Don’t want to alarm you…

But SD is not a progressive state.  It’s a place where you can sue someone for stealing your spouse as though they were your property.  So it shouldn’t surprise me when they do things like this.  But I’m still pissed.

As reported in the Rapid City Journal, HB 1237 would grant doctors immunity from liability if they “Refuse to perform a surgical or medical procedure to terminate ‘the life an unborn human being,'” or in cases where “a child is born with ‘a physical illness, disease, congenital anomaly, or physical or mental disability’ and the mother could have terminated the pregnancy had she known.”

This bill says that if your doctor decides not to tell you that your fetus has some problem, and because of that lack of information you don’t decide to terminate, then they are within their rights.  I can not imagine any doctor actually being willing to accept that, since it violates the most basic principles of informed consent, but if there are any (and the bill gets anywhere), they could come to SD.  Then, they don’t have to tell you anything about your baby they don’t want to.  Hooray!



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Don’t want to alarm you…

  1. Just because you want to be a lothario, seducing married women out of their marriages from good gentleman farmers, well go right ahead. But the law will be all over you. Also, when I go to a professional, I expect secrets to be kept from me. I might not be able to handle the truth. You should be grateful that they know when you don’t want to know. Anyway, who believes in informed consent, we should just do what our betters want us to.

  2. How about if your doctor decides not to tell you if your fetus is a boy or a girl? Isn’t that a serious problem a lot of places? Also, you probably know more about this, but I had read somewhere that the abortion thing is a very recent development. That it occurred as sort of a normalization process of the republican, evangelical right. 50 or more years ago abortion wasn’t an issue and definitely wasn’t a polarized political issue. Also, it wasn’t any where as linked to the evangelical right as it has become. Is that right? That this sort of craziness (both left and right) has developed out of a sort of team identity in politics?

    • I’m not an expert in that particular aspect of the oppression of women. And, because the issue is heavily politicized, my impressions are probably misimpressions because of activism surrounding the issue. Abortion itself is as old as pregnancy (there are writings about it from Ancient Rome). It may not have been as overt an issue, but my impression (again, relatively uninformed) is that the reason it wasn’t an issue wasn’t because it didn’t happen or wasn’t considered a moral/social problem, but because it was considered to be so taboo that it wasn’t talked about.

      Additionally, the fundamental issue is that doctors don’t have a right to keep information about the health of your baby to themselves because of their moral inclinations. I know what you’re getting at with raising female infanticide issue, but that’s a special case that’s hardly salient in SD right now. Additionally, the laws in India that prohibit identification of the sex of a fetus DO allow for identification of congenital abnormalities, etc.

      And in either case, the fundamental principle is the same: dismantling or preventing patriarchal intrusions into the life and liberty of women, born or unborn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s