Fetal Rights Make Women Wards of State, Criminals

Promoted from the comments (and from my wonderfully intelligent wife): a powerful video that explains why measures purporting to give rights to fetuses, like South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 and Colorado's Amendment 48, will do all sorts of harm to the rights and health of women and fetuses. Note the woman highlighted in this video are staunch opponents of abortion, but they recognize that bad laws like IM11 are not the solution to this intensely personal issue.



...and while you're protecting women by voting against IM11, vote against John McCain, too, who thinks "mother's health" is just a buzzword and whose health care "plan" would push more women onto the individual insurance market, which already treats women as second-class citizens by charging them hundreds of dollars more than men for coverage.

Protect Women's Equality -- Vote No on 11

I've said it since April: the main reason to vote no on Initiated Measure 11 is that it would make women second-class citizens. Incredibly, some readers still don't get it. They can't think past their Animal Farm bleat of "Live baby good, dead baby bad!"

If you still don't get it, you should read Rebecca Terk's powerful post on the issue:

The wider question of Initiated Measure 11 is not just about babies. The question is whether women are persons in their own right, with their own lives and motivations and needs, and with their own bodies that they are in full possession of.

The question is whether or not we should “allow” women life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–or whether we should circumscribe what should constitute their lives, the extent of their liberties, and what ought to make them happy [Rebecca Terk, "Trying to Find Words," Flying Tomato Farms, 2008.10.27].

As Terk says, we shouldn't have to ask this question. We should be able "to ignore it—not even to dignify it with a response."

Unfortunately, some people in this state think that their ticket to salvation lies in making South Dakota a territory where women's constitutional rights are perpetually subject to a public vote. And so we must respond:

No. No. No. No. No. No.

Madville Times Voters Guide: Vote No on All Three Initiated Measures

Hey! I know a lot of your have already filled out your ballots (my parents both have, so there's no more arguing with my dad, just teasing him about President Obama). But I'm ready to offer the official Madville Times Voters Guide for 2008!

First, let's tackle the initiatives. You can review the attorney general explanations and argument for and against in this PDF file from the state. I'll also link to each measure's text below.

Initiated Measure 9: Vote No. Almost every analysis of this law you read says it bans short selling, a stock market game about which I will confess my ignorance. I was surprised to see former attorney general Mark Meierhenry fronting the movement to pass IM9. He notes that IM9 doesn't mention short selling. It just helps enforce federal law in South Dakota. A former attorney general can't be wrong... can he?

Well, from what I hear, there is some disagreement among the lawyers on the interpretation of this law. However, I would suggest that if there already is federal law (and the Securities Exchange Commission) to govern this stock practice, a state law on the issue is unnecessary... and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Wall Street could use a good whacking, but South Dakota won't deliver that whacking with IM9.

Initiated Measure 10: Vote No. I hate going with the crowd, but everybody and their ugly sister is giving this measure the thumbs down. Republicans and Democrats, Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO... even the Madison City Commission and the Madison Central School Board stuck their necks out to say IM10 is bad.

And so will I. Initiated Measure 10 sounds good: It promises to hold elected officials accountable, prevent them from using public resources for private gain, limit lobbyists... heck, they even throw in a version of Tom Coburn and Barack Obama's Google for Government.

But we already have a law that restricts using public funds to influence elections. The Governor has already inaugurated a website to put government records online. All IM10 really adds is a chilling effect on public speech by any elected official or public employee. The "public resources" clause in IM10 will silence student political groups on our public university campuses. It will probably prohibit Madison High School from hosting candidate forums (fora!) like the one I participated in last April and the big one coming up tomorrow night (heavyweights Parsley vs. Olson! Fargen and Lange vs. Stricherz and Johnson tag team match! County Commission battle royale! Be there!).

IM10 starts with a noble goal and creates a legal mess. Plus, I'm taking a big slurp of Pat Powers's Kool-Aid and wondering why the folks who put IM10 on the ballot, a group committed to openness in politics, won't tell us who's funding their campaign. IM10 smells of hypocrisy of shadowy monkey business.

