Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill requiring all women in South Dakota to submit to consultation with a pregnancy crisis center at least 72 hours before being allowed to have an abortion.

Chairman Roger Hunt, the prime sponsor of this bill, allowed 10 people to testify in favor and only four in opposition. Despite the fact that a New Jersey resident was allowed to speak at length in favor of the bill, I was denied the opportunity to testify in opposition. If I had been allowed to testify, this is what I would have said:

I have known "Terry" for 15 years. As her obstetrician, I cared for her during multiple miscarriages, until she finally had a successful kidney transplant. Then, knowing the risks of transplant rejection, severe preeclampsia, seizures or even death, she chose pregnancy again.

Her pregnancy went well until 25 weeks, when she developed severe life-threatening preeclampsia, and delivered via Cesarean section. After months in the neonatal intensive care unit, her baby went home with a relieved and healthy mother.

Several years later, while using an effective form of birth control, Terry became pregnant again. Now a mother of a small premature child that she supported on her own with two jobs, she was facing the very real possibility of losing her kidney or a recurrence of the preeclampsia that could lead to her total disability or death.

Though philosophically uncomfortable with the issue of abortion, Terry came to me to ask about risks of this pregnancy compared with the risks of termination. After extensive discussion and many tears, she decided that her responsibility to her family was paramount. She chose to terminate the pregnancy. Twice the people of South Dakota soundly defeated attempts by the South Dakota legislature to severely restrict access to abortion services. Still that legislature has created 52 statutes under the heading of Performance of Abortion attempting to do just that.

One requires physicians to complete 13 pages of forms with every patient in addition to the process that physicians are ethically and legally bound to perform for every procedure.

Before Terry could have an abortion to protect her health and life, she and I completed more than 25 pages of state-mandated forms that required me to give her information that is patently false. Failure to complete them precisely can result in investigation, fines and civil or criminal liability.

Under this new bill, Terry would have been forced to submit to "consultation" with a state-approved "pregnancy help center," whose central mission is to persuade her to carry her pregnancy to term. Because the information dispensed by these centers is not regulated, she may have been forced to hear that the risk of abortion is greater than carrying to term, that she will get breast cancer, or that she is selfish and immoral -all cruel and false assertions that are common among these centers. She would have to wait three more days.

Though this bill's stated purpose is to prevent coercion of women with unplanned pregnancies, it instead mandates government sponsored coercion of those women by anti-abortion clinics.

The South Dakota State Medical Association opposes this bill. No other medical or surgical procedure has this kind of regulatory interference. No other procedure has a mandatory waiting period. Even for women without compelling medical issues, this bill represents hypocritical governmental interference into the most personal of medical matters.

Please urge your representatives to defeat HB 1217 immediately. Enough is enough.

This Forum piece is written by Marvin Buehner, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist practicing in Rapid City.

 

(43) comments

[quote]gonecountry said: "Abortion has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with denying a defenseless human being their Constitutional right to life."[/quote]

The Bible states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

Also according to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath. This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either. Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it; the rest are aborted.

gonecountry

[quote]Quevol said: "gonecountry, at the very least, we could say Dr. Buehner's story is every bit as relevant to the issue at hand as your opinion is. But this article is not about abortion per se, it is about free speech. As such, we can take note of a set of circumstances surrounding it. First, there appears to be a significant imbalance between those who testified for or against the bill before the House Judiciary Committee. That imbalance was partially created by denying Dr. Buehner the opportunity to speak. Roger Hunt is the prime sponsor of this bill. Roger Hunt is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who decided who may or may not speak. (we don‘t even need to address the notion of conflict of interest here)So I too smell a red herring. One that is diverting our attention to the abortion issue, rather than the far more dubious issue here, which is governmental censorship. "[/quote]

Abortion has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with denying a defenseless human being their Constitutional right to life.

gonecountry

[quote]nullDreferenced said: ""Some of you are whining about the counseling; under the current practice, the woman meets the abortionist only right before the needle gets stuck in her arm. Forgive me if I don't trust the abortionist to provide adequate counseling as it is a conflict of his/her financial interest. And this gives the woman only a few minutes as best to change her mind if she wants to. The pro-choice side is as biased as the pro-life side; a woman should have the opportunity to hear both sides."Yes, but that doesn't mean she hasn't been given all the facts by her unbiased doctor that cares only about the health of his patient. In Dr. Buehner's story, the woman was getting the abortion based on life-threatening and PERSONAL medical facts. Her doctor gave her the medical FACTS based which took into account her previous medical history so that she could make the hard decision. So if her decision is based on medical FACTS then what good is the counseling center going to be doing for her? Will they also be giving her a full medical examination and discussing her medical history so they can determine her specific situation? Doesn't sound like something you should be forced to do with a complete stranger. Of course, we know women won't have to worry about that level of embarrassment because the centers are just going to blindly tell them why they shouldn't have an abortion without the centers having any real knowledge of the medical situation of the woman. That is just ridiculous. I like how you say the "opportunity" to hear both sides as though there is a choice. This law is FORCING a person to hear "both sides". I also like how you say "both sides" as though her unbiased doctor that cares about her health is automatically a biased pro-abortionist because he feels that in her medical situation an abortion is the best option for her health. If you really want women to have the "opportunity" to hear both sides then I think they should also be forced to spend 3 days in a pro-abortion counseling center."[/quote]

You totally ignored the fact that this particular case is extremely rare and not representative of the 98% of abortions that occur in this state as an easy way out.

Posey
Posey

Kumbaya, you can't just create your own facts. Based o spending power the U.S. is the richest country.

BH

[quote]Joseph Budd said: "It is interesting, that this so-called "doctor" loves to make assumptions on the life of the unborn. My son, who came into this world, was born healthy, after mom suffered from the same condition, and again, was able to deliver another baby, Angel without trouble. One might ask "Terry", exactly what it was that was causing such a high-risk situation at home.Furthermore, I love how with his degree, he tries to call all information made public about abortion "patently false", when in truth, he is simply trying to protect his way of life. Similarly, an interview with one such doctor, who performed abortions in the midwest had no problem talking about how he would do such acts, without remorse...in the similar nature that a serial killer would end lives without a problem. The only difference, is that we put killers behind bars....abortion doctors, continue to kill.Tissue comes from boxes....babies aren't tissue.47 million had died, at the hands of these animals, between 1972 and 2006. Did they kill someone who could have invented a cure for cancer? Someone who could have found a cleaner running engine? How about a president?We will never know, because the mom was coerced into believing a lie...and a doctor became a killer. "[/quote]

Mr. Budd, Where did you get your medical degree that allows you to assume that all people who suffer similar symptoms to your wife during her pregnancy will have the same good fortune as she did or would not possibly be able to have dangers that would greatly increase their own and/or their unborn childs mortality? You make grand assumptions based only on the belief that abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't generally approve of abortion but the world is not black and white and not everyone is the same. Every person and situation is different with different dangers and considerations that must go into making a decision. In this instance the woman mentioned by the doctor chose to abort her unborn child rather than run the risk that her living child would be placed into foster care if something were to happen to her during this high risk pregnancy. The letter states that this was by no means an easy or flippant decision on her part and perhaps she would do better with some support to help her through such a difficult situation rather than condemnation.

