Th law merely requires Doctors to inform patients who are under going an abortion procedure to be informed with FACTUAL information regarding the life growing within them and their "Constitutionally protected relationship" of legally being able to terminate the life they created. Other FACTS include the possbility of depression/remorse, for having gone thru with the deed, and that the procedure is a surgery involving risk not only to the life being aborted but to the life carrying the fetus as well.

Doctors and Pharmacies are required bysimilar laws to provide such facts for other procedures and medication why is this so contriversial? The woman still gets her "choice" after all is saidand done dosen't she?

If she still has that Roe v. Wade Guarranty of choice what's wrong with this law?

Well TexasPete, I'm not sure what makes you an expert on abortion. You sure don't sound like a doctor. I believe the article spelled out the problems, such as twisting and contorting the 'facts' into something the doctor may not think at all. And what exactly is the Constitutionally protected relationship you quote? Do you understand what that means? Please explain. Also, abortion is not always a surgical procedure. It can be in pill form too, so that part of your argument is inaccurate as well.

You are correct, however, that there is no harm in providing patients of any kind with facts and risks of any procedure or prescription. The problem is that the 'script' the doctors are forced to provide is, as the article clearly states, an ideology and not at all a medical fact, and is actually refuted by the wording of Roe V Wade. So you could argue it's an unconstitutional law.

Whether it is the surgical procedure most commonly used or some pill that causes a miscarriage losing a fetus is still dangerous. A miscarriage of a life growing within whether natural or caused by a pill is just as dangerous as the surgery.

I don't beleive the law twists or skewes any facts after having read not only the article but the SD law itself I tend to agree with the courts that reviewed it and let it stand.

Laws are all ideology and the people elected represent the ideology of the peple that put them there. The Roe v. Wade decision is entirely based on Ideology and has no basis in the Constitution (unless you can more clearly define the meaning of "the eminations from the penumbra" statement in th ruling than the Supree Court did)

So an Ideology I agree with reigns supreme in law books of SD. The Ideology of Roe v. Wade has had its day and if more states follow SD the Ideology of Roe v. Wade will be challenged and overturned as bad law.

No, the pill form of abortion are not as dangerous as surgery. Nor is it surgery if it's in pill form. That's why I corrected you and am doing so again. So now you say neither law (SD or Roe v Wade) have anthing to do with the Constitution. So why did you quote the meaningless "constitutionally protected relationship" in your first post? At least you admit in the end that you just happen to agree with the ideology. That's fine. But that's a very different argument from claiming the facts the SD doctors must provide are medically accurate. Why don't you just admit you don't know if they are accurate or not?

I must have missed the part where the doctors are obliged to give the "FACTUAL TRUTH" about the risks of pregnancy. One hears many, many more stories about women dying in childbirth, for example, than from a medical abortion.

Now, those wire coathanger jobs, that's another story.

Am I the only one who finds it irritating and distracting when spelling is this poor? Take it to YouTube, TexasPete.

I agree that all laws are ideological at some abstraction. The difference though, is that although the government can make you do things or prevent you from doing things, but under the first amend, the government can't prevent you from complaining about it. There is plenty of case law saying that if the government is making you say a particular thing, they are interfering with your ability to complain about their policies under the First Amendment.

TexasPete:

Whether it is the surgical procedure most commonly used or some pill that causes a miscarriage losing a fetus is still dangerous. A miscarriage of a life growing within whether natural or caused by a pill is just as dangerous as the surgery.

so do you also take up issue with the human body when it chooses to abort the fetus against the mothers will? are we going to start taking our Uteruses to court for illegal abortions if roe vs wade is over turned? from my understanding (as a woman) miscarriage of a fetus isn't all that dangerous to the body but can be mentally taxing because after all your are losing a child...but not because of "remorse" or "regret".

and a side note here: a lot of the depression a woman suffers when "losing" a child is due to the overwhelming ammount of hormones running through her system (kinda like, wait no, actually it is the same as PMS...) - same goes for when we have abortions.

This case is most important to me when considering bills like the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims bill.

While it is important to inform patients about their immediate health risks, I think strongly confounding variables like suicide, depression and other psychological problems should not be of immediate information.

Why?

A doctor, in this regulatory scenario, could be sitting across from a 15 year old girl who had just been raped. A girl possessing the right to a safe and legal abortion and whose mind and body have just been wrought by powerlessness. Telling her that choosing an abortion will cause her thoughts of suicide and lead to depression is like telling someone on the ledge to jump.

Or in this case, jump away from a decision based on the authority and guilt-setting advice given by a physician.

You know, I see the point in saying that it doesn't matter if she still has the Choice, but on principal, what matters here is that the anti-choice propoganda seeps through the abortion disclaimer and a physician, whose opinion is considered one of the most valued in society, practically slanders a safe, legal and definitive procedure as a dangerous, permanently bruising and negative one.

To me, that's just legislation pushing its way into an AB conversation. (And it should C its way out!)

TexasPete:

Whether it is the surgical procedure most commonly used or some pill that causes a miscarriage losing a fetus is still dangerous. A miscarriage of a life growing within whether natural or caused by a pill is just as dangerous as the surgery.

I don't beleive the law twists or skewes any facts after having read not only the article but the SD law itself I tend to agree with the courts that reviewed it and let it stand.

Laws are all ideology and the people elected represent the ideology of the peple that put them there. The Roe v. Wade decision is entirely based on Ideology and has no basis in the Constitution (unless you can more clearly define the meaning of "the eminations from the penumbra" statement in th ruling than the Supree Court did)

So an Ideology I agree with reigns supreme in law books of SD. The Ideology of Roe v. Wade has had its day and if more states follow SD the Ideology of Roe v. Wade will be challenged and overturned as bad law.

I'm a SD resident.

This law does not necessarily represent the views of the general public in this state. The anti-abortion groups have targeted SD as a good place to push their agenda, and they obviously have some allies in the legislature. Every year, the same zealots push unreasonable, unconstitutional abortion laws that have been thus far rejected by the citizens of the state. These people spend thousands of dollars on advertising campaigns that could be spent on preventing unwanted pregnancies or helping poor single mothers raise their children.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood for fighting the good fight, but where are the Drs groups in all of this? I can't believe that the AMA is so quiet about this and similar laws. This law sets a dangerous precedent. Drs. need to be able to help their patients make the best decisions about their health without fear of losing their licenses. To me, this is a medical ethics issue, one that should be handled by state medical boards and not by the legislature.

jhk81:

, but where are the Drs groups in all of this? I can't believe that the AMA is so quiet about this and similar laws. This law sets a dangerous precedent. Drs. need to be able to help their patients make the best decisions about their health without fear of losing their licenses. To me, this is a medical ethics issue, one that should be handled by state medical boards and not by the legislature.

Doctors aren't a homogenous group, but a very diverse one. The AMA already SUPPORTS abortion providers, which caused some physicians to drop out. Remember that the AMA is an organization that MDs voluntarily pay for, and if they get involved in controversies, people will get irritated and vote with their feet, decreasing their membership. At a yearly membership rate of 420$ per year per person, membership losses add up.