Initiated Measure 11: Vote No. Again. We already voted a similar abortion ban down in 2006. This retread abortion ban comes from folks who appear to derive their sense of self-worth by perpetually standing on the street corners and going before KELO's cameras to proclaim their righteousness.

Readers of this blog have already seen my extensive arguments against IM11 and similar anti-woman, anti-Constitution, anti-reality legislation. To summarize:

• Abortion bans don't stop abortions.
• IM11 enshrines bad science into law.
• IM11 makes women second-class citizens.
• IM11 is fundamentally misogynist.
• Pregnancy is nobody's business but the mother's.
  
• IM11 subjects women to greater health risks.
  

The supporters of IM11 prove with their own law that abortion is not murder: IM11 treats abortion as a lesser felony rather than imposing murder penalties on those perpetrating what IM11 would declare a crime. Here, the local fundagelicals agree with the local liberals: IM11 is a bad law.

We're all pro-life. But being pro-life is about providing health care and education, promoting peace, and a million things more than bloviating about abortion every election. Vote No on IM11.

Anti-Choice Campaign out of Money?

I read with relish (o.k., raisin bran) the reports from DakotaWomen that contend the Vote Yes on 11 forces can't pay their media bills and thus must resort to legal shenanigans to try silencing the folks fighting for women's rights. Funny, considering that some folks campaigning for Initiated Measure 11 have contended that the Lord will bless the righteous with material wealth if we just vote the right way. Maybe the Lord is just waiting until after the election to bless South Dakota with oil... or maybe righteousness includes respecting constitutional liberties and individual autonomy.

Obama: The Pro-Life Vote

Pro-life: what a mindless, empty term. As if anyone is pro-death.

But if you insist on using the term, if we can try to give it some reasonable definition like "seeking to enact policies that will reduce the number of abortions" (but gee, again, that covers pretty much everybody), you should be voting for Barack Obama.

Now don't take my word for it. I'm a secular humanist with liberal, probably socialist leanings. Instead, let's listen to someone with a little conservative cred. Douglas Kmiec is a law professor and author. He ran the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and Bush pére. He's Catholic, he's "pro-life," and he's voting for Barack Obama.

Why? Kmiec sees in Obama a president who can build bridges on divisive issues (those of us voting on the second abortion ban in a row in South Dakota know how divisive abortion is). More importantly, Kmiec sees in Obama policies that will actually do some good. Kmiec says the following of Obama's statements in the last debate on the need for education and support for adoption and for young mothers who choose to keep their babies:

This is not just debate posturing. It is consistent with Obama's successful effort to add language to the Democratic platform affirming the choice of a mother to keep her child by pledging pre- and post-natal care, funded maternity leave and income support for poor women who, studies show, are four times more likely to pursue an abortion absent some tangible assistance.

Some might ask, isn't John McCain, the self-proclaimed "pro-lifer," still a morally superior choice for Catholics? Not necessarily. McCain's commitment, as he stressed in the debate, is to try to reverse Roe vs. Wade. But Republicans have been after this for decades, and the effort has not saved a single child. Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion. A Catholic serious about preserving life could reasonably find Obama's educational and material assistance to mothers the practical, stronger alternative [Douglas Kmiec, "For Obama But Against Abortion," Los Angeles Times, 2008.10.17].

GOP rhetoric and abortion bans like South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 won't save lives. Sensible, sensitive social policy operating within the bounds of constitutional rights will.

You want to be "pro-life"? Vote No on IM11. Vote for Barack Obama.

Sanford Medical Internal Memo: More Reason to Vote No on IM11

Terry Woster at that Sioux Falls paper is busy analyzing an internal memo from Sanford Medical on the implications of Initiated Measure 11 for that hospital's operations. I'm busy reading it, too. So should you be. Click here to do so (2.2MB PDF alert).

While you wait for the download, here are the nuts and bolts, according to the legal minds at Sanford:

• Sanford Medical doesn't do elective abortions, so in large part, IM11 shouldn't interfere much with Sanford's normal operations.
• Sanford as an organization takes no position on IM11.
  