BushLeague
BushLeague

Joseph Budd said on: February 24, 2011, 11:49 am
It is interesting, that this so-called "doctor" loves to make assumptions on the life of the unborn. My son, who came into this world, was born healthy, after mom suffered from the same condition, and again, was able to deliver another baby, Angel without trouble. One might ask "Terry", exactly what it was that was causing such a high-risk situation at home.
Furthermore, I love how with his degree, he tries to call all information made public about abortion "patently false", when in truth, he is simply trying to protect his way of life. Similarly, an interview with one such doctor, who performed abortions in the midwest had no problem talking about how he would do such acts, without remorse...in the similar nature that a serial killer would end lives without a problem. The only difference, is that we put killers behind bars....abortion doctors, continue to kill.
Tissue comes from boxes....babies aren't tissue.
47 million had died, at the hands of these animals, between 1972 and 2006. Did they kill someone who could have invented a cure for cancer? Someone who could have found a cleaner running engine? How about a president?
We will never know, because the mom was coerced into believing a lie...and a doctor became a killer
------------------------------------------
Or maybe they could have grown up to be on welfare, or been bounced from foster home to foster home costing the taxpayer money to take care of and I quote "the lazy to sit on their couches". Or maybe one grew up to become the next Hitler because they were brought up in a home where they weren't wanted or shown love. Or maybe one grew up to rob you or murder someone because they were mistreated by a parent that never wanted to or wasn't ready to be a parent. Enough with the baloney. And your final statement that women are coerced into having abortions is insulting. You try to act as if these women who undergo an abortion haven't had to struggle with this hugely difficult decision, and that the doctors don't give a dang about their patients because they are just interested in the money. Your comment is thouroughly disturbing.

thirt4

Bottom line, too much government interference in our personal lives because the folks in the legislature have no lives of their own. We need less government and more God.

Joseph Budd
Joseph Budd

It is interesting, that this so-called "doctor" loves to make assumptions on the life of the unborn. My son, who came into this world, was born healthy, after mom suffered from the same condition, and again, was able to deliver another baby, Angel without trouble. One might ask "Terry", exactly what it was that was causing such a high-risk situation at home.
Furthermore, I love how with his degree, he tries to call all information made public about abortion "patently false", when in truth, he is simply trying to protect his way of life. Similarly, an interview with one such doctor, who performed abortions in the midwest had no problem talking about how he would do such acts, without remorse...in the similar nature that a serial killer would end lives without a problem. The only difference, is that we put killers behind bars....abortion doctors, continue to kill.
Tissue comes from boxes....babies aren't tissue.
47 million had died, at the hands of these animals, between 1972 and 2006. Did they kill someone who could have invented a cure for cancer? Someone who could have found a cleaner running engine? How about a president?
We will never know, because the mom was coerced into believing a lie...and a doctor became a killer.

CaesarA

This boils down to who is more valuable. The woman or the fetus sustained by her. As long as pregnancy holds a risk to a woman's health, it cannot be forced upon a woman. Get over it. It's as simple as that. Unless, of course, the zealots are more interested in the fetus and the woman comes second. Why don't you sexist folks just admit it? Women mean nothing to you. This whole issue has and always will be about control and not caring. Try approach one of these zealots and watch the cesspool of anger rise up in their faces. OR try having your home vandalized because you spoke out. Been there done that.

Kumbaya

eggman: china is the richest country in the world, or maybe saudi arabia. definately ain't us as we are flat broke.

BH

Thank you doctor. To those who post against what the doctor is presenting in this letter, I will respect your apparent belief that all abortion is bad and I will respect that obviously the women in your life would choose to die attempting to carry a child to term than take the chance to watch their existing children grow up. The doctor pointed out that she had not planned to get pregnant as she had been on birth control at the time of the pregnancy. She had already fought for her life and her child had fought for its life during the initial pregnancy. She had no desire to get pregnant again. She did not believe in abortion and this was a difficult enough decision for her to terminate the pregnancy. Why should she go and be tormented by people who believe that abortion is murder and would be calling her a murderer? Why add to her torment? In some places (hopefully the US) such continuous psychological warfare on such a life and death decision which already has the effect of extreme psychological stress and trauma may be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment.

nullDreferenced

"Some of you are whining about the counseling; under the current practice, the woman meets the abortionist only right before the needle gets stuck in her arm. Forgive me if I don't trust the abortionist to provide adequate counseling as it is a conflict of his/her financial interest. And this gives the woman only a few minutes as best to change her mind if she wants to. The pro-choice side is as biased as the pro-life side; a woman should have the opportunity to hear both sides."

