The Washington Post article on abortion in South Dakota has made it above the fold in the Aberdeen American News. As Tim Graham noted, this article seems to think it's a problem that abortion is rare in South Dakota. The article also implies that giving abundant information to women is problematic. This one always confuses me. I had invasive surgery about twenty months ago and I got all sorts of information. The doctor told me why I needed this procedure and both the costs and benefits of having or not having the surgery. Before I went into the operating room I had to sign various consent forms allowing them to put me under anesthetic and to cut me open. This is called informed consent and everyone sees it as protecting the patient's rights when it comes to non-emergency surgery. But somehow when it involves abortion it's "restricting a woman's right to choose."
Here's a real whopper, from South Dakota Planned Parenthood state director.
"Women in the western side of the state don't think about abortion until they need to," said Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, "and then they're completely shocked that there's no way to receive that care unless they go to Sioux Falls."
I ask, in what sense is having an abortion medical "care"? What is wrong with these women that they must seek medical "care"? Is pregnancy now a disease that abortion "cures"? If someone has a wart and they need it taken off, I guess we call that medical care. Is that what is going on in abortion? Is it the moral equivalent of having a wart removed? I would think medical care under the circumstance of pregnancy would entail making sure that both mother and baby are healthy, not sucking the baby out of the womb to be thrown in a dumpster.
Recent Comments