Welcome to the Commenting Pixie Party!
Just wondering here...what if an ultrasound determines that the condition of your fetus is (as they say) "incompatible with life" and will either die in utero or very soon after birth? Are you then required to carry this child to term? (If yes, by the way, SHAME SHAME SHAME on any politician who feels s/he has the right to do that to any set of parents who are sure to be grieving in such a way. If someone chooses to let nature take its course, that should be their choice, not the will of the state. Ick, ick, ick. I feel the need for a hot soapy shower coming on.)
Thanks for all the unpacking. 
I don't have the patience for Salon anymore.
I just wanted to say that you are an angel for doing this, because there is no way that I have time to read the full legislature. And I am coming back the moment my MA essay is done. The moment.
Well. Maybe I'll take a short nap first; your gloss, I have no doubt, is eminently worthy of all my alertness. What a pity the occasion is such a lame one.
You know, Kate, unless there's more to the legislation than I've seen, I'm not at all sure that it's firmly legal to remove an ectopic pregnancy. A patient with an ectopic pregnancy isn't at risk of immediate death, just excruciating pain. I'm not sure that's good enough for the people of South Dakota.
My my my, see what happens when you let silly little girls into fancy pants Us? They go and sprout brains, and just think how much trouble that's going to get us into.
Kate,
My understanding of the SD legislation is that there is no exception for fetuses that are incompatible with life or possess severe abnormalities. I do so hope that South Dakota is planning to increase the budgets for its medical and social support services...
And speaking of the Supreme Court (because, of course, we are) did anyone notice that the Court announced that it was taking an abortion case the FIRST DAY that Alito sat on the bench. The Court rarely takes cases unless there's a split in the courts below, and in this instance all the courts below have ruled that the so-called partial birth abortion law is unconstitutional. But, hey, I guess this case is somehow different.
We have just taken another large step backwards....we should be very afraid. SIGH.
Thanks so much for this. I'd been dreading reading the actual legislation because I was afraid I'd pop a blood vessel in my temple, but you have approached it so sensibly. If only the SD legislature were stocked with such silly housewives. . .
Honestly, I'm scared.
Thanks again, Phantom. It's scary. Reading this makes me want to take action in some way, but I don't have the money to contribute to what I'm sure will be a costly campaign to strike down the law, or to pay for South Dakotan women to fly here for their abortions (if it came to that). Scary, and frustrating.
My stomach hurts.
Thank you, silly housewife. You are very funny. That made me not want to knock my brains against the nearest wall.
Hmmm. Does this mean I can't go to SD because my IUD is illegal? My reading of Phantom's summary seems to say I would be arrested...and I was so hoping to go there for summer vacation instead of Maine. Ah well.
Etopic pregnancies are in fact life-thretening, depending on where they implant, so I would hope they would fall under the death category, but who knows I suppose.
Thanks for decoding Phantom, you are a much more politically aware housewife than I. I am still trying to decode the directions on the bleach bottle...
So sad. I could cry.
You all know you and your daughters are welcome here anytime, right?
I mean, for vacations. Yeah. That's it.
Oddly enough, the way this is written, it would be perfectly legal to abort a female fetus. Afterall, a female fetus isn't the result of the joining of a "male human sperm." But I'm just a silly part-time epidemiologist with an interest in reproductive and women's health. What the hecks do I know about the big bad world of law and politics?
Thanks, Phantom, for your logical, studious, thoughtful research and insight. I, of course, didn't choose that route. I sent their tourism agency a snotty email.
My rationale? These are not thinking people - if they were, they wouldn't have done this. No, these are folks who might respond to pressure if it leans on something their rudimentary central nervous systems understand: money.
http://state.sd.us
(If that doesn't work, it's linked in my blog.)
Kermit, maybe this is a way to start taking action? Chichimama, let THEM know what you just told us!
Actually, I wish I had read these comments first: another point to make is that pregnant women can't take the chance of even traveling through SD - God forbid they should need medical attention there!
