VYFL gets a smack down from SD's OB-GYNs.

Oh, snap.

The South Dakota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has come out strongly opposed to IM 11. Some choice quotes below:

The intervention of government into medical decision-making should be opposed. We urge the citizens of South Dakota to reject Initiative 11. The government’s intrusion is ill-advised and dangerous.

Proponents claim this ban will not interfere with a physician’s medical judgment. In fact, the threat of criminal prosecution will significantly hamper doctors treating women who need life-saving abortions. Physicians will be forced to place themselves in legal jeopardy to provide appropriate care to their patients. This ban betrays a
dangerous misunderstanding of day-to-day medical practice and the physician-patient relationship. And by claiming that abortion “subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks,” it shows contempt for over two decades of scientific and medical standards, research and data.

Although proponents claim this ban will not apply in certain cases, a careful reading and an understanding of medical practice reveal the “exceptions” to be flimsy and unworkable.

South Dakota's OB-GYNs repeat a number of the objections that Sanford and the state medical association expressed in their statements on the issue. They add a particularly chilling possibility to the mix as well:

Obstructs women’s access to contraceptives. Although the ban appears to exempt the prescribing, dispensing and use of contraception from prosecution, in fact, its definition of terms including “pregnant” are contrary to accepted medical and scientific knowledge. The ban could be interpreted and enforced as making some types of hormonal contraception illegal in South Dakota, including emergency oral contraceptive pills and copper IUDs. These methods work to prevent, not terminate, a pregnancy.

In addition, because the ban permits only contraceptives “prescribed or sold in accordance with manufacturer instructions,” it would make a common and medically acceptable method of dispensing emergency contraception – where the physician combines different types of ordinary birth control pills in an emergency situation – a prosecutable offense.

If this concern surprises you in the least, you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in South Dakota over the last several years.

Read ACOG's statement in its entirety. Then consider why it might be that physicians who specialize in women's health care are so strongly opposed to this measure.