The “Republican war on women” is a trope. It is a figurative
use of language which does not literally mean that helmeted Tea Partiers are
lobbing hand grenades into hair salons, pedicure spas, state and federal
capitals, and corporate boardrooms. And thank goodness for that.
But the Associated Press, a staunch participant in the “fact
checking” movement, has entered the fray in an attempt to sway your opinion.
In an article published widely on Sunday, 10/21/12, the AP
claims that abortion “laws [are] more restrictive – even though it’s legal,
many states set up new hurdles”. Then the article describes the
circumstances of abortion in South Dakota. The caption of a photo of Rapid
City Dr. Marvin Buehner claims that “he can perform pregnancy terminations only
when there is a risk to the mother’s life.”
Holy cow! What’s the matter with these South Dakota
Republicans? In spite of Roe vs. Wade, have they made it illegal to perform
abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened? Is it possible that
women in South Dakota cannot obtain an abortion unless their life is threatened
by the pregnancy?
It turns out the that AP has earned four Pinocchios… their
fact checking is all wet.
The South Dakota legislature has recognized a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under these conditions:
- In the 1st through 24th week, a woman has a right to an abortion following a 72 hour waiting period..
- After the 24th month, if necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
So what is the basis of Dr. Buenher's claim? Certainly,
if in his judgment a termination is advisable in the first 24 weeks, he can
perform a legal abortion. But the catch is that the state will not pay for it
with Medicaid funding. (The federal Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977, prohibits
the expenditure of Medicaid funds for abortions unless the life or health of
the woman is at risk.)
Does this mean that, because taxpayer funds from
Massachusetts and Rhode Island are not to be used for abortions in South
Dakota, abortions are not obtainable there? Ridiculous.
Here are the options.
- The woman pays for the abortion herself
- The woman’s sex partner pays for the abortion (a much fairer outcome)
- The woman applies to a foundation (such as Planned Parenthood) for help
But in no case are Tea Partiers militantly prohibiting the
abortion.
If you want to know what a real war on women looks like,
consider Islamic extremists. The current prime example is the Taliban of
Pakistan, who recently boarded a school bus and shot a fifteen year old girl in the head, repeatedly,
for the high crime of promoting education for women.
The Pakistanis are our allies. Except that their Taliban hate our
values, our women, and their rights. The Republicans look pretty darned fuzzy
in comparison.