As of yesterday, doctors in South Dakota must advise patients seeking abortions of the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and actions that come with it. Obviously contested, we’re told by Planned Parenthood CEO Sarah Stoesz that the statue would “burden abortion rights and violate physicians’ First Amendment right to be free from compelling speech.”
The court acknowledged “medical and scientific uncertainty” about the link between abortion and suicide, but said that because the link has not been ruled out, advising about an “increased risk” is not constitutionally misleading and would be relevant to a patient’s decision.
“The bottom line is that women don’t turn to politicians for advice about mammograms, prenatal care, or cancer treatments,” said Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota in a statement. “Politicians should not be involved in a woman’s personal medical decisions about her pregnancy.”
More here.
July 25th, 2012 | 10:43 am
I recently had a child, and the law required our OBGYN before the birth (can’t remember if it was a state or federal law) that the doctor tell us about a test to detect Down’s Syndrome and certain stages, and potential “procedures” that would be available if it were in fact detected. If the law can compel this, it can certainly compel the opposite. I don’t hear Planned Parenthood arguing the exact same logic on this issue. It is, in fact, the exact same logic, and the same statement they use could be applied to the issue of Down’s detection.
Where are they on this issue?
July 26th, 2012 | 1:03 am
I’d be interested to know but I don’t think it was a law. I think it is more likely a requirement of the doctor’s malpractice carrier.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:25 am
Joe McFaul, if David’s referring to the common blood test that I think he has in mind, it is a law in many, if not all states. As long as 20 years ago I had to sign a legal waiver for refusing the test in New York, and it was a matter of law, not liability. The point at which informed consent bumps up against professional discretion seems to vary with ideology rather than comparable application.
July 26th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
Joe,
I think the test David is referring to is the AFP (alphafetalprotein?) test. As long ago as 25 years (the age of our oldest) we had to sign a waiver if we refused to take it. I believe the waiver was, at least in the case of MA (our home at the time) was probably a liability waiver, but I know for certain that at least one state (California) requires the test by law. Pentamom is likely right that there are probably other states that require it by law as well…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact