January 29, 2009
It's punative: pro-aborts respond to new SD law
It took a couple days but we are starting to hear what the propaganda department at Planned Parenthood came up with to bat down Senate Bill 92 which would require abortion doctors to be available in the city for consultation one day prior to performing an abortion (thus giving women in SD more access to their abortion doctor).
Nathan Peterson of the SD Campaign for UNHealthy Families said the bill is a "purely punative measure." Punative. That means aimed at inflicting punishment. We haven't heard that word since the Abortion President said he wouldn't want to punish his daughters with a baby. These are the people who have fought our efforts to expose and punish rapists. And so God-forbid, we'd not want Planned Parenthood to face anything "punitive," why, they've done nothing wrong except 1) covering up sex crimes against minors and 2) accepting racist donations 3) exploiting the poor for profit via 19th century eugenics - forced sterilization, coerced abortion, infanticide and 4) Voter fraud and other public deception campaigns - falsified stats/junk science and of course there's the little matter of how they've been 5) executing a capital punishment against 50 million judicially innocent human beings since 1973. I guess I could go on with the fallout from their 87 year history of crimes against all of humanity i.e. black genocide, global depopulation, etc..
The only peep so far against SB 92 in the SD blogosphere was SouthDakotaMac yesterday. I'm not a regular reader of his blog but it appears he's not got this excited about anything since his last Obasm. After an irrational name-calling rant against SB 92 co-sponsor Rep. Roger Hunt, we get this…
What this means is the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls would have to pay a doctor for two days of service to provide procedures that take one day. It is harassment of the Planned Parenthood Clinic, meant to unnecessarily drive up costs and force the non-profit to close the clinic.
Ya think? Or, do you think the doctor is needed for more than just the "procedure" - heck that doesn't even take a day, that takes five minutes. It's ridiculous that the abortion industry is getting a free-pass from ALL the standard medical practices every other medical procedure is subjected to and yet they want us to consider them a "legitimate health care provider." No one reading this would let a doctor operate on them before all their questions are answered. Yet we are asked to look the other way with regard to abortion.
SB 92 was conceived by South Dakotans who think Planned Parenthood needs to make good on all this nonsense we continually hear about a woman and her doctor. The state has been given sworn testimony from the abortion clinic director that there is no doctor available to an abortion-bound woman until she is drugged and in stirrups - if she lifts her head she might be able to see the top half of the doctors head but the bottom half is covered by a mask. After the procedure, there is no contact with a doctor. South Dakota women deserve better even if it is a bit punative on the profit margins of Planned Parenthood. There is no conceivable way this could be perceived as punative toward the two patients involved. SB 92 requires the availability of a doctor if a woman would happen to have a question that one of their untrained staff is fully unqualified to answer.
The funniest part of the Rapid City Journal article on this story was they led with a quote from a SD Right to Life leader… "I'm totally blindsided by it. We don't know anything of it." Imagine that. SDRTL joined Planned Parenthood in aggressively opposing Initiated Measure 11 and they are now surprised no one called for their blessing with regard to how to continue the fight.
I think the legislators in Pierre care more about the women of this state than they do Planned Parenthood's bottom line. We'll see. The bill, as expected, now faces it's first challenge having been referred to the Senate's Health and Human Services Committee chaired by pro-abortion Sen. Stan Adelstein (R-Rapid City).
Comments on It's punative: pro-aborts respond to new SD law »
Christina Dunigan @ 5:28 pm
So, it's "punitive" to require that there actually be a DOCTOR in the "woman and her doctor" equation?
Though, frankly, I don't like this approach. After all, the circuit rider isn't the woman's doctor. The circuit rider is some abortionist who has been brought in to simply vacuum out whichever wombs he or she is presented with, no questions asked, and never see the woman again.
The requirement should be that when the whole "woman and her doctor" choice is made, it's actually her doctor — her ob/gyn, her family doctor, her PCP, whatever. Somebody who knows, and presumable actually cares about, this woman.
The circuit rider should only be allowed to carry out the abortion if a doctor who knows and has a doctor/patient relationship with the woman has actually had a consultation with her and is able to state, clearly and in writing, why abortion is, in his clinical opinion, the best course of action for this patient. What other options were rejected and why.
After all, what other surgery is done based 100% on a self-referral, with no prior medical consultation? If abortion really is, as its supporters insist, just a perfectly ordinary and necessary medical procedure, then treat it like one and start requiring a referral and a reason other than "Patient thinks this procedure will improve her condition."