anotheranon: (anger)
anotheranon ([personal profile] anotheranon) wrote2006-02-23 06:43 pm

paging Margaret Atwood...

Handmaid's Tale isn't here yet, but it's in the post (link courtesy [livejournal.com profile] betnoir) >:(

No provision for the health of the mother. If you're dying that second, your doc might be able to do something, but otherwise all bets are off. To wit: (via Feministe):
if giving birth is going to cause massive kidney damage which will likely kill her after childbirth, no exception. If giving birth is going to force doctors to perform a hysterectomy, no exception. If the fetus has such a severe birth defect that it will die before, during or immediately after birth, no exception — the woman will be forced by the state to bring a doomed pregnancy to term, and to go through the dangers of childbirth for a fetus that will never live when she could have had a safer procedure.


For the benefit of socially liberal sorts in SD (and I know there are at least two), pass around: Princeton's emergency birth control site, including how to use regular prescription BC as morning after pills, if need be.

[identity profile] kat1392.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 01:27 am (UTC)(link)
Since the house has already passed the bill once, it looks like the bill will pass. And the governor will more than likely sign. I knew the state was in trouble when they elected John Thune to the national senate on the basis of being against gay marriage. :(:(

[identity profile] anotheranon.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 01:09 pm (UTC)(link)
What galls me is that the main sponsor of this bill is a Democrat. Since the 1990s I've thought of the Democrats as being the other side of the coin to conservative Republican's disdain for women's rights, now I do wonder :(

[identity profile] kat1392.livejournal.com 2006-02-25 04:00 am (UTC)(link)
In SD, Democrats are Republicans with a different name.

[identity profile] jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 04:37 am (UTC)(link)
Scary SCARY stuff! I recall coming across the announcement of this legislation last year ... guess there'll be a lot of South Dakota women paying out-of-state visits. :-(

[identity profile] anotheranon.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 01:10 pm (UTC)(link)
If they can :( SD is a big state - poor women who can't get away for more than a couple of daysa are still going to be SOL :(

[identity profile] kat1392.livejournal.com 2006-02-25 04:02 am (UTC)(link)
Unfortunately, anotheranon is right. What will more than likely happen is back alley abortions or do-it-yourselfs.

[identity profile] emerald14.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 07:52 am (UTC)(link)
*Fume* I am SO glad that the UK is far more liberal about stuff like this. I don't necessarily agree with women having abortions as a form of birth control (unless in circumstances such as rape - there are many easy to use forms of contraception out there, people), but I'd still defend their right to do so.

[identity profile] anotheranon.livejournal.com 2006-02-24 01:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not sure that any sane woman, anywhere, would use abortion as her *sole* form of birth control - it is that, but I would argue, it's birth control of last resort!

I fully agree with you that more/better/more educated use of birth control IS out there and highly, highly more preferable, but try Googling for "abstinence education" - I don't know about sex ed in the UK but in many parts of the US it's woefully inadequate. We're raising entire generations of people who would love to have birth control but aren't being taught about it - or worse, are being taught that it doesn't work :(