South Dakota: Abortionists must now tell the truth

unborn fetus

Women seeking an abortion must be told that the procedure ends a human life, a federal judge ruled Thursday, upholding part of a South Dakota law.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier said doctors must disclose to pregnant women that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” –

Imagine that…abortionists in South Dakota are now required to at least inform the mother that he is about to end the life of her child. What a concept! Since we know that an unborn baby is indeed a whole, separate, unique, living human life maybe we should at least be honest about that with the confused and scared mother of that life.

This is a big win for mothers and their unborn children everywhere now and in the future. Why is this not a requirement in every State?

These kinds of wins may seem small but are actually very significant. If we can just get people to grasp and admit to these basic, simple truths, then eventually they will see the reality of abortion more clearly.

The question now is how many of these abortionists are actually following the law? Lila Rose may have something to say about that.

[photo credit]

8 comments Add comment

Heather August 24, 2009 at 5:11 pm

At least the precedent has been set. However, I’m sure this will be spun by the pro-“choice” side as a way of “scaring” the mother out of the abortion, but as with any medical procedure, the patient must be informed of everything about it. With this information, hopefully women will make better choices.

ryan August 24, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Good news. While it’s so obvious, at least it is required!

Dean Soto August 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Wow, that is very much a pro-life win for that state. That really made my day. However, informing the mother could mean that abortion providers “inform” them somewhere in the fine print.

kk August 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm

How do you enforce this?

What is killing in war and if is destroying the life of a unique living human being, actually many of them, how does the Catholic church justify it?

Andreas November 8, 2009 at 1:03 am

I am surprised by your stance on this… It seemed to me that you were very concerned about the government meddling with the relationship between doctors and patients – since the government can’t do (almost) anything right.

But now, when the government decides what doctors have to tell their patients, where is the outcry? Shouldn’t that be between the doctor and the patient?

It seems a tad hypocritical – as in: “as long as the government enforces MY point of view, it’s not oppressive. If I disagree – then of course the government is taking away my freedom.”

Matthew Warner November 8, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Andreas, Point taken.

But first, there is a big difference between federal government and state and local government. Each has its place and is necessary at some level. And it should only be involved within its legal jurisdiction (for example, the federal government has no place, constitutionally speaking, doing much of what it does today). This is State government in this case.

Second, simply said, I think the fed government controlling, running, managing health care is a bad idea. But I do think certain levels of government have a duty to set some standard of compliance to practice in order to ensure the public safety, especially when it involves the killing of innocent human beings. So, yes, I think it’s a good idea that a state government requires abortionists to truthfully inform mothers that they are going to end the life of the human person inside of them.

Third, I do take slight exception to these kinds of laws when it comes to governmental involvement because the government SHOULD ALREADY be protecting the life of the human person in the womb – and it isn’t. These are steps to get us back to such justice. Once our laws reflect that basic morality again then there won’t be a need for laws requiring abortionists to inform mothers of such things because the act will be illegal in the first place – as it should be.

Fourth, I think it’s easy to see the difference between the kind of governmental involvement I’ve been against elsewhere and this situation here.

Andreas November 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm

I see your point. I really do.

And maybe I shouldn’t mix health care and the abortion issue (although looking at the health car bill that passed it’s closely connected). My point would be: right now people are dying (latest estimate around 18.000 each year) because of lack of health care. These are whole, separate, unique, living human beings too, who could be saved by spending some money.

I find it hard to reconcile in my mind to basically tell them: “Well, we could help you, but it’s going to cost money. Sorry, it’s just too expensive.” and then go and spend a lot of energy (and money) to prevent abortions.

I think you are fighting a good fight, and I can see how invested you are. Your arguments are sound, I don’t agree with them, but I can’t call them wrong.

It just seems inconsistent to me, and I just can’t wrap my head around this. My point would be: this is a chance to help millions of people to have a better life. Even mediocre health care is better than none.

Maybe it is because I am personally affected: my girlfriend lost her job. She is on COBRA now, a government program that allows her to continue her old insurance policy for a while. But once that runs out, she will be uninsured. She has a few pre-existing conditions and no insurance will touch her, or it will be so expensive that she can’t afford it. If there was a public option she wouldn’t face that problem, or at least not at the same level of difficulty.

