More

South Dakota Lawmakers Still Hard At Work Restricting Reproductive Rights

South Dakota Abortion

First Posted: 02/22/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

Now that their controversial "First thing we'll do is kill all the abortion providers" bill has been shelved indefinitely, South Dakota lawmakers are back doing what they do best: making it just as hard as possible for women to exercise, or even have, reproductive rights, because, in the eyes of said lawmakers, women are chattel.

The new means of restricting these rights come in the form of House Bill 1217, which erects an obstacle course of consultations and delays that women must endure before receiving such legal medical procedure.

TPM's Jillian Rayfield runs it down:

First, she has to meet with a doctor. "No surgical or medical abortion may be scheduled except by a licensed physician and only after the physician physically and personally meets with the pregnant mother, consults with her, and performs an assessment of her medical and personal circumstances," the bill says. In this consultation, the doctor must determine whether the woman has been under "coercion, subtle or otherwise," when deciding to get an abortion.

The woman would then have to set up an appointment at a "pregnancy help center," that offers counseling on what "education, counseling, and other assistance" she can get if she chooses to have the baby, as well as any "risk factors" that might be associated with an abortion. These centers could not perform abortions at their facilities, have an affiliation with a group or doctor who performs abortions, or ever refer pregnant women for abortions.

Once she completes these steps, a woman can sign a consent form and schedule her appointment for 72 hours later, assuming the doctor makes an "an independent determination" that the decision is "voluntary, uncoerced, and informed."

As State Representative Roger Hunt, who introduced this bill, mansplains, it's vital to force women to have 72 hours to tame their tempestuous, impulsive lady-brains so that they can "reflect on what choice she makes." As you may have heard, most women just rush into these decisions willy-nilly!

Now, if you're looking at this new law, you're probably wondering if jumping through all of these hoops is an easy thing to do if you are of modest means and can't be taking all this time off work to have pointless consultations, considering the fact that you're already probably having to travel a long distance to see one of the state's few abortion providers ("In 2008, 98% of South Dakota counties had no abortion provider. 76% of South Dakota women lived in these counties."). That's essentially the point of such laws. In America, the last women to lose their reproductive freedoms will be the wealthy ones.

Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, state governments do not impose these sorts of burdens upon men who wish to continue spraying their baby-batter hither and yon well into their dotage, but who require a tub of pharmaceutical-grade boner pills to do so.

RELATED:
South Dakota Bill Would Require Women To Get Pre-Abortion Counseling [TPMDC]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Now that their controversial "First thing we'll do is kill all the abortion providers" bill has been shelved indefinitely, South Dakota lawmakers are back doing what they do best: making it just as ha...
Now that their controversial "First thing we'll do is kill all the abortion providers" bill has been shelved indefinitely, South Dakota lawmakers are back doing what they do best: making it just as ha...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,023
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rightbrainedleftwinged
11:10 PM on 03/03/2011
I wish conservatives could form their seperate country so the rest of us in America could live in peace and Harmony without being assaulted all the time about their 19th century ideas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rightbrainedleftwinged
11:06 PM on 03/03/2011
There isn't much more policymakes in South Dakota can really do to continue to restrict abortion. My God, They are going to Toronto or CHicago to have an abortion. The voters rejected the abortion ban, but they haven't rejected the stupid idiotic politicians they elect. God I miss Tom Daschle. He probably is happy to be out of that state.
06:30 AM on 02/24/2011
wait until one of the policy makers' daughters get pregnant or their sons make some random girl pregnant. Then they'll probably send her to Europe or something to get it done.
10:32 PM on 02/23/2011
Poor little Neanderthal Man just gave Tempestuous Impulsive Lady Brains a good excuser to go out and eliminate the unevolved Neanderthal Man.

I'm sorry judge My Tempestuous Impulsive Lady Brain made me do it.
07:13 PM on 02/23/2011
Well meaning pro-lifers need to add a little more meaning to their lives by taking responsibility for all of these unborn lives that they purport to save and then walk away from. The proof of commitment is in the 18 years it takes to nurture and raise that life or to support it if it's parents won't!

The decision to take on a child is between the great invisible being, the mother, and the father, and if the parents believe that they cannot accept that responsibility for whatever reason, what other man, woman, or government law has any right to make that decision for them?

In the eyes of the believers, they're decision will ultimately be adjudicated by the great invisible being, and the would-be-life will go immediately to the land of the invisible being. Or, if your a Baptist or a Catholic, you might be more comfortable having the parents go to hell and the would-be-life go to purgatory. Either way, it seems like the ultimate punishment is punishment enough for the poor souls who find themselves in this sad, human predicament.
04:35 PM on 02/23/2011
My understanding is, the result of unprotected sex is a life not a clump of cells as commented. By that reasoning abortion is the taking of a life. A mother should give weighty concern to an abortion as her choice affects the life within and hers for a time to come. Other comments justified it by comparing it to war or capital punishment. War, is a grievous means to protect interests. But it's a result of provocation, the ones involved have a means to defend themselves, option of surrender to save their lives. Capital punishment is for murderers. Even they are allowed the opportunity to legally appeal for their lives. Why should the appeal for the life of an innocent, unborn child that can’t defend itself be disallowed. The man should be legally bound in the process women endure. The S.Dakota bill doesn’t address this integral issue. I was taught the benefits and responsibility a person obligates themselves to in a sexual relationship, others were not. I agree with the comment,the pro-life group should invest a bulk of resources in this area. The S.Dakota law legally overreaches. Except in a life-threatening situation that doesn’t justify abortion. I understand the very real concerns, fears and abandonment that cause abortion to be considered, but it seems to be an end justifies the means solution. In our debate I benefit by remembering abortion involves a range of imaginable lives, and caring, searching, sometimes confused, sometimes not confused people.
06:58 PM on 02/23/2011
Most mother's do, and those that don't are either desperate or mentally off. As proven in the past, you are never going to stop the desperate or the mentally disturbed, so your arguments are against the thoughtful people who believe that they are not in a position to take the full 18 year responsibility for the life you are purporting to save. And it's not your life to save unless you are going to take full responsibility for the consequences of your actions, that is take all of these poor lives into your home to nurture and raise them.

Otherwise, it's between the great invisible being, the mother, and the father to decide if and when to have children.
07:45 PM on 02/23/2011
I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean by desperate but you're correct with an overwhelming amount of cases involving the mentally ill. I understand that most of these folks are in a hard spot with no easy way out and no, I can't take in all those lives that would be lost(you made me smile with that one). My wife and I have done what we can and to take in every unwanted child, is far beyond the horizon, past our abilities. Believe me the commitment is far beyond the 18th birthday. My decision to save a life has never nor will ever be based on my personal ability to care for a person. A life to be saved is a life to be saved. Yes the decision they make is between them and the invisible one, for me that's God. I'm responsible to God for my decisions and for me to ignore the taking of innocent lives would wreck me morally. That's why working within what is moral and legal I can't stop opposing the act of abortion. I think most of us would agree there is a great need to help folks be thoughtful before conception, instead of before birth. I know that's something which is possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
apessano
Darwin Loves You
11:26 AM on 02/23/2011
GOP: Taking us back to the Dark Ages one bill at a time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gladhart1
10:40 AM on 02/23/2011
Do the men have to go through pre-sex counseling?
photo
Debbie Shoemaker
bleeding heart and proud of it
10:58 AM on 02/23/2011
What??? The government has no right to control a man's life. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as it legal. It's his god-given right because he was born with a dangly...but them women need to be controlled...no dangly.
Norm
Read think read analyze read comment
04:33 PM on 02/23/2011
I think Dangly needs to be capped!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverball
10:22 AM on 02/23/2011
....great...more excellent legislative work by a bunch of white males....good job dudes.....if men could get pregnant it would be VERY, VERY easy to get an abortion...or reproductive counseling and testing....
demwolf
old enough to know better
04:37 PM on 02/23/2011
or day care services
photo
toxicshock
Sassy, snarky, smart
10:15 AM on 02/23/2011
Comparing a woman's choice with gun control is fallacious and not worth addressing.

I don't want to pay for a war and capital punishment. You know, something that actually kills real people with real lives - not just a clump of cells. I guess "pro life" only means certain kinds of life.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:08 AM on 02/23/2011
How about a law that requires any man to be made aware of his obligations should a pregnancy occur, and a document signed and notarized that he agrees to 18 years of financial support BEFORE he can engage in sexual activity. Every time. After all, if men do not want there to be unwanted pregnancies and abortions, should they not accept their share of the consequences of their actions also?
10:16 AM on 02/23/2011
good post
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
icylib
wiser today than yesterday
10:21 AM on 02/23/2011
Yes and that goes for the young fathers too if a girl is pregnant in high school the father has to bare the responsibility along with the mother. and that means when she begins to show he has to have a way to show...maybe a chastity belt would be fitting....
photo
elkabong
Campaign finance is the disease.
10:06 AM on 02/23/2011
Conservatives need to outlaw abortion so they can have more welfare cases about which to whine.
10:04 AM on 02/23/2011
Why don't people who oppose abortion more actively promote birth control and sex education? Isn't the best way to insure that abortions never happen to insure that conception never takes place to begin with? I would think that efforts invested in preventing unwanted conception could reduce abortion rates significantly. Yet it seems that the Pro Life groups spend almost no time or effort where it could be most productive.
photo
elkabong
Campaign finance is the disease.
10:11 AM on 02/23/2011
It's because they don't want sex to be for anything but baby-making. They want you saddled with "responsibility" for even thinking about doing it.
photo
olehippie
I have no micro-bio within "moderation"
10:18 AM on 02/23/2011
You need to look no further than the Bristol Palin pregnancy for that answer. The level of hypocrisy is absolutely unbelievable by everyone but the Right.

Raised in a family that preaches abstinence Bristol Palin gets pregnant. Then Bristol embarks on a whirlwind tour to high schools across America preaching--- you guessed it--Abstinence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
11:05 AM on 02/23/2011
I N S A N I T Y
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
10:02 AM on 02/23/2011
TO: Hunt and Pro-Lifers

I urge you to put your mouth and money in the living. There are millions of children living in foster care that needs good homes. For the children growing up in the foster system - once you hit 18 you are dumped out on your own - personal responsibility I guess.

If you would "adopt" or mentor a foster child - for his/her lifetime - you will help the living.

I challenge you. I dare you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcozad
Manufacturers Representative Electronics Industry
10:01 AM on 02/23/2011
It never fails to intrigue me how the radical right Tea party / Republicans see no conflict with adding more government intrusions when it involves the patient/doctor relationship concerning freedom of choice. This has to be the worst example of "government intrusion " or "government overreach" Yet when you even try to install the same level of regulation like questioning the sale of 100 AK-47 automatic assault weapons to a known gun runner in a single transaction the NRA becomes outraged and foams at the mouth regarding our "constitutional rights" . (a gun dealer in Glendale , AZ. sold the gun in the above transaction that was used to kill a Border Patrol agent last month)