• Should Sanford staff perform an abortion for medical reasons, the doctors, nurses, and pharmacists involved could be subject to felony prosecution under IM11.
• Any other Sanford staff could potentially be guilty of aiding and abetting a felony by "knowingly making resources available for" an unlawful termination (pp. 2-3). Receptionists, call your lawyers.
• Carrying an anencephalytic fetus -- i.e., no brain development, maybe no brain, period? IM11 may force you to carry that non-viable fetus to term. It's arguably "living": it has a heartbeat and continues to develop, even though the condition is terminal. IM11 language about "living" likely disallows aborting that fetus. (pp. 5-6)
• Docs have to gamble on preeclampsia: if not treated, preeclampsia poses risk to mother of "life-threatening event" like liver rupture or renal failure. But it's unclear when that risk becomes serious enough to trigger IM11's "exceptions." So physicians face a dilemma: "(i) terminate the pregnancy too early and face possible criminal prosecution, or (ii) wait for the condition to worsen and risk losing the mother's life" (pp. 6-7). Ladies, imagine sitting in the doctor's office and being told "Let's wait and see" on that one.
• Multiple pregnancies: "As drafted, Initiated Measure 11 does not provide an exception that would allow for selective reductions, unless the pregnant mother is facing 'substantial and irreversible' health risks—which is not usually the case" (emphasis in original, p.7)
• Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling may be out. These tests are used to diagnose over 100 disorders in fetuses. These procedures pose a 1-in-200 chance of causing miscarriage. Now sure, IM11 exempts accidental or unintentional termination caused by "medical treatment." This kind of sampling, however, is not treatment for a medical condition, just an "informative tool." Again, doctors have to choose: risk going to jail and losing their license, or deny women an important diagnostic procedure about the fetuses they are carrying.
• To perform an abortion to protect a woman's life or health, doctors must prove that they have followed "accepted standards of medical care." Problem is, "accepted standards of medical care" don't exist. Neither does "serious risk," another key term in the "exception" language (p. 8). Or, more accurately, the words exist, but not ironclad objective definitions that will give doctors solid legal protection for acting under the "exceptions" IM11 supposedly affords.
• IM11's requirement that doctors report rapes, even against the patient's wishes, harms the doctor-patient relationship. It doesn't harm Sanford's operations, though, since Sanford doesn't perform abortions to end rape-induced pregnancies (p. 9).
  

This legal analysis makes clear that Initiated Measure 11 will put doctors and pregnant women in an awful situation. Doctors will have to choose between subjecting themselves to possible felony prosecution or subjecting their pregnant patients to greater medical risk.

Don't doctors have a hard enough job without us telling them how to do it? I doubt any doctor is eager to perform an abortion, for any reason. The doctors at Sanford do them only under grave circumstances, when their years of study and experience tell them the procedure is the best option.

I don't have the knowledge to determine when an abortion is the right thing for a doctor to do. Neither do you. Neither do any combination of 51% of South Dakotans. So let's not try.

Vote Against Big Government -- Vote No on IM11

DakotaWomen is (are?) doing fine work on covering the confusion, contradictions, and outright lies coming from the radical theocrats and other deluded souls who want to purge their personal demons by making women second-class citizens with Initiated Measure 11. If you want to understand why Initiated Measure 11 will hurt women and fail to stop abortion, keep an eye on DakotaWomen over the next four weeks.

And even if you are a good traditional conservative, South Dakota Healthy Families has a great political argument for why you should vote No on 11:



That's exactly the philosophy that used to get me to vote Republican... until the Republicans abandoned their intellectual birthright.

Vote No on 11: It's bad medicine and bad government.

Attorney General Long to Address South Dakota Right to Life

Attorney General Larry Long is speaking this Saturday at the South Dakota Right to Life Convention (PDF alert!) in Aberdeen. He'll be speaking in the afternoon on "Roe v. Wade: 35 Years Later." I'm sure as an objective public servant, he will elaborate for them on why Initiated Measure 11 stands a fair chance of being found unconstitutional (and no, it's not because of secular humanists controlling the courts).