Yes, but that doesn't mean she hasn't been given all the facts by her unbiased doctor that cares only about the health of his patient. In Dr. Buehner's story, the woman was getting the abortion based on life-threatening and PERSONAL medical facts. Her doctor gave her the medical FACTS based which took into account her previous medical history so that she could make the hard decision. So if her decision is based on medical FACTS then what good is the counseling center going to be doing for her? Will they also be giving her a full medical examination and discussing her medical history so they can determine her specific situation? Doesn't sound like something you should be forced to do with a complete stranger. Of course, we know women won't have to worry about that level of embarrassment because the centers are just going to blindly tell them why they shouldn't have an abortion without the centers having any real knowledge of the medical situation of the woman. That is just ridiculous.

I like how you say the "opportunity" to hear both sides as though there is a choice. This law is FORCING a person to hear "both sides". I also like how you say "both sides" as though her unbiased doctor that cares about her health is automatically a biased pro-abortionist because he feels that in her medical situation an abortion is the best option for her health. If you really want women to have the "opportunity" to hear both sides then I think they should also be forced to spend 3 days in a pro-abortion counseling center.

Quevol

gonecountry, at the very least, we could say Dr. Buehner's story is every bit as relevant to the issue at hand as your opinion is. But this article is not about abortion per se, it is about free speech. As such, we can take note of a set of circumstances surrounding it.

First, there appears to be a significant imbalance between those who testified for or against the bill before the House Judiciary Committee. That imbalance was partially created by denying Dr. Buehner the opportunity to speak. Roger Hunt is the prime sponsor of this bill. Roger Hunt is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who decided who may or may not speak. (we don‘t even need to address the notion of conflict of interest here)

So I too smell a red herring. One that is diverting our attention to the abortion issue, rather than the far more dubious issue here, which is governmental censorship.

Rickaroo

Re Kumbaya: I have just one question for you; What color is the sky on the planet where YOU live? Here on earth it's usually blue, just wondering...........

Eggman
Eggman

[quote]Kumbaya said: "eggman: are you biden in disguise? the Federal government gives money to planned parenthood. it goes into their general fund and from that, abortion doctors are hired. they claim we can trust them that none of our money is used to pay them, but they are planned parenthood so we all know how far that can go. obamacare was going to be mandatory, forcing us to buy health insurance. those who couldn't afford it, would have it bought for them. hence why the federal judges ruled in unconstitutional since it REQUIRED us to buy something with no expectations on our part (such as car insurance where you only have to buy it if you own a car)."[/quote]

First the number of fed judges who have ruled it constitutional outnumber the ones that have ruled otherwise, and there is NO case because the stuff you are whining about hasn't taken effect yet, there has been no harm. I find it hard to believe that people like you don't want to see the children in the richest country in the world have health care....you may want to check on what Planned Parenthood can and cannot spend their money on.

Kumbaya

eggman: are you biden in disguise? the Federal government gives money to planned parenthood. it goes into their general fund and from that, abortion doctors are hired. they claim we can trust them that none of our money is used to pay them, but they are planned parenthood so we all know how far that can go. obamacare was going to be mandatory, forcing us to buy health insurance. those who couldn't afford it, would have it bought for them. hence why the federal judges ruled in unconstitutional since it REQUIRED us to buy something with no expectations on our part (such as car insurance where you only have to buy it if you own a car).

Eggman
Eggman

[quote]Kumbaya said: "government doesn't have any business forcing us to buy health insurance, using my tax money to give to the lazy to sit on their couches, or to try and take my guns. but didn't hear any of you whining about that. "[/quote]

Wow, Dude...you're trying to jam a whole episode of Rush Limpbough into a paragraph....first off nobody has forced you to buy insurance, and the law will ask those "lazy" couch people, whoever they are to buy their own health insurance, thus saving you some of your precious "tax dollars" which thanks to Obama are at an all time low. As for your guns...quit going to gun shows...the people there are getting rich from this latest scare. As to your other comment about paying for abortion....show me WHERE exactly in which Govt program abortions are paid for by your precious tax $$$$....you should be proud to pay taxes...it's the
patriotic thing to do.

