First ‘Med Ed’ Bill in the Nation Receives Bi-Partisan Committee PassageStates Should Look to SD in Dispelling Abortion Industry Misinformation
Pierre, S.D. – A bill that would provide clarity to doctors on the state’s ‘life of the mother’ provision cleared its first hurdle today with a bipartisan 11-1 vote in the House State Affairs Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt (R), Rep. Joh Hansen (R), and Rep. Oren Lesmeister (D), HB 1224 creates a training video and materials to educate doctors and hospitals throughout the state on the ability and necessity of providing emergency care to pregnant women under South Dakota’s life at conception law.
The materials will be established through the Department of Health and with input from the attorney general, medical professionals and legal experts. The video will cover the details of the state’s abortion law, the most common medical conditions that threaten the life or health of a pregnant woman, the standards of care for treating a pregnant woman in a medical emergency, and a practitioner’s ability to use reasonable medical judgment in all situations.
Kelsey Pritchard, state public affairs director for SBA Pro-Life America, thanked Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt for bringing the legislation:
“Abortion activists have spread the dangerous lie that pregnant women in states with pro-life laws cannot receive emergency care. This patently false allegation that is used to justify the abortion industry’s agenda for no limits on abortion is putting women’s lives in danger. As a South Dakota mom, I thank Rep. Rehfeldt and the cosponsors of this bill for making the truth that pregnant women can and should receive timely care abundantly clear for doctors and people across this state. The South Dakota Med Ed Bill is a model for how states around the country should protect the health of moms.”
The South Dakota Med Ed Bill is the first legislation of its kind drafted to end the confusion caused by the abortion industry through direct education to medical professionals. Other states have taken similar steps administratively: The Louisiana Health Department put out guidance on their life of the mother provision and Oklahoma and Kentucky attorneys general issued advisory opinions.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is a network of more than one million pro-life Americans nationwide, dedicated to ending abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders.
###
“end the confusion caused by the abortion industry”
There’s that phrase again. I’d really like to know how the “industry” is causing the confusion and not the law in place.
the confusion is caused by spreading the lie that a woman bleeding out from an incomplete abortion (miscarriage) cannot have a dilatation and curettage procedure to stop the bleeding and save her life. The fact is, in cases of spontaneous abortion, the bleeding will continue until all the products of conception have been expelled. In such cases, the fetus is invariably already dead, and it is the failure of the placenta to detach from the wall of the uterus which causes the bleeding.
This makes a D & C necessary.
Another situation is ectopic pregnancy, which is not viable for the fetus and can kill the mother if it is not terminated.
Another situation is when cancer is detected during pregnancy, like triple positive breast cancer, which can kill the mother (as well as the child) before delivery. In some cases of cancer, it is possible for the mother to receive treatment but there is risk to the fetus, and decisions about whether to carry the child as long as possible, induce a premature delivery, and then begin chemotherapy have to be made. Sometimes the cancer is too aggressive or the pregnancy too early to save the child.
The abortion industry is telling the public that in such cases, strict abortion restrictions prohibit the provision of life-saving treatment for the mother. This information is not true.
Interesting, thanks. My concern is that this is more than just “create a video” – don’t the situations you just stated need to be officially decided/determined? And is this bill saying the DoH can make those determinations?
For example, here’s an OB/GYN stating that doctors don’t know what is considered “life threatening”:
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2022/07/22/south-dakota-abortion-exception-doctors-legal-gray-area-roe-wade/10041930002/
To me the law should be amended to specifically state what is life threatening, a video on a website doesn’t seem prudent. And ideally to me at least, this subject is on the ballot this fall and the whole subject becomes moot.
The issue can be decided the same way some states’ brain death laws are.
All 50 states have brain death laws, but the manner in which brain death is determined has been variable. Sometimes flat EEGs 24 hours apart, or a cerebral angiogram showing no blood flow into the brain, sometimes two physicians, one being a neurologist, or both pupils fixed and dilated after all medications have cleared, that sort of thing.
There are people who make their livings in medical ethics. I worked in different hospitals (3 were Catholic hospitals) where these issues are taken very seriously and the physicians receive guidance from the in-house ethics & legal committees. That is more misinformation coming from the abortion industry, that doctors are flying blind trying to navigate the abortion restrictions. They aren’t; the health care systems already have people for that.
Years ago, it became a law here that any doctor who did not want to honor the provisions of a living will had to sign off the case and turn the patient over to a doctor who would honor it. In the places I worked, any employee who did not want to participate in the withdrawal of life support or termination of pregnancy was excused.
The brain death thing seems to be specified here:
“ 34-25-18.1. Determination of death.
Any individual who has sustained either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death shall be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”
That last sentence seems important.
The abortion law simply states:
“ 22-17-5.1. Procurement of abortion prohibited–Exception to preserve life of pregnant female–Felony.
Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.”
Why is “appropriate and reasonable medical judgment” not defined? How is a video going to help?
Are you in favor of this bill being aborted (intended) last year?
https://listen.sdpb.org/politics/2023-02-07/effort-to-define-lone-abortion-exemption-stalls
Because the anti-abortion people were. Why is it so difficult to put a definition around this? I think it’s because of personal feelings from the likes of Deutch who went to keep this vague to purposely scare doctors into erring on the side of not terminating.
You’re our only hope, voters!!
the brain death thing has a devil in the details: that devil is the word irreversible
That’s why healthcare systems have medical ethics and legal committees
.
Then why are doctors and nurses still wanting clarification for the trigger law?
I tend to listen to the experts and not well-off white male senior citizens that make up the SD legislature, nor the similarly described lobbyists.
Never ending growth of government, best part is we get to pay for it! Please charge us more for things we already own!
Taking a cue from the dumbest states in the union is always a good thing.
This group has nothing to do with Susan B Anthony, they just took her good name reputation and slapped it on their cause