Also on the program: Rep. Joel Dykstra spends part of his morning campaigning in front of a room full of people whose votes he's already secured. 26 days left, Joel—maybe ought to work on the other 60% of the electorate.

Heidelberger Agrees with Lake County Right to Life

I'll say this once, and once only: Lake County Right to Life and I agree.

Lake County Right to Life says vote No on Initiated Measure 11. And so do I.

That's not a typo. But since Lake County Right to Life does such a crappy job of designing its advertisements, I have to step in and help.

Lake County Right to Life ran the big ad you see depicted here on page 6 of Tuesday's Madison Daily Leader (click the image for a much larger view... but do so at your own download-time peril!). As you can see, the graphic design is terrible.

• They fill a third of the page with the faint little crosses, which just don't have the visual punch the right-to-lifers think they do.
  
• The biggest text in the entire ad is the organization logo at the bottom. Anyone scanning the page would see that logo first and probably think, "Oh, the right-to-lifers. They must want me to vote yes on IM11," and move on.
  
• Nowhere does their text say explicitly "Vote No on IM11," which is exactly the message they are trying to get across.

Given the counterintuitive nature of that message (what? a right-to-life organization urging people to vote no on an abortion ban?), a good ad needs to make a bold statement to cut through that cognitive dissonance. If Lake County Right to Life is serious about getting people's attention and persuading them to vote No on IM11, they need a much bolder, more direct ad... something like this:
I'd maybe boost the font size and fill a bit more of that white space, but hey, I'm working for free here.

Graphic design, gratis. There's my contribution to the Lake County Right to Life chapter. Go figure.

IM11 Supporters Wrong: Abortion Bans Don't Stop Abortion

The supporters of Initiated Measure 11 are on the airwaves, repeating the same baloney as always. Their new ad says "Measure 11 will reduce abortion from being used as birth control and will prevent 97 percent of abortions from ever occuring."

Haven't we covered this before? Why yes we have! Last October, Anna at DakotaWomen pointed out an international eight-year study that found "Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal" [Maria Cheng, "Legal Status Doesn't Deter Abortion," AP via USA Today, 2007.10.11].

Oh well: Leslee Unruh and her groupies will keep reciting the same old lies; the rest of us will keep reciting the same old truths. Darn shame when reality keeps intruding on your worldview (and your business model), isn't it, Leslee?

Pregnancy Nobody's Business But Mom's... Vote No on IM11

Pregnancy: if you're not carrying, it's none of your business:

Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates. [Governor and Mr. Palin]

Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president. [Senator Barack Obama]

I think it's a very private matter.... It's a matter that should stay in the family and they have to work through it together. My prayers go out to them. [Roberta Combs, president, Christian Coalition of America]

It's nobody's business but the Palins. [anonymous GOP Senate leadership staffer]

People in Wasilla are Alaskan tough, so not only does a thing like teen pregnancy not seem like anyone's damn business, but it's also not seen as the calamity so many people in the lower 48 might think it is. [Nathan Thornburgh, "In Wasilla, Pregnancy Was No Secret," Time, 2008.09.01]

I am very sorry that Bristol Palin’s private life is about to undergo an investigation by people who we once considered to be caring, tolerant people. It’s none of our business. She’s very young and her responsibilities have increased enormously.... Let us send her and her family our best wishes for a healthy baby and a prosperous life going forward. And drop the subject. [riverdaughter, "Bristol Palin Is Pregnant: Life Happens," The Confluence, 2008.09.01]

Bristol Palin is a private person with a public mother. We have no right invading this young woman's life. [Carol Marin, "Bristol Palin's Pregnancy None of Our Business, But Sarah Palin's Views Are," Chicago Sun-Times, 2008.09.02]

And the kicker, a blast from the past:

The Arizona senator appeared caught off guard when a reporter asked whether, if his 15-year-old daughter, Meghan, became pregnant, he would tell her that she could not have an abortion.

''No,'' Mr. McCain said. ''I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family. Obviously I would encourage her to know that that baby would be brought up in a warm loving family. The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel, and I think that's such a private matter.'' [Alison Mitchell, "The 2000 Campaign: The Issues: Once More, the Question of Abortion Dogs McCain," New York Times, 2000.01.27]

Works for me. Let's hold government to the same standard as politicians and the media and keep it out of women's reproductive choices. Remember this when you go to vote on Initiated Measure 11, South Dakota's abortion ban.

Abortion Is Not Murder: Proof in the Punishment

New SD Watch contributor William A. Anderson starts his blogging stint with a bang, laying bare the fallacy that abortion is murder* and the failure of anti-abortion activists to think through the implications of their activism. Anderson links to this video showing anti-abortion protestors stumbling and fumbling for an answer to a seemingly simple question: "What should the penalty be for a woman who has an illegal abortion?"

"I've never really thought about it," say many of the interviewees, who mostly say they've worked in the anti-abortion movement for a couple years or more. Many come out sounding more like pro-choice activists, saying that abortion is between a woman's conscience and God. Not exactly a powerful case for legal intervention by the state.

Anderson connects the dots to Initiated Measure 11:

Nobody seems to have an answer, they haven’t even thought of it. Is this because they differentiate, albeit subconsciously, between a living baby and a fetus? Clearly, they must. Otherwise, this would be an easy question to answer....

Section 1 of IM 11 tells us that abortions “terminate the life on an entire, unique, living human being…” Terminating the life of a human being is murder. So if we are to believe IM 11, we must concede that abortion [is] murder. And, given that this is a premeditated act, abortion would be first degree murder, which, in South Dakota, is punishable by death [William A. Anderson, "What Good Is an Abortion Ban If There's No Penalty for the Mother," SD Watch, 2008.08.16].

IM11 would make illegal abortions a Class 4 felony, maximum penalty 10 years in the pen, $20,000 fine. First-degree murder is a Class A felony, mandatory sentence of death or life in the pen, plus possible $50,000 fine. Second-degree murder is a Class B felony, mandatory life sentence, plus possible $50,000 fine. (See SDCL 22-6-1 for all felony classifications.)

Anderson is right: the unwillingness of anti-abortion activists to advocate full murder penalties for abortion shows that even they recognize a difference between terminating a fetus and killing a human being. The practical consequences of IM11 contradict the rhetoric its supporters are using to win its passage.

It's easy for some folks to pray loudly and publicly, to trot out simple slogans and fetus porn. But as I am trying to explain to Pastor Hickey, making good public policy is more complicated than making simple moral declarations.

Anna gets this; Rebecca gets this. Robbinsdale Radical gets this.

And deep down, as William points out in a strong blog debut, nearly everyone gets that there's a difference between a fetus and a living human being.

---------------------------------
*Update 2008.08.18 08:40 -- Curious: I find Anderson's post has disappeared. Below is the archived text of Anderson's original commentary, just so you know what I was responding to. I also include Anderson's intro/bio, which has also gone poof:

Anderson: What Good Is an Abortion Ban If There's No Penalty for the Mother?

SD Watch - Sat, 08/16/2008 - 23:57

By William A. Anderson

IM 11 is undoubtedly going to be this year’s most controversial piece of legislation, but in the midst of all the debate, nobody is asking the consequential question that will inevitably have to be addressed: If we are to outlaw abortion, what should be the punishment for a woman who procures one?

Now, common jurisprudence will tell us that by outlawing something, you make a certain action criminal. If such an act is criminal, in our system of law and order there must be repercussions and punishment. Otherwise, what we’re given is a toothless law that does nothing. IM 11 provides no measure for punishing a woman who seeks out an abortion.

In this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo) great video, we see veteran “pro-life” protesters being asked what the punishment for abortion should be. Nobody seems to have an answer, they haven’t even thought of it. Is this because they differentiate, albeit subconsciously, between a living baby and a fetus? Clearly, they must. Otherwise, this would be an easy question to answer.

