South Dakota might
well become Ground Zero in the abortion battle, again.
There’s a law (HB1217)
under consideration that would require a 72-hour waiting period for a woman
to have an abortion, and it mandates that she be well informed about what
she is about to undergo. One aspect of the law---bound to be a bone of
contention---is that she be given some information from the pro-life pregnancy
centers.
If the law goes into
effect, Planned Parenthood plans to sue.
This battle over abortion
in South Dakota didn’t happen overnight.
In 2006 and 2008,
that state passed laws (among the strictest in the country) against abortion.
Neither law went into effect.
However, pro-life
forces are trying again to make sure that before a woman has an abortion
in South Dakota (from the visiting abortionist, since they can’t seem to
retain a permanent one), she will at least be informed of potential risks.
When all this started,
the legislature of South Dakota set up a task force to learn about the
impact of abortion, including potential side effects, since 1973.
This was a bipartisan committee
of seventeen, including pro-life people and self-identified "pro-choicers."
The South Dakota researchers
had fifty-eight experts, pro and con, testify. They compiled mounds of
data, including more than 3,500 pages of research. They squeezed it all
into a summary of 72-pages.
One of the single most important
findings was that any semblance of "informed consent" was a joke.
Dr. Allen and Leslee Unruh
of South Dakota are the state’s leaders in the battle against abortion.
They found that very little information actually goes to the women before
they get an abortion.
He said, "The ‘informed
consent’ that they receive is a four-minute cassette, a message by an abortionist
on tape." The tape, which Dr. Unruh describes as a sales promotion, falsely
claims that the chances of dying from having a baby are 700% higher than
if you abort. "And they tell women there are no side effects emotionally.
The only emotion you will experience is relief."
Obviously, not everyone
experiences emotional fall out from abortion—but many do, including many
who thought they would only experience relief. They have found anything
but.
Recently, state senator
Angie Buhl stated, "I think that, as a legislative body, we should have
a vested interest in making sure women get accurate information before
they go through any medical procedure."
The South Dakota task
force found that the majority of the women who have abortions do so because
of pressure put on them by loved ones. The "choice" is essentially not
a choice for them.
Just last month, a woman,
a mother of four, testified before the South Dakota legislature about how
her husband had put a gun to her head and threatened to divorce her if
she didn’t have an abortion.
Leslee Unruh writes, "He
threatened her life and stood right behind her when she filled out the
consent form at the abortion clinic. When the abortionist started, she
screamed to stop---she had changed her mind, but the abortionist said,
‘It's too late.’" To make matters worse, he had
botched the abortion leaving with her with "major complications, requiring
multiple surgeries after."
To top it all off, her husband
left her anyway.
One of those who supports
the new law is Dr. Patti Giebink, MD, former abortion provider at Planned
Parenthood, Sioux Falls; 1995, 1996, 1997. She is a board certified OB/GYN
and a former NAF (National Abortion Federation) member. She said in a letter
to the editor (submitted to Argus Leader, March 14, 2011):
HB1217 would be unnecessary if Planned Parenthood in SF [Sioux Falls] would provide true ‘informed consent’ (accurate and complete information of the risks and complications of abortion) and protect women from being forced into a procedure some women don’t want. After years of trying to ‘encourage’ them to do this, their recent forms are a mockery of the process. It is obvious that the only way to make sure women get "accurate information" is for the information to come from outside Planned Parenthood.Hence, South Dakota’s new law would strive to get women, even if they choose to abort, to at least be made aware of potential risks. In a country that values Consumer Reports, that would seem to be a no-brainer to me.
[Since this column was written, the governor has signed the law.]
###