Posey
Posey

Kumbaya, can you give us the quote from the article, that you attributed to the Dr.? You do know that abortion is as legal as gun ownership?

Dogwoman

[quote]Kumbaya said: "I shouldn't have to pay for abortions either though. and, since tax money goes to pay for them..........I'm paying for them. if you want one, pony up the dough. can't afford it, stop having sex. "[/quote]

Sorry, Kumbaya, but I can't leave this alone. I think everyone knows that women would stop having sex alot quicker than men would.

Granny

I wasn't going to comment on this article. Then I am seeing replies that lead me to believe that many people (men in particular) think that a woman's IQ drops to 10 on the day that she conceives. Believe me, most women do know their options when pregnant! Besides abortion, there is adoption and raising the child yourself. There is also a risk of being physically harmed by the babie's father, or that the father will disappear and leave you looking for child care and a job that pays well enough to support yourself and the the child or children. Then there is the line about not having sex if you cannot afford a child. How many married adults are going to appreciate that?

wheresthesunshine

As Americans, we pride ourselves on being more evolved than the countries with poor socio-economic statuses. We consider ourselves as "saving the world" when we donate livestock to Afghan families, money for women and children to have clean water in Africa, or alpacas for families in Peru. We are outraged when we hear about the raping of babies in Congo, the extreme oppression of women in SA, the near slave-like treatment of young girls in Afghanistan. We think we are so enlightened because we offer a better life to our own citizens.

Medieval oppression of women's choices are alive and well in America. Every sperm is sacred in South Dakota.

Rickaroo

Re Kumbaya: You are absolutely wrong (ouch) that tax payers dollars fund abortions! Not 1 cent of federal money is allocated for abortions, period. The money Planned Parenthood receives through the federal government is for birth control/products, abstinence counseling, pregnancy/birth advice, but not 1 cent for abortions! Get the facts straight, quit listening to Sarah, Rush, Hannity and Fox in general.......try ABC, CBS or NBC, the truth might surprise you!!!!!!

Kumbaya

no fretwalker I wouldn't because gun ownership is actually in the constitution, the act of owning a gun doesn't kill another person and I really don't care if the women never meet with a counselor. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the doctor saying that the COUNSELING was what was going to keep this woman from getting an abortion. after everything she had been through, how tough is counseling. seriously. that is like me telling my wife I can't go get the mail due to the cold after having been outside for 8 hours shoveling.

Bearclaw

Gonecountry: You say the situation in Dr. Buehner’s story is extremely rare. You say 98% of abortions in SD are for lifestyle reasons only. A woman’s reason for getting an abortion is extremely personal and every single one of them is rare. You so flippantly call them lifestyle reasons, but I can assure you that a woman getting an abortion has thought about it long and hard. Her decision is based on much more than “lifestyle.” She is certainly free to change her mind at any time. You have no understanding at all of what a woman goes through during this sometimes devastating time, yet you would try to force your flippant attitude on another FREE ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN who has a right to her privacy and to her own views.

Kumbaya

I shouldn't have to pay for abortions either though. and, since tax money goes to pay for them..........I'm paying for them. if you want one, pony up the dough. can't afford it, stop having sex.

gonecountry

I'm not sure what relevance, if any, Dr. Buehner's story has to do with the currently proposed bill. I smell a red herring.

The situation he describes is extremely rare; after all, she was using an "effective form of birth control". This bill would have not prevented this woman or anyone else from a medically necessary abortion; again, these situtations are extremely rare. 98% of abortions in SD are for lifestyle reasons only!

