image:7126:2::0

In late June, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an injunction against an abortion law that required doctors performing the procedure to inform patients that they were ending a human life. The 7-4 decision temporarily quashed the hopes of those who believed the law infringed upon their right to free-speech. Some physicians who perform abortions do not recognize certain stages of fetal development as human life.

The 2005 law states that physician's must inform patients of the following:

"that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

The scripted information that must be provided to patients as part of the law does not say at what stage the fetus is a separate being. In fact, as one male observer put it, "I mean, I'm just a guy, not really an expert or anything. But, um, placenta? Umbilical cord?" Sure, that is literal translation but it shows how overgeneralized the law is and how the lack of neutrality in the language is meant as a deterrence and not to "inform patients".

The law also defines an abortion as "the use of any means to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus." That means the consumption of herbal remedies known to be used in early days to induce a miscarriage such as pennyroyal is also considered abortion.

But terminology aside, doesn't the law contradict itself? If the life is "whole and separate and living", then it doesn't require a connection to maintain life. Theoretically, if there is an independent life form living inside of a woman, in South Dakota, can we not remove it and it survive on its own?

A poll taken by the New York Times showed varying views depending upon party affiliation, geographic location and gender as far as availability.

General availability Democrats 43% Republicans 29% Opposed 21%
Limited availability Democrats 35% Republicans 41% Opposed 28%

Northerners were the most liberal supporters of general abortion availability, while southerners were the most restrictive. Men supported abortion at a slightly greater margin than women. Very few people support third trimester abortions, while in a Gallup poll in 2003, 66 percent showed support for first trimester abortions.

With South Dakota falling into one of the more mid-range states, the agenda-driven language isn't surprising. And with just under 60 percent of the abortions in the United States being performed during the first trimester, according to CDC data, is it really a viable statement to say that a fetus in South Dakota is a whole and separate human being? Is a fetus in another state not a separate human being?

South Dakota has only one abortion clinic and it is operated by Planned Parenthood. The center promotes a comprehensive view based upon informed consent in all areas whether one decides on choosing to parent or chooses to abort.

Regardless of ones belief on abortion, it is essential that states get their laws straight if they are to provide patients with an unbiased view of the procedure, as well as all of the other options available to them. To claim that a 4-week-old fetus is a separate being is indeed a fallacy in that the fetus is completely reliant upon the mother for survival. To force physician's into making the same claim is anything but medically sound or neutral.

Food for thought.