I know the question of ectopic pregnancies has exercised legal scholars before this. Theoretically, an ectopic pregnancy does not become life threatening until after the tube ruptures. Some legal-medical scholars have argued that these sorts of strict-interpretationist anti-abortion laws prevent doctors from taking medical action to end an ectopic pregnancy until after the condition has become life-threatening.
So a woman can lose a fallopian tube and dramatically lower her future fertility, but that's alright. We can't act to prevent that.
Let's not forget that there's only one abortion clinic in all of South Dakota, and it's staffed by Minnesota doctors who fly in to perform the services (presumably not on a daily basis). Women in South Dakota were already screwed, health-wise.
One frickin clinic, presumably in Sioux Falls or Rapid City (I'm guessing Sioux Falls). There are thirteen hours of cornfields between those two population centers. And a corn palace, of course. Uff da.
do identical twins not count as human beings since they're not unique at the time of conception? Their "scientific advances" were presumably made by the same people who brought us intelligent design... Why do they even bother with the pretence at logically justifying their position when they can't even keep their argument internally consistent? Argh!
Thank you, Phantom, for posting this. I have been avoiding reading beyond the headlines on this story for fear of sending my blood pressure through the roof -- and I really needed to know the details.
I'm speechless about the transition from "necessary to save protect the woman's health" (I'm paraphrasing) to "necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant mother" in particular. In addition to being draconian, wrong-headed and just generally outrageously wrong, this bill leaves little to no discretion for doctors to do what's best for their patient, unless she's at immediate risk of bleeding out.
My only hope is that, as the NPR story said this morning, when abortion rights are threatened this severely, public opinion tends to swing in favor of choice. I sure hope so.
Where can I sign up for a subscription to "Housewife Legislative Analysis Weekly"? Because, based upon this unpacking, I can get more thorough coverage than what I'm getting currently from The Frickin' Washington Post, which focused on the Supreme Court implications of the bill and not the bill itself, plus Monty Python references to boot. Great stuff, Phantom!
Thanks, PS. I, too, am outraged, frustrated, scared - you name it. I remember, all too clearly, the days before Roe v. Wade and have watched with dismay as our rights have been eroded over the years. It saddens me that we will have to fight this battle again.
Yah, what corndog said, and chichimama too.
This scares the holy hell out of me, because after the recent change in Canadian government we might not be far behind...
Yes it's very good of you to have taken us through this, and I know how painful such close reading of hateful bullshit is, even with the satisfaction of producing such a butt-kicking deconstruction of it. Here's hoping that more women WAKE UP before the next election. And that Alito and Roberts have some kind of conversion experience (perhaps by reading blogs like this.....? One can dream.)
yea!!!!!! Thanks for that explanation. My little brain didn't realize I had a right to a relationship with my child, unless I give it up AFTER it is born, re adoption.
But before adoption I don't have that right?
wait. Now I'm all confused again....
Thanks for the analysis. I hadn't actually bothered to read more than the headlines b/c it is just all so sad. I can't believe they have gone so far with this so soon after the court changes. Sad times.
Maybe I'm a bit delayed in hearing about this....I discovered it on the radio this A.M. as I drove to work. I nearly got physically ill and had to shut the radio off for the rest of the drive.
I would have been laughing my ass off, if this weren't all so very very sad. For all those people who've told me that they voted for Bush because they don't believe that abortion rights are at stake, I hope that is the last time you make that mistake.
And Phantom, should we take a scouting trip to Canada?
It's beyond hideous. I have been watching, as I've watched so many recent news stories, with complete shock and awe, as it were, that we could come to this point.
Phantom for President!
Yes!
Scouting trip to Canada!
Purely for research purposes!
It actually makes me want to vomit.
Thanks for this post, Phantom, I know I couldn't have gotten through the legislation myself without tearing out my eyes.
What the hell is wrong with this country?