Some of you are whining about the counseling; under the current practice, the woman meets the abortionist only right before the needle gets stuck in her arm. Forgive me if I don't trust the abortionist to provide adequate counseling as it is a conflict of his/her financial interest. And this gives the woman only a few minutes as best to change her mind if she wants to. The pro-choice side is as biased as the pro-life side; a woman should have the opportunity to hear both sides.

With the counseling provision, a woman is fully informed of all her options and has a chance to speak up if there is any funny business going on. So what if she changes her mind and decides not to abort, is that such a terrible thing? Abortion is not a morally neutral issue, and multitudes of women have deep regrets. Sure this is a process, but we all want abortions to be rare, right?

Again, of what relevance is Dr. Buehner's story to the currently proposed bill? None.

Bearclaw

[quote]gonecountry said: "Palin said: "A woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy doesn't need to be harrassed. She has made up her mind and should be permitted to do whatever she wants with HER body."This argument deliberately ignores the fact that it is not just HER body involved. There is the body of a living human being being assaulted and snuffed out. Some counseling before such a "hard decision" is certainly indicated. "[/quote]

And your argument deliberately ignores the fact that abortions are legal, and women should have the right to pursue that legal abortion whithout counseling from your cohorts just because you think it is called for. I will compromise with you, when you get your abortion, you go ahead and get yourself some counseling first if you want to. Quit trying to force your belief system on the 150 million women in this country.

Posey
Posey

So, kumbaya you would favor a law mandating a waiting period, a safety course, and counciling, by anti-gun zeolites, before you can own a gun? Give us an example of how someone is trying to take your guns.

Odin469

I agree with you kumbaya -- government has no business forcing anyone to buy health insurance, giving money to those who won't work, or taking my guns. Just like government has no business trying to force women to go through some counseling, or wait 72 hours (as this bill would require), prior to an abortion. It is none of your business, much like it isn't any of mine, and it for sure isn't government's business. It really is pretty simple -- if you don't want an abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!

Dogwoman

A free adult expects to be in charge of their own body. They don’t want to be required to get counseling if they don’t want it. They want to be free to decide for themselves if they desire a breast implant, fertility treatments, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, mastectomy, and especially an abortion if this free adult deems it necessary. Who is going to counsel and about what? I actually think counseling is a good idea, but a horrible idea for the government to require it. The government needs to treat women like they are free adults. I will guarantee you if men got pregnant, they would be able to get an abortion if they wanted one without undo harassment from our government.

Kumbaya

government doesn't have any business forcing us to buy health insurance, using my tax money to give to the lazy to sit on their couches, or to try and take my guns. but didn't hear any of you whining about that.

Odin469

gonecountry -- why, precisely, is counseling indicated? I suspect that you mean that you'd like the opportunity to convert the woman to your belief system. That's all well and good, and a laudable aspiration -- but government doesn't have any business forcing women to be subjected to that sort of religious onslaught. If you take the moral philosophy out of it, the counselor would only be left with the medical facts (risks of surgery and anesthesia and so forth), of the situation. Which the woman's physician already knows and has undoubtedly counseled the woman about. I wouldn't stand for your belief system being imposed on me or my family, nor should it be imposed upon women at this very difficult time.

justletthemchoose

[quote]Kumbaya said: "so, what you are saying, is that after all her surgeries, her risking her life to have the first child, going on medication, working two jobs, filling out 25 pages of forms....it is the meeting with a pregnancy risk specialist that was the straw that broke the camels back? she just couldn't talk to someone and pretend to listen? seriously?"[/quote]

I think "what we're saying," is why should the government be able to mandate that a woman HAS TO, MUST, HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO go to a 3 day long class (that pesky word mandatory) where they attempt, using incorrect information and completely erroneous statistics, to convince every woman that comes through their center to carry their pregnancy to term, regardless of the direct risk to their personal selves and fetus, and the indirect risk to the live of their families. I believe I'm correct in saying that that's all that we're worried about. A small thing called personal freedom.

gonecountry

Palin said: "A woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy doesn't need to be harrassed. She has made up her mind and should be permitted to do whatever she wants with HER body."

This argument deliberately ignores the fact that it is not just HER body involved. There is the body of a living human being being assaulted and snuffed out. Some counseling before such a "hard decision" is certainly indicated.

Kumbaya

GL and palinlies-weren't you two stating how we should get rid of the 2nd amendment and make people turn in their guns? isn't that their "personal lives"? isn't owning a gun, doing what I want with MY body? isn't that actually a right protected by the constitution?

PalinLies
PalinLies

A woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy doesn't need to be harrassed. She has made up her mind and should be permitted to do whatever she wants with HER body.

Kumbaya

well, the good doctor sounded off as if she was being asked to have both her legs cut off and giving her first born up for adoption. in reality, she had to meet with someone and hear what they said.........oohh nooo!!! not that!!! I think the chinese use the same thing for torture. I was pointing out the absurdity of the letter in how after everything this woman went through, that somehow a class was going to be the brick wall on the path to her success. I'm not saying they should have to take the class. from the sounds of it, the birth of the child would probably be a financial boondoggle. but seriously, they make it sound like she is being asked to commit hari kari.

GL

Mr. Hunt and other "holier than thou" legislators...STAY OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES!

Ranger01

Roger Hunt is on his anti abortion crusade again in the Legislature as he is every session. Don't expect common sense to prevail in whatever bills he introduces. His sole agenda is to make it impossible for any abortion to occur no matter what the medical circumstances are. I'm sure he was also in favor of the bill that would have apparently made it legal to kill doctors who performed abortions.
Too bad the bill that would have required us all to own a handgun didn't make it. That would have made it easier to enforce some of these anti abortion bills. Sorry, I lost my common sense for a minute.

West River
West River

[quote]Kumbaya said: "so, what you are saying, is that after all her surgeries, her risking her life to have the first child, going on medication, working two jobs, filling out 25 pages of forms....it is the meeting with a pregnancy risk specialist that was the straw that broke the camels back? she just couldn't talk to someone and pretend to listen? seriously?"[/quote]

Better yet the question is:
Why should she have to talk to someone and pretend to listen?


Odin469

Dr. Buehner -- thank you for a thoughtful letter. It is clear to me that the government doesn't have any business trying to regulate reproductive health in this manner. The patently false, and religious-based mandates, do not belong in a doctor's office.

kumbaya -- so, what you're saying is that after the heart wrenching path Dr. Beuhner's patient had trodden, she needs to speak with anyone other than her family and health care provider?? Really? Seriously, why should she be subjected to that? Who is the government to try and impose this? It ought not be mandatory(!); especially since, as Dr. Beuhner points out, the counselling will be slanted towards carrying the pregnancy to term and misrepresenting the risks and imposing religious philosophy. I, for one, will be contacting my state representative urging defeat of HB 1217.

hereandnow

thank you doctor for that letter.

There seem to be a lot of intelligent people living in our State but there are still a lot of peple who are so far out of the main stream that it boggles the miond and one has to wonder why?

How many times do these people who are not in touch with the modern world have to be told by the voters that just mind your own business and let a woman decide for herself?

These legislators who keep bringing this up are wasting everyones time and money with this destractive wedge issue.

I honestly think it is because Republicans can't find solutions to real problems that affect us and instead come up with this issue again and again in spite of the voters telling them that it is legal and will remain legal and just get over it.

It is as if when one enters South Dakota, there should be a sign saying welcome to South Dakota ... there are some very nice, good and honest people here as well as, sorry to say, a number of individuals who want us to return to the middle ages ... and for whom we sincerely apologize.

Kumbaya

so, what you are saying, is that after all her surgeries, her risking her life to have the first child, going on medication, working two jobs, filling out 25 pages of forms....it is the meeting with a pregnancy risk specialist that was the straw that broke the camels back? she just couldn't talk to someone and pretend to listen? seriously?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.