A South Dakota bill that would have required that information about the availability of EC be given to rape victims failed last week. Which is just as well I supposed as anti-choice advocates managed to tack an amendment on that would have allowed any provider or facility to opt-out.
As originally written, SB187 wouldn’t force hospitals to dispense emergency contraception, which is a higher dose of birth control medicine that – if given within about 72 hours after unprotected sex – can prevent pregnancy. But if a woman were raped and sought treatment after the attack, the bill said, hospitals at least would have to tell her that emergency contraception is available.
The bill was killed on an 11-2 committee vote before the smokeout.
Supporters of the bill tried unsuccessfully in the House Health and Human Services Committee to remove a “conscience clause” from the measure. That would let any health care provider or facility opt out of giving the information.
So even it had made it out of committee it would’ve been completely useless. “You have to provide this information – but only if you want”? Unbelievable, really.
If any of the anti-choicers were really about lowering the number of abortions, they’d be insisting that women have easy access to birth control information – at the very least. They would not be rendering such bills useless as they’ve done with the South Dakota bill.
Which just goes to show that the whole dust-up is not about lowering the number of abortions, but forcing women into our “natural roles” as mothers.