Why Would SB 168 As Amended STILL Create Bad Law?

• Again, the bill is not necessary, and wrongly assumes that health care facilities are not providing adequate care.  Hospitals have established rape protocols.  Compassionate, understanding and proper healthcare is already provided to women in circumstances such as these.  Proponents of the bill were unable to provide any evidence to the contrary.  Therefore, a statutory mandate is not only unnecessary, but also an intrusive state interference with the administration of individualized medical care.

• Even with the amendment, Catholic, or other religious affiliated health care facilities, are still only exempt from Section 2(3) of the bill.  They would still be forced under Section 2(1) & (2) to give information about EC, even when it would have NO effect on the woman's condition and is therefore unnecessary, whether it is contraindicated or not, and even if the employee has a moral or religious objection to EC.

• Section 2 of the amended bill mandates that the health care facility, whether religious or not, must inform ANY sexual assault victim of the "use and efficacy" of EC, even if the woman could not possibly become pregnant from the sexual assault.  (For example, post-menopausal women, woman who are infertile, woman who are already pregnant.)  This means that women may have to sit through an unnecessary EC information session whether they want to or not.

• Additionally, there is no requirement that information must be provided as to the safety, side effects, contraindications, and possible modes of operation of the drug, including inhibiting implantation of a newly conceived human being.  Without this additional information, you cannot possibly describe the consent of the woman to the drug as "informed."

• The bill is in direct contradiction to current South Dakota Codified Law 36-11-70, protecting the rights of pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing medication that will cause abortion, assisted suicide, or euthanasia, and SDCL 34-23A-11 to 34-23A-14, protecting the rights of counselors, social workers, physicians, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to advise, arrange, encourage, assist, or perform abortions. 

• The bill still forces attending physicians, pharmacists or others in non-religious facilities to administer or prescribe drugs against their conscience, or to cooperate in ensuring that the patient is administered or prescribed drugs that can abort human life, no matter if they have medical,  moral or religious objections to doing so.

• The bill still does not provide for testing or safeguards to determine if the woman is already pregnant.  There are no directions or requirements as to what tests should be administered to determine pregnancy.

• There is still  no protection for cases in which the EC drugs would be contraindicative for the patient.  Therefore, the bill still eliminates the individualized medical judgment necessary to administer good healthcare which could be detrimental, if not deadly, to the woman.  (See Contraindications, Plan B® Package Insert; Preven^TM Package Insert.)  In essence, this bill could mandate substandard medical care.

• The bill contains no definition of "pregnancy" or "pregnant woman."  So, are doctors to use Planned Parenthood's false definition that pregnancy begins at implantation?  Or are doctors to use the scientific definition, and the definition in South Dakota Codified Law, that pregnancy begins at fertilization?  (See original Talking Points/Fact Sheet on this bill.)

• The 72-hour time limit only applies to the prescription or referral mandates.  It is not referenced with regard to providing the drugs directly at the health care facility.

• As part of the Amendment, in Section 2(3)(a), the words "if medically necessary" were added after the mandate to provide EC to women who request it.  However, the term is not defined in the bill.  Is it necessary if the woman's life or health is in danger?  Is it necessary if EC would be effective at preventing pregnancy?  Also, the term was not similarly added to subdivisions (2)(b) & (c), leaving the bill inconsistent and vague.

• The bill defines "emergency care" in Section 1, but in Section 2 the undefined term "emergency treatment" is used instead.