What an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. I keep thinking, no way will it go through -- of course, if it does, no way would it hold up in a higher court as it's written. I hope.
The thing is, I am extremely uncomfortable with elective abortions. I don't judge women who've had to make the decision, but I would feel better if the elective abortion rate were reduced through humane, reasonable measures (through more education, better access to birth control, etc.). But I have a very hard time believing that even most people who consider themselves anti-abortion would support legislation like the above if they really knew what it would do if implemented and enforced.
It's really awful to know that medical decisions are being attempted by lawmakers who are so clueless about medicine and medical ethics.
OK, I couldn't even LISTEN on NPR this morning when they were explaining it. I'm glad I have you to go do. Thanks for this, even though it sickens me. There are very few things that scare me about having daughters, but this is a biggy.
gods help us all. We are so fucked.
Well, if life begins at conception I'll be claiming a tax deduction for each and every one of my frozen embryos. Every. Last. One.
Phantom, you're brilliant! And I'm scared out of my mind....
Thank you for doing this. It's so depressing... I don't think I would have had the energy to look at it more closely myself.
*sigh*
No, make that *SIGH*
Personally, I enjoyed reading Ohio's bill even more since it aims to do all the SD bill does, plus make it a felony for a woman to leave the state to obtain an abortion, holds the woman and the provider liable, and would enable men to sue.
All done in the name of children, my ass. This type of legislation and thinking infuriates me. How about legislation to help the children who are currently living in abject poverty, being subjected to abuse/neglect, etc? Oh wait, that wouldn't be enough punishment for the women who dare to have sex outside of marriage, so that is pointless.
Thanks for taking the time to post about this, it makes me too angry to be coherent.
Wow, Phantom, you sure are wasting your intellect as a housewife, don't you know. Please don't worry your pretty little head about this. Isn't it time you did your housewifely duty and more babies? Sheesh, what is this world coming to when women think that they might have the right to not be pregnant.
I went out and bought a new copy of The Handmaid's Tale last night. Just to prepare myself.
Phantom, I came and responded seriously to this wonderful post....and I feel lame and shameless for doing this here but...I need your help.
I'm soliciting those I read and love to vote for me:
Please go here: http://www.denibonet.com/blog/
and choose my ugly, naked, colorful lady (she's the last in line) for the Best of Bad Art Award.
Thanks!!
Holy crap, this makes me so mad. I was already pissy about the NPR debate this morning with the conservative trying to tell gay couples that they shouldn't adopt. Then, to have this added to it? Oy vey.
Maybe if I claim political asylum in the U.K. they'll lower my vet school tuition.
Jessica - voted for your lady - and she's way ahead!
Sorry, Jessica -- I meant to leave a comment saying that I had gone to vote, and then got called away. But now you know: I voted for you!
PS, you did a great job here.
My state is currently the type to go in a similar direction to SD, which is why I was so happy about the election results in November and January...our area got rid of our wildly right-wing nuts and put in moderate dems.
But they're still out numbered in the state legislature by a big percentage.
And this is a state that doesn't allow gays to adopt. So if we go the way of SD, we'll have a new surge of babies who need to be adopted and a significant population of generally well-educated, above average incomed couples who are barred from adopting them.
Disgusting.
PS, you're awesome. And this is terrifying. My state looks headed to go the way of SoDak very soon. What with the levels of poverty here, THAT'LL be a great move. Not. Gah.
I've got one sturdy, healthy, unbetrothed Canadian boy here, and no qualms about arranging a marriage if it means saving Baby Blue! Or even LG, if he swings that way, because this is CANADA!
As a US expat, I would also like to say to my fretful Canadian friends: your Conservatives are approximately equivalent to centrist Democrats in the US. Y'all don't KNOW from conservative! It's going to be okay!
Rachel! That reminds me that I keep meaning to blog about the day we figured out that LG is probably straight...
Oh, please do, PS! That'll be fun to read.
Commenting by HaloScan
