South Dakota's strict new abortion law blocked
In this April 13, 2011 photo, Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center crisis pregnancy center, shows a model of a 3-month-old fetus aboard the center's mobile pregnancy center in Sioux Falls, S.D. / AP
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - South Dakota officials must decide their next step after a federal judge said the state's newest abortion law is likely unconstitutional while preventing it from taking effect Friday.
The act would require women seeking abortions to face a three-day waiting period — the nation's longest — and undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortion.
U.S. District Chief Judge Karen Schreier on Thursday granted Planned Parenthood's preliminary injunction, making the law invalid while it's being challenged in court.
Abortion battles spring up nationwide as states test the limits of Roe v. Wade
25 states with the most abortions
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said the state must decide whether to appeal the preliminary injunction, continue to argue the merits of the case, discuss a potential settlement or do nothing.
He said he has reached out to legislative leaders and the governor's office but can't yet say what course of action the state will take.
"At this point, I need to fully read the decision and discuss it with the attorneys involved in the case, the governor and legislative leadership," Jackley said Thursday evening.
Planned Parenthood in its lawsuit said the