Another Chip at Women’s Rights: SD House Increases Penalty for Doctors Performing Abortions

Revenues are dwindling, the budget is in peril, but Happy Valentine’s Day, ladies! The South Dakota Legislature spent this afternoon chipping away at your bodily autonomy. House Bill 1101 boosts the penalty for violations of last year’s ill-advised, unscientific fetal-pain/abortion law from Class 1 misdemeanor to Class 6 felony.

In the floor debate leading up to the House’s passage of this culture-war distraction, Rep. Steven Haugaard (R-11/Sioux Falls), who loves dropping culture-war bombs, said, “The fact is, half of the abortions include the death of a girl, so it’s certainly not an attack against women.”

NARAL Pro-Choice SD can’t let Rep. Haugaard’s crass distraction pass:

“Abortions are one of the safest medical procedures performed in America,” said Samantha Spawn, interim executive director for NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota. “Representative Haugaard’s statement is not only erroneous, but irrelevant to the bill that was under deliberation. Elective abortions are not performed in South Dakota after thirteen weeks gestation; this bill does not address elective abortions, but rather further penalizes doctors for executing their best medical judgement with patients who are already suffering the loss of their wanted pregnancies. Perhaps Representative Haugaard should better research existing abortion restrictions in South Dakota before misinforming his colleagues on the House floor” [NARAL Pro-Choice SD, press release, 2017.02.14].

HB 1101 is just one more step toward the Republican Party’s goal  of completely overturning women’s rights to make their own decisions about their wombs.


19 Responses to Another Chip at Women’s Rights: SD House Increases Penalty for Doctors Performing Abortions

  1. Jerry Sweeney

    No one, save me, gets to tell my daughter what to do with her body, and she’s not required to obey her father. (Please to assume the addition of information regarding the SD Republican Party, where they can go, and the recommended method of conveyance.)

  2. Porter Lansing

    No matter how many mortal sins you Republicans have committed you cannot petition the Lord by stealing women’s rights.

  3. Is it Hoogaard or Howgaard? Somebody ought to propose a bill specifying how it’s pronounced. Any suggestions?

  4. Darin Larson

    Ror, I think it is pronounced Howguard as in “how can he possibly think the way that he does about many issues?”

  5. How many children have to die to make you all happy?

  6. Darin Larson

    How many women must be enslaved to make you happy, OldSarg?

  7. This is why we need a bill to mandate how Hoogaard/Howgaard pronounces his name. “None of your business” Hoogaard/Haugaard might say. “I’ll pronounce it how I want, and Daugaard can pronounce his similar name how he wants. To each their own. No law needed.” Exactly. Exactly.

  8. This is why we need a bill to mandate how Hoogaard/Howgaard pronounces his name. “None of your business” Hoogaard/Howgaard might say. “I’ll pronounce it how I want, and Daugaard can pronounce his similar name how he wants. To each their own. No law needed.” Exactly. Exactly.

  9. This Mr. Hoogaard fellow is one of the actual boogaardy men.

  10. mike from iowa

    It could still get worse. Chokelahoma has a new bill telling pregnant women their body being used as a host for a fetus, is not their body. Apparently the Chokelahoma GOP takes over possession until childbirth when both bodies are thrown under the bus.

  11. So Sarg, my wife and I were not married when we got pregnant with our first child. She was a college student and could not afford health insurance. However I had purchased a family policy as a single man as a bit of an insurance policy….on my insurance policy. :) My family policy would not cover my unborn child. If they are not required to consider an unborn child a person, then why should I?

  12. private richard

    Perhaps this clown Haugaard just as well propose criminalizing any human male’s ejaculation anywhere other than extremely close proximity to a human female’s moist cervix. Every spoim is precious, potentially (given eighteen years and a faith-based education) another gun-toting republican moron in this state, and his divinely ordained right to ovum access must be legally protected.

  13. mike from iowa

    Chip- maybe they considered the fetus a pre-existing condition and wouldn’t cover because. Sure would not surprise me.

  14. I think what this chipping away of women’s rights is all about is the money. Abortions are way way down because of sex education for one and the other being birth control. There is no money for these crooks and liars without a conflict, so they invent one as a war on women. This is how they get the money to stay in power. Abortion and guns, each predictable cycle. Women suffer the expense and journey to come to Sioux Falls for the procedure performed by out of state doctors. What does not surprise me is the lack of support women have for each other regarding abortions along with women’s health in general. It is easy for me to see the distrust and outright animosity men have towards women, but it continues to baffle me on why women treat women with the same discourtesy and disdain. If they would stick together, they could be quite a force to reckon with as we have seen in the protests. They must do that to end the abuse they suffer from at the hands of each other and the men who think the only way to deal with women is to enslave them. Fund Planned Parenthood with birth control along with sex education would go a long way to prevent abortion even further. Stop persecuting women and start educating them.

  15. bearcreekbat

    Cory, as Saint Raygun would say, “there you go again” with the assertion that this bill forwards the

    Republican Party’s goal [of] completely overturning women’s rights to make their own decisions about their wombs.

    The Republicans have no desire nor goal of limiting a woman’s choice or the right to make her own decision, as they are smart enough to know that this would be impossible. And there appears to be nothing in the bill aimed at providing a criminal punishment for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy.

    No, this is actually a bill with the goal of criminalizing anyone who tries to assist the woman in safely making her choice. The goal is to punish health care providers for trying to help women in need.

    If we don’t call it what it is, we fall into the trap of incorrectly describing the proposed public policy, which is a proposal only to deny women health care by punishing those who can safely provide that care. Under this policy, coat hangers and other dangerous back alley methods are just fine, but safe medical care is criminalized.

  16. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Abortion. Guns. Kill ethics. Apparently, all SD legislators get implanted with a chip during their first session that then directs their minds into a single groove that repeats these three issues over and over, blinding them to any other issues, topics or problems. It’s how they can’t see any of the real problems that desperately need to be addressed and believe that focusing on those three issues will solve all of our problems.

    Frankly, at this point, it’s the only thing that makes any sense anymore because I really can’t believe that the majority of an entire legislative body could be so ignorantly myopic and obsessive and blind.

    Of course, if a pregnant woman who chooses not to have an abortion wants to, or must (usually the case, for economic reasons) continue working, forget about any support for even basic work accommodations from this abortion-obsessed assembly. I think it really is all about controlling women.

  17. Porter Lansing

    Laurisa … It’s all about controlling women. A little research into the personal lives of the most zealous reveals just that. Those three topics are used continuously because there’s not a new or helpful idea among the whole group. Abortion Guns Kill Ethics

  18. Maybe y’all ought to jump on Stace Nelson et al. for helping kill SB 150 which would’ve helped women choose not to have an abortion.

    Sens: Kolbeck, Netherton, Novstrup, Nelson, and Jensen (Phil) all voted to punt it to the 41st day.

    I’m pro-life, but I also recognize if we don’t give people viable means to bring that life into the world, people will be more prone to choose abortion. If a pregnant woman has to choose between losing her job to bring that child into this world (or go right back to work the next day) and having an abortion to keep a roof over her head, how many are going to choose the former?

    Way to be pro-business over family values, senators.