The South Dakota Senate has backed and sent to the governer a bill requiring women to follow various procedures before they can have an abortion:

legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.asp...

tdn.com/news/national/article_a23b45aa-0...

Before having an abortion, a woman must first meet with a doctor who will determine whether or not she has been 'coerced' into deciding she must have an abortion.  Following this, she must set up an appointment at a pregnancy help centre, to have counselling and advice.

After doing this, the woman must sign a consent form and schedule an appointment for the abortion 72 hours later.  But, she can only do this if the people counselling her have determined that her decision to end the pregnancy is voluntary and informed.

Reading through the various provisions of this bill, it would seem that it infringes upon a woman's rights as stated in the 9th Amendment.

Solf and mm

Tinker, tinker, tinker. I suppose there is the hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a new decision.

Some of us are so weary of this campaign.

Surely any decent docor would already be on the lookout for signs of coercion?

Beyond that, it's just more infantalising women from a political faction that likes to claim they stand for "getting government off your back" (but apparently, not out of your womb).

^{WEll clearly the people of South Dakota are making thier choice.  I will say it sounds like alot of rigamaroo  The 72 hour waiting period I don't have a major problem with baring any medical emergency.  I think they do that here and probably alot of states.  However the pre-test is a bit stupid to make sure you are not being coerced is stupid and I believe they already cover that during the abortion appointment.}

 

I don't like abortion, it is a ugly vile thing.  However I would much rather use my energies to helping unprepared young women NOT get pregnant in the first place.  Over 85% of unwanted pregnancies are due to not using BC or not using it properly.  That is where the focus should be to drive it into awareness to always respect your body and respect yourself and use protection everytime.  I don't want young women having abortions and I don't want them having unwanted children either. 

Mar 3, 2011 -- 11:11AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Mar 3, 2011 -- 10:32AM, Erey wrote:

^{WEll clearly the people of South Dakota are making thier choice.  I will say it sounds like alot of rigamaroo  The 72 hour waiting period I don't have a major problem with baring any medical emergency.  I think they do that here and probably alot of states.  However the pre-test is a bit stupid to make sure you are not being coerced is stupid and I believe they already cover that during the abortion appointment.}

 

I don't like abortion, it is a ugly vile thing.  However I would much rather use my energies to helping unprepared young women NOT get pregnant in the first place.  Over 85% of unwanted pregnancies are due to not using BC or not using it properly.  That is where the focus should be to drive it into awareness to always respect your body and respect yourself and use protection everytime.  I don't want young women having abortions and I don't want them having unwanted children either. 

Don't forget the other half of the formula -- teaching young men to take responsiblity for their actions, instead of practicing "shoot and scoot," or "fire and forget," so to speak. A good number of abortions wouldn't happen if men didn't put women in the posistion of having to make that choice by knocking them up and then running away.

Very true. Although at the end of the day, women have the power when it comes to sex and no woman should be choosing to have sex without protection unless she's attempting to get pregnant. If a woman says, "I'm not having sex with you without a condom" the man will find a way to get one or will put the one on that she gives him. My dad always said if you're not mature enough to carry condoms with you and tell a man to use one, then you're not mature enough to have sex.