just b/c S.D. passed this law, doesn't mean the girl is going to not abort.

Why are you people against woman getting educated on what happens during and after an abortion? What is wrong with that? Who would be against such a thing?

I mean you deathers are the ones claiming how tough a choice this decision is on women. So if it is that tough a choice, shouldn't the woman exhaust all avenues of information before making that dreadful, tough decision?

 

No it is not. Where does it say that is the only option?

 

Don't be disingenuous now. The question was if women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term should also be forced to undergo "counseling" about having an abortion? If it works in one direction ti should work in both.
No one is opposed to education, but any rational person should be opposed to counseling by zealots trying to brain wash people. By the way, who should make the determination that the woman in question is not informed enough?

No it does not mean that, only that a woman choosing a legal medical procedure has to undergo badgering by some nut job.

Nothing wrong with education if it is sought, needed and done by people who do not have an agenda, but you already know that and you also have an agenda.