Matthew Warner November 10, 2009 at 10:26 am

Andreas, thank you for your sincere thoughts and I truly do sympathize with you and your girlfriend. However, it’s not a question of whether to simply “spend some money” and help people or to NOT do that. Those are false choices. My efforts against abortion are rooted in a passion to help all lives – that’s what it means to be pro-life. So we do not differ on that point. Where we differ is that I believe you’re operating on a number of false assumptions.

The choice is not 1) support a monstrosity of a government run health care plan that we can’t afford or 2) continue to let people die in the streets. This is a false choice. A choice defined by propogandists and politicians with an agenda.

First, to pretend that cost is no object here is dangerous. Our country is to a point where we are seriously undermining our long-term economic stability. If you think the job-market is tough now, let the government continue spending the way they are doing now and would like to do under current leadership and you’ll see even less jobs, retirement savings plummet along with the dollar, and overall MORE suffering – not less. That is one of the main reasons why the current bill will NEVER pass the Senate…because even many liberal senators know it will kill our ailing economy and make things worse. One of the best things that could happen for your girlfriend in terms of her health care is that the economy recovers quickly and she finds a new job that will then cover her health care. Everybody wins. But the current administration’s policies not only won’t do that, but they are misleading Americans into thinking that somehow more gov spending is going to fix it. But it’s only making it worse. The way to improvement is to enable people to provide for themselves…not to enable government dependency and killing incentive for production by taking from one and giving to another (which is also immoral).

Second, the proposed plan is not going to help improve the quality of our health care system (which any one with pre-existing conditions desperately needs) and it is not going to drive down the costs of health care either without also rationing and driving doctors out of the industry which will cause costs to go up even further. Ask the majority of doctors who have been practicing medicine and running their own clinics for more than a few years (i.e. they are not idealistic, naive kids green out of med school) and they will tell you the same thing.

Third, our freedom is worth something also. It is dangerous to give the federal government power that is not constitutionally theirs to have. If anything, perhaps each State could offer their own “public option” – but that won’t happen…why? Because it’s not economically sound and it doesn’t work well here in the US. Either way, the Fed Gov has no place doing it. And you are seriously fooling yourself if you think that they are going to run ANYTHING more efficiently or with less corruption than a sufficiently regulated private market.

If you truly want to help your girlfriend you would support allowing the buying of private health insurance across state lines. That will drive down costs AND it doesn’t cost the fed government a dime. You would also support tort reform which would also drive down costs and cost the Fed Gov virtually nothing. You would also support getting rid of the third-party payer system. And we could have state pools that help cover the cost of those with pre-existing conditions or something like that. The reason you don’t hear those in control of Washington clamoring for any of these things is because they don’t fit their ideology. And it doesn’t fit into their scheme of increasing the size of fed government and taking more control of our lives. Or it is opposed by some strong special interest groups who donate lots of money to those in power. It’s corrupt. These policies are being decided based on money, greed, and power. That’s the truth. It is naive to think it isn’t. The answer is not to have such control in the power of the government nor some big corporation…but in the power of the individual. That’s what we should support.

COBRA should cover your girlfriend for 18 months I think if I remember correctly. If that runs out before she can get another job, if she can’t afford it she likely will be covered under medicaid. There are also lots of free clinics to help with things. And she can go to any hospital and get treated there even if she can’t pay if it becomes that desperate. There are lots of solutions. And yes, we need improvement still. But where you and I differ is not in the people we want to help or the dollar amount it is “worth” but in what will accomplish it.

Your girlfriend probably doesn’t have trouble buying car insurance or getting her computer fixed in a snap or insuring her stuff or home. All of these things are controlled largely by large corporations – not the government. All of these costs have NOT skyrocketed. All of these any individual can go and buy at an affordable, reasonable cost regardless of employment status. With a few exceptions (like dealing with pre-existing conditions which could be dealt with by a type of pool like I mentioned above) there is no reason health insurance should be any different. But you have to keep the government out of controlling it if you don’t want it to get worse.

You may disagree with some of my points, but let’s understand that that’s where we differ…and not on whether we should help people. Just how to do it. I’ll say a prayer for your girlfriend and all of those in need. God bless you, bro!

Previous post:

Next post: