South Dakota leads the way. Before performing an abortion, doctors must inform patients that the procedure ends the life of a unique human being. Pro-”choice” advocates sued to enjoin enforcement of the law, and lost at the Eighth Circuit. Obviously, any information that would make a woman “choose” to do something other than abortion is simply unacceptable, even if it is as bland as not allowing doctors to lie to patients about what is in their wombs.

Before removing a tumor, appendix, or cyst, doctors must accurately convey to patients what they are removing. Cancer? Fibrous cyst? Normal, healthy appendix? Potentially cancerous, albeit currently benign, cells? It is strange that doctors would be allowed to not do this in the abortion context - to tell their patients that it is a “blob of cells,” or “not a baby.”

Meanwhile, SD voters will get the chance to decide on Initiative 11, which would ban most abortions in the state. Pro-aborts think that “women and families” ought to make the decision, but apparently fail to include the unborn member of the family in that decision-making. Oddly enough, they classify it as a “difficult decision,” but fail to explain exactly why it would be difficult to terminate a pregnancy when the foetus isn’t a separate, unique human being. Which will it be?

——-

Meanwhile, Democrats struggle with the pro-lifers in their midst. Big tent or reproductive justice? Moreover, the Dems think that the best way to prevent abortion is to give more social services. Apparently, Medicaid, WIC, Section 8 housing, welfare, S-CHIP, SSA Sec. 454(20), food stamps, and private aid - such as crisis pregnancy centres, Catholic Charities, and charity health clinics - are somehow insufficient to prevent 1.3 million women per year from aborting.

——-

New Zealand’s appeals court is taking up the question of the approval rate of abortions: as 99% of requests for abortions are approved, as physicians believe that they will pose a serious threat to the woman’s health.