The Rapid City Journal features a story today about the sonogram bill that passed both houses in the legislature yesterday. The bills would require a sonogram be offered to women seeking an abortion before the abortion could be performed.
The subheadline on the front page of the Journal raises an interesting question about the so-called "doctor-patient relationship" in an abortion:
That "relationship" with an abortionist (it's hard to call someone in the business of taking human life a "doctor") is usually a farce, as pointed out by Senator Dennis Schmidt, sponsor of the Senate bill SB 88:
"They really don't have contact until the girl is on the table," he said.
Rep. Don Van Etten, a retired doctor, agreed and pointed out that abortionists fly in to Sioux Falls to perform scheduled abortions; they don't even live in the state, so how can they have any meaningful "doctor-patient relationship"?
I guess the Journal didn't like the sonogram bill very much, given this headline:
Wouldn't the headline be more accurate if it said, "Legislators versus abortionists?" or "Pro-abortionists versus informed decisions?"
The bills passed with a majority, yet the emphasis in the headlines seems to be on the claims of the minority opposition (i.e. those in favor of blocking every obstacle to abortion). How "objective" is that?
The article also brings out an important fact on a different issue, still related to abortion:
On the House side, Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, who voted against the House version, HB1193, offered a different medical perspective.
"With my first child, I was told that my child was going to be born without a head, that the ... spinal cord was going to be outside the vertebra in the back," she said.
Peters said she had to undergo many tests.
"I had to do numerous things, and in that situation, you're faced with a life-and-death decision. It's not a decision that's taken lightly."
Peters, who opposes abortion, voted against the sonogram bill. "It's not doing what you think it's doing," she said. "You're going to be torturing women like me who have to make a life-and-death decision, and it's not fair."
(Peters later said she had the baby, who turned out to be a normal, healthy child.)
Some abortion proponents argue that mothers should be allowed to abort children with birth defects. In this case, Peters would have been killing a perfectly healthy child (as if a child with birth defects was less deserving of life).
Pro-abortionists always roll out the "doctor-patient relationship" excuse and the "doctors know best" excuse any time abortion restrictions are discussed. Yet we don't always think "doctors know best" when it comes to euthanizing their patents (well, not EVERY time). We don't always think "doctors know best" when it comes to doctors who molest their patients. We don't always think "doctors know best" when it comes to physician incompetence or medical malpractice.
So the belief that "doctors know best" isn't as monolithic as pro-aborts would have us think.