So, we can tell everybody else what to think, but not abortion doctors?

Let's think about this...

Lawyers are told what is legal - regardless of their beliefs.

Cops are told what a suspect must hear about his/her supposed rights - as defined by law, not by the cop.

MDs working for pharmaceutical companies are told what they are allowed to claim for their products.

Companies are told what they are allowed to claim for their products - whether they believe it or not.

Planned Parenthood is a massive corporation channeling hundreds of millions of dollars (902 million income last year, with 300+ million from taxpayers, and 50+ million in profits) into the hands of the doctors and their staff. They cannot be told what they can or can't claim about the process they sell and the side effects it may have?

Of course they can, and it doesn't matter what they think. It also doesn't matter if side effects are rare; they must be disclosed by people doing other procedures or providing other therapies. The risks to the mental and physical health of the mother are well documented - and the risks to the child are obvious, though it should be mentioned that some babies survive the attempted abortion.

As an aside... doctors who take the Hippocratic oath are not allowed by their oath to perform abortions... (or euthanasia). The profession rejected them as mercenary and/or wicked for millennia.

That's a valid point, but there's a big difference between making your patient aware of the potential side effects or risks of a particular treatment and scaring or shaming them out of said treatment - which is, as far as I can tell, what the warning mandated by this statute is meant to do.

Bazelon also notes that the probability of post-abortion risks like suicidal impulses are exaggerated by implication in this warning. That's a sign that the warning isn't a disclaimer - it's a scare tactic.

"Lawyers are told what is legal - regardless of their beliefs."

Abortion is legal; surely you are aware of that. Adding the phrase to the SD law about a "Constitutionally protected relationship" between mother and fetus is clearly intended to imply to the woman that undergoing the abortion is illegal. Facts are one thing, but misleading, biased, vague scare tactics have no place within the law.

What does the size of Planned Parenthood have to do with anything?

When the column started quoting things like "Planned Parenthood argued..." it raises the issue: what is this group's interest in making this argument? When the answer is: $50 million in profits last year... that raises additional questions.

BenK:

The risks to the mental and physical health of the mother are well documented

Actually they aren't that well documented, more just speculation. And a lot of the research indicates having a child is a greater risk to the mental and physical health of the mother, so where is the law for doctors to "inform" newly pregnant mothers that if for some reason they choose not to exercise their constitutionally protected right to abort the parasite* inside her, that there are risks to her mental and physical health, including depression, cramping, joint pain, nausea, weight gain, decreased respiratory capacity, constipation, edema. This parasite will steal nutrients from her while growing larger and pushing against her internal organs and put excrete toxic waste products into her body. Her chance of death will increase 7-10%


* parasite definition from answers.com--An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

By law, cigarettes and alcohol have 'scare tactic' labels and they have been legal for a long time. Cigarettes and marijuana have 'scare tactic' ads against them on TV. It could be argued that bringing up side effects like headache and dry mouth, which seem to be caused by everything, in each and every ad for a drug, is a 'scare tactic.'

If you care to be so careful with your definition of parasite, you should probably go with the definition of steal more carefully.

Also, you may have some serious issues convincing any biologist, let alone myself, to take you seriously. For one thing, a biologist would probably talk about 'fitness' not 'survival.' Why? Well, laying eggs, having sex, all sorts of things reduce survival of an individual but contribute to fitness. Organisms are generally evaluated in terms of what is good or bad for them by their fitness, not survival.

"As an aside... doctors who take the Hippocratic oath are not allowed by their oath to perform abortions... (or euthanasia). The profession rejected them as mercenary and/or wicked for millennia. "

You are very right. They are also not allowed to practice surgery, and they swear to all this by Apollo.

How literally do you want to take this?

Freki

A very good question; the oath comes up whenever abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment by lethal injection are discussed, it seems. I'd prefer that MDs be involved in none of the above; but you are right that the Hippocratic Oath is in many ways quite dated...

I would be OK with Nurse Practitioners administering euthanasia or lethal injection (it's not really a complicated process) but when it comes to surgical abortion, frankly, I want someone who is trained and certified to perform surgery. Any trained medical personell can administer chemical abortion, as far as I am concerned.

It is worth remembering that not all new doctors take the Hippocratic Oath upon graduation anymore, and the ones who do take it usually take a more modern, abbreviated form. The new Catholic neurosurgeon is not going to swear, "By Apollo, I will never cut into anyone's brainpan"

Freki

Yes; I threw it in there because I was thinking about whether doctors had some unique ethical issues or qualifications, and what I came up with was the hippocratic oath; which is even more restrictive than any warning label - basically, if the MDs were following their age old ethical rules, they wouldn't be able to work for abortions 'r us.

Abortion doctors are the only specialty in medicine that get praised for deliberately killing half their patients.

Sorry Ben but you are factually wrong here.

Lawyers are given a framework of logical rules within which they are to operate. If they can bend these rules to accomplish their beliefs, fine, if they cannot, the rules don't change. But that's not the same as The Court telling the lawyer what the lawyer can tell their client - which is what this law does to MDs

Cops are given a formulae that if they follow, they are protected from any later challenge that they violated the 5th Amendment rights of the individual. The cops COULD sit the accused through a crash course in Constitutional law and meet that requirement as well, but that would be more costly and open to litigation. But that's not the same as telling a cop that if they don't read an arrested person their Miranda Warning that they are going to be fined.

MDs working for Pharma companies can say what they want. But they expose themselves to liabilty to those they speak to if they mis-represent their products in a manner that is beneficial to themselves. The same ALREADY applies to MDs practicing abortion. But we are NOT telling Pharma MDs that they HAVE TO tell their investors that their product doesn't work as advertised.

Companies are not told what they can and cannot say about their products. They can say what they want. They just expose themselves to liability for any claims they cannot prove in court. But we are NOT telling corporations to say things about their product that could NOT be found true in a court of law.

Planned Parenthood is already exposed to liabilty to its patients for performing abortions. If those patients feel that PP failed to properly counsel them, they can sue for malpractice. That they do not, tells you that this is a law that holds women's ability to reason and to lead ethical lives, in the deepest contempt.

Do you hold womens' ability to reason in similar contempt?

So your examples Ben, are all hollow strawmen, as is your claim about the Hippocratic Oath. The modern version of it is

and it has no mention of abortion

I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

BenK, so you apparently think Planned Parenthood is trying to increase profits by convincing more women to have abortions? I hope that's not what you're implying. Go whine about plastic surgeons if that's the kind of thing that bothers you.

You must not know much about Planned Parenthood anyway. The only time I've been inside one was as a poor college student, because they offer birth control at reduced prices for women who can't afford pills at $50/month. So how do you know that they haven't actually prevented more unwanted pregnancies than they have terminated? It's impossible to know that actual number of course, but you can't ignore that side of their business, as much as you might like to. So your argument that PP is some evil corporation trying to trick women into having abortions is pretty laughable. Working to prevent unplanned pregnancies is something even the pro-lifers should praise, and you know it.

"Abortion doctors are the only specialty in medicine that get praised for deliberately killing half their patients. "

"Abortion" is not a medical specialty, it is a procedure. A doctor in a family planning clinic spends the VAST majority of his time doing pap smears, putting in IUDs, prescribing birth control, helping with prenatal care, giving mammograms, and etc.

When a doctor performs an abortion, it is often because all the OTHER services they perform have failed, i.e. educating the woman and providing her with affordable birth control didn't prevent her unwanted pregnancy.

Freki