Rounds says that he ‘misspoke’

By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer | Thursday, October 26, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

Gov. Mike Rounds says he misspoke during a televised debate last week when he referred to an exception in a state abortion ban that he said would allow a woman to “abort a child using pharmaceuticals.”

Rounds made the comment during a debate Oct. 19 that was televised live on South Dakota Public Broadcasting. In response to a question dealing with abortion, Rounds said there is a “broader exception” in addition to the one — to save the life of the woman — that is clearly stated in Referred Law 6.

“There is also a broader exception, but for a very short period of time following the conception of a child, in which using pharmaceuticals a person may choose to abort a child using those pharmaceuticals,” Rounds said during the debate. “It’s a very short period of time.”

That statement was important because the question of exceptions is a high-profile point of debate in the campaign about Referred Law 6. And Rounds seemed to be making a strong statement — stronger than any he had made previously — in support of the argument that the law provides an exception beyond the “life-of-the-woman” provision.

But the clarity began to erode the next day when a Rounds campaign staffer contacted the Journal to say that the governor wondered if he had said “conception” when he meant “intercourse” at some point. And after the Journal reviewed the tape a few days later for a related story and contacted Rounds with his exact quote, the governor further clarified his debate statement.

Rounds was referring in the statement to a section of Referred Law 6 that does not prohibit the use of emergency contraception after unprotected intercourse before the time a pregnancy can be detected. Some proponents of the ban say that contraception can cause a chemical abortion, a point in dispute even within the medical community.

In his debate statement, Rounds appeared to be supporting the idea that emergency contraception amounts to a chemical abortion and that, therefore, not prohibiting it is another clear exception to the abortion ban.

But Tuesday, he said that was not his intent.

“It is not actually the authorization of an abortion,” he said of the provision in Referred Law 6 allowing emergency contraception. “Emergency contraception is not an abortion, but it can be applied after intercourse to stop a pregnancy from occurring.”

Some supporters of the ban, however, argue that emergency contraception can create a pharmaceutical abortion through some of its effects. Opponents say there’s little scientific evidence to confirm that.

The heavy two-pill dose of synthetic hormone in emergency contraception primarily acts to stop ovulation, or the release of an egg from the woman’s ovary. It may also prevent a released egg from being fertilized.

But Barr Pharmaceuticals, an international pharmaceutical company that makes the Plan B emergency contraceptive, says in its own explanation of how Plan B works that it is also possible that if fertilization does occur, the pills might prevent the fertilized egg from “attaching to the womb.”

That potential third effect of preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus has been disputed in some studies and indicated in others. But the possibility leads some people to consider Plan B to be a form of abortion.

That issue was a point of debate in the 2006 legislative session among lawmakers who supported the ban. But because there is no way to medically determine pregnancy until the fertilized eggs implants in the uterus, the actual effect of Plan B in individuals before implantation is a mystery.

So the law was written to allow emergency contraception, regardless of how it works, up until the time a pregnancy can be determined — possibly as much as 14 days after unprotected intercourse.

That hazy gray area in biology and law adds another layer of confusion to an already puzzling and conflicting debate about Referred Law 6. Rounds said he didn’t intend to add to the confusion with his statement and clarification.

“You cannot determine pregnancy up until that point (implantation),” he said. “During that time, you can use the pharmaceuticals. I think that’s the part where people get confused about it. I should have been more careful with my words.”

Rounds’ Democratic opponent in the governor’s race, retired Sioux Falls surgeon Jack Billion, said the governor should have been more careful about the bill he chose to sign. After the 2006 state Legislature overwhelmingly approved HB1215, Rounds signed it, and opponents quickly referred the law to the general-election ballot, where it appears as Referred Law 6.

Billion, who opposes the law, said Rounds appears to be as confused as anyone about the reproductive process, emergency contraception and the fine points of the law. Considering that Rounds is the governor who signed the nation’s most far-reaching abortion ban into law, his apparent confusion is particularly troubling, Billion said.

“Obviously, he has a layman’s conception of conception,” Billion said. “First of all, I don’t think he’s that familiar with the bill. But certainly, he’s not familiar with the technical aspects of pregnancy and implantation and conception.”

The confusion also shows the folly of government trying to make legal decisions about the deeply personal complexities of a woman’s reproductive system that should be left to the woman and her doctor, Billion said.

“I think it shows that science and philosophy sometimes don’t mesh in the modern world,” he said. “And I think that’s why there are some difficult issues that perhaps the state should stay out of.”

Rounds said he’s not confused about the bill or its impacts but simply used the wrong words as he tried to sort through complex issues in a limited time format in front of TV cameras.

“I just flat misspoke,” he said.

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com