Are we hesitant to punish these women because we’d rather believe what the pro-lifers would have us conceive – that women are coerced and forced into these situations, unaware of the consequences of their action? Or are we to just naively believe that if we outlaw abortion, all abortions will cease and women will no longer seek them? To think either of these assumptions true is an insult to our intelligence as rational individuals.

Section 1 of IM 11 tells us that abortions “terminate the life on an entire, unique, living human being…” Terminating the life of a human being is murder. So if we are to believe IM 11, we must concede that abortion in murder. And, given that this is a premeditated act, abortion would be first degree murder, which, in South Dakota, is punishable by death.

This is a serious question we need to address if we are to enact a law. IM11 provides no consequence for a woman who seeks an abortion. And as the man questioning the demonstrators in the video asks “What’s the point of making abortion illegal if you’re not going to punish it?”

Technorati Tags: Abotion, criminal law, Initiated Measure 11, IM 11

Welcome William A. Anderson to The Watch!

SD Watch - Sat, 08/16/2008 - 23:48

I’m happy to announce that William A. Anderson, a soon-to-be graduate from the University of South Dakota and Watertown native, will be a contributor to The Watch.

Here’s a little more about William from William himself:
Anyhow, I’m originally from Watertown, SD. I graduated from WHS in 2003 and attended USD for five years studying political science and English with a minor in women’s studies. I’m presently taking a break from my nearly completed studies as my fiance and I await the birth of our first child.

In my time at USD I wrote weekly columns for the Volante, spent time working on many campaigns, running a few progressive student organizations (Amnesty International, Sierra Club, College Democrats).

(This fall) I’d like to finish up my degree and attend law school.
Great. Just what we need, another lawyer! ;)

Please welcome William to The Fray! His first posting is on Initiated Measure 11.

(Oh, and Angie, you’re still welcome here too!)

IM11 Supporters Cite Sloppy "Scientist" as Defense Against APA Report

Anna at DakotaWomen points me toward more rapid-response baloney from the supporters of IM11. Pastor Hickey reprints a LifeNews.com article in which pot calls kettle black — I mean, in which Priscilla K. Coleman says the APA report on abortion and mental health is poltically biased.

Politically biased. This from Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.... but don't let those letters after her name get you too excited. Priscilla K. Coleman is an assistant professor in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at Bowling Green State University. As Anna notes, Coleman is one of several researchers identified in a summer 2006 PublicEye.org article as sources of blatantly biased illegitimate research created solely to give the right-wing anti-abortion movement rhetorical ammunition. Coleman has collaborated with the infamous David Reardon, who has admitted to pumping out bad science just to plant the seeds of doubt.

Most damningly, Coleman herself is cited several times in the APA's TFMHA report [PDF alert!] for methodological errors. See pp. 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48... good grief! How many times do we have to cite a researcher for bad methodology before we acknowledge that she's a bad researcher? If that's the best the abortion backers can find, their cause is doomed... and deserves to be.

The moral of this story: IM11's supporters can't find good science to back up their arguments... so they just make up the science they want.

But I guess we shouldn't expect much from people who think God will give us oil if we just ban abortion.

Childbirth and Mental Health -- More to Ponder

—We love women! That's why we're fighting to ban abortion.
—You say that now, but will you still love me in nine months?

The National Institute of Mental health says postpartum depression affects 15% of women after giving birth. Now add to that the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD):

The incidence of childbirth-related PTSD hasn't been widely studied. But a new survey suggests the disorder could be more widespread than previously believed. Of more than 900 U.S. mothers surveyed, 9% screened positive for meeting all of the formal criteria for PTSD set out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV, a handbook of mental-health conditions. And 18% of respondents had some signs of the disorder. The survey, which included an established PTSD screening tool, was conducted by Harris Interactive for Childbirth Connection, a nonprofit maternity-care organization in New York. Separate earlier studies outside the U.S. had estimated the prevalence of childbirth-related PTSD at between 1.5% and 5.9% [Rachel Zimmerman, "Birth Trauma: Stress Disorder Afflicts Moms," Wall Street Journal, 2008.08.05, p. D1].

The source of this information, the New Mothers Speak Out survey, finds that "African-American women, those without private health insurance and women with unplanned pregnancies were more likely to have PTSD symptoms."

So I understand that supporters of Initiated Measure 11 are worried about women's mental health. Are they willing then to stick around to help women who choose not to have abortions and then experience the mental health problems that can arise from giving birth? Will they devote any extra resources to helping those groups identified as being at higher risk of PTSD symptoms? Are they willing to support government action like the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mothers Act, which WSJ reports would authorize a study on the benefits of mental health screening for mothers-to-be? Or will we see a convergence of Leslee Unruh's "Big Pharma" spin lines with Amy Philo's campaign trying to portray this legislation to help mothers as part of a plot by the "Big Pharma Gestapo"? (Amy Philo's blog posts get some play on various pro-life feed aggregators; I can't help thinking the parallel language is no coincidence.)

Just seems like more evidence that the abortion banners will co-opt language about women's mental health when it serves their purposes, but they drop that language fast when it comes time to help real women with real babies and real problems.

Update 13:00 CDT: The New Mothers Speak Out survey "Quick Facts" sheet (PDF alert... and registration required) lists other details on how women could use some more support after givign birth:

• 63% of new mothers experience "some degree of depressive symptoms."
• Over a quarter of new moms experience at least one of 15 specific health problems after giving birth.
• Almost half of working women felt they couldn't stay home after giving birth as long as they wanted. Main reason for heading back to work sooner than their maternal instincts told them they should: financial pressures.
• "Mothers who were employed or on maternity leave indicated on average that 7 months of paid maternity leave would be ideal, in line with guaranteed benefits in many other affluent nations, yet just 1% who had been employed outside the home during pregnancy actually had 4 or more months of fully paid leave."

Hmmm... so maybe being pro-life is about supporting women who give birth with economic policies that let them give their babies the mothering they think is best?

Initiated Measure 11 Based on Bad Science

Bob Schwartz types faster than I this morning! Good work, Bob!

Initiated Measure 11, the retread abortion ban, seeks to write the following two assertions into South Dakota law:

(3) That submitting to an abortion subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks, and that in the majority of cases there is neither the typical physician-patient relationship nor sufficient counseling between a pregnant woman contemplating submitting to an abortion and the physician who performs the abortion;...

(5) The state has a right and duty to protect the life of the unborn child, and to protect the life, health, and well-being of any pregnant woman within its jurisdiction, and it is therefore necessary to reasonably balance these interests to allow abortions only in certain circumstances which are set forth within this Act;

A new American Psychological Association review of research on the mental health effects of abortion knocks (highlighted this a.m. by Politics & Hypocrisy) another leg out from under these bogus assertions.

Short form: there is no evidence that aborting an unplanned pregnancy poses any greater mental health risk than carrying that pregnancy to term.

Read the full (PDF) draft report here.

Long form: The APA's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reviewed all published, peer-reviewed empirical studies since 1989 on mental health and abortion. 50 of the studies compared the mental health of women who had abortions with the mental health of other groups of women. 23 of the studies looked at mental health predictors among women who elected to have abortions. The TFMHA focused on studies since 1989 based on Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's conclusion in 1989 that, based on scientific evidence available at that time, "the psychological risks following abortion were 'minuscule' from a public health perspective" (p. 7).

The task force found "the majority of studies suffered from methodological problems, often severe in nature" (p. 5). The main findings:

The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy. The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more equivocal. Positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies and mental health problems (pp. 5–6).

One abortion ("an abortion," as stated in IM11) does not subject a woman to any greater risk of psychological harm than going through a complete pregnancy and delivery. Multiple abortions may pose some risk of psychological harm, but the science is clear enough to determine whether that risk comes from the abortions themselves or other risk factors that that are associated with unplanned pregnancies and mental health problems in the first place.

Even when a woman terminates a wanted pregnancy late in the term due to fetal abnormality, the risk of psychological harm is less than if the woman delivers a child with life-threatening abnormalities (p. 6). Remember, IM11 makes no exception for such fetal abnormalities. The backers of IM11 would thus rather subject a woman to greater risk of psychological harm by forcing her to carry to term a non-viable fetus.

In reviewing the literature, the TFMHA finds that IM11 and its supporter may be doing actual psychological harm to women right now, whether or not the initiative wins a majority at the polls in November:

Hence, the sociocultural context can shape a woman’s appraisal of abortion not only at the time that she undergoes the procedure, but also long after the abortion. Social messages that encourage women to think about (reappraise) a prior abortion in more negative ways (as a sin, as killing a child) may increase women’s feelings of guilt, internalized stigma, and emotional distress about an abortion they had long ago. In contrast, social messages and support groups that encourage women to cognitively reappraise an abortion in a more positive or benign way may lead to improved emotional responses (Trybulski, 2006) [TFMHA, pp. 19–20].

In other words, squawking every election cycle that abortion is a sin worthy of state intervention only makes women feel worse. Leslee Unruh can stick with the "Live baby good dead baby bad" line, but she is disingenuous to claim that women's mental health is her first priority when her own tactics harm that mental health.

The TFMHA's report discusses another way that the fallacious reasoning behind IM11 may lead to more harm than good for women if IM11 passes. They address the "interventionist fallacy," the idea that an association between X and Y logically dictates that an intervention to reduce X will automatically reduce Y:

As applied to the case of abortion, one example of the interventionist fallacy would be the belief that if abortion and depression are related, then reducing access to abortion would reduce the prevalence of depression. A change in the availability of elective abortion, however, would have many consequences. It would mean that women who want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would now be forced to deliver. As a consequence, the characteristics of the population of women who delivered children would change. Characteristics previously prevalent among women who had an abortion (e.g., greater poverty, exposure to violence) would now be prevalent among the delivery group. The portrait of the mental health of mothers might reasonably be expected to be worse. This potential change in the profile of women giving birth does not include any new mental health problems that might develop from stresses associated with raising a child a woman feels unable to care for, or may not want, or from relinquishing a child for adoption. Thus, reducing access to abortion would be likely to result in poorer mental health among women who deliver. Hence, rather than reducing the prevalence of depression among women, this intervention could potentially increase it [TFMHA, p. 32].

The draft report is a really good review of all the factors that we must consider when looking at the science on abortion and mental health. Read the full study, and don't be fooled: IM11's backers can't claim science or women's mental health as the basis for their position.

Women, Reason, Responsibility: Initiated Measure 11 Lays Philosophical Minefield

From Initiated Measure 11 (IM11) "finding" #3:

(3) That submitting to an abortion subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks, and that in the majority of cases there is neither the typical physician-patient relationship nor sufficient counseling between a pregnant woman contemplating submitting to an abortion and the physician who performs the abortion;

This "finding," which we might enshrine into law come November, appears to declare that a majority of women who go in for abortions are incapable of making reliable, rational decisions. At the very least, the latent claim is that the majority of women getting abortions can't have given fully informed consent. This sounds like the typical fallacy of thinking that the people who disagree with you must be crazy, since any right-thinking person could obviously see the truth of your argument.

But let's set that fallacy aside, roll around in the pro-IM11 worldview for a moment and see what happens. Let's suppose the majority of women going for abortions are subject to misinformation, deception, coercion, whatever it is that trumps their vulnerable mental faculties and negates the physician-patient relationship and informed consent. Shouldn't we conclude that this same mentally vulnerable majority of women experienced similar misinformation, deception, and coercion in the sexual experience that led them to the abortion clinic in the first place?

In plainer English, if a majority of women can't give informed consent to an abortion, wouldn't that majority of women be incapable of giving informed consent to sex?

In the plainest English, if we vote for IM11, if write into the law the idea that women don't have brains, aren't we saying all sex is rape?