S.D. gov. signs law requiring three-day waiting period for abortion
Tens of thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators attend a rally ahead of the March for Life on the National Mall January 24, 2011 in Washington, DC.
/ Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSouth Dakota's Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill requiring a woman to receive counseling at a "pregnancy help center" prior to having an abortion. The new law also requires a woman to woman to wait three days after meeting with a doctor before an abortion.
Abortion rights and civil liberties advocates are already promising to file suit against the measure, which is the latest example of bold anti-abortion rights legislation state lawmakers are pushing across the country.
The governor said in a written statement that state attorneys have agreed to defend the law in court and that he's spoken with a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state's legal costs, the Associated Press reports.
"I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives," Daugaard said in the statement. "I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices."
South Dakota has only one abortion clinic, a Planned Parenthood facility in Sioux City that supporters of the new law say does not provide women with enough information prior to receiving an abortion.
Abortion battles spring up nationwide as states test the limits of Roe v. Wade
Opponents of the law say making a woman go back to that one clinic three days after an initial trip -- potentially forcing some women to travel across the state twice -- places undue burden on the patient. They also argue that outside counseling amounts to an invasion of privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of South Dakota and Planned Parenthood Federation of America plan to file a legal challenge to the law, the groups announced today.
The ACLU pointed out today that "crisis pregnancy centers" are unregulated facilities run by private groups, under no legal obligation to ensure that a patient's medical information is kept confidential. Abortion-rights advocates also charge these centers often provide women with false information.
"The last thing women in South Dakota need is more difficulty in obtaining health services," said Robert Doody, the director of the ACLU of South Dakota Chapter. "This shameful law not only interferes with a woman's private medical decision, but also presents a danger to those who provide abortion care to women. Women need reliable medical care and advice, not government mandates that push a political agenda."
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 637 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 120 Comments
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
there are millions of eggs in every woman. most of them are wasted. Does that mean God is wiping out millions every day? Half of all fertilized eggs are washed out anyway, does that mean God is wiping out millions every day? Until modern healthcare (omg a liberal social welfare program!), millions died in childbirth. Did that mean God was killing millions every day? There's a huge double standard here, between Christians who refuse to give women the right to kill a nonthinking, nonsentient being, but who are totally allright about humans killing dolphins and whales. Theres a huge double standard here, between people who won't give women the right to abortion, the right to healthcare, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but are totally ok about hamstringing a mom with a kid. and then people wonder why parts of the world are overcrowded?
I don't wear your blinders.
--------------------
You also face 0 chance of ever having to remain pregnant against your will. When some of you guys experience pregnancy and birth, then perhaps you have some credibility telling women what they can do with their own bodies.
there is no double standard between killing humans and killing other animals.
---------
Still waiting for ANY support of your claim.
When I asked you: What makes you think we are any better than the rest of the animals?
by Nmmrng March 23, 2011 5:42 PM EDT
For the thousandth time! I don't think we are better and I don't care!
So - you don't think we're better than our fellow animals, yet you say that only caring about NOT killing humans is what's important - your fellow animals don't count.
So - please explain why they can be killed, but we spare ourselves, and you whine if we don't? How convenient is that?
"Thou shalt only kill when there is a tasty reason behind it."
there is no double standard between killing humans and killing other animals.
--------
OK - you made the claim.
Now back it up.
.
====
It's a very simple question, Nmmrng. That is, if you actually understand your own "morals".
That would help me understand your double standard better.
It's just a question. If you can't explain, say "no", and I will know you're happy living with your double standard.
there is no double standard between killing humans and killing other animals. I am amazed that you would even think there is and you should seek counseling.
=======
They are all animals. So yes, it IS a double standard.
Perhaps you can explain how you see them as a different case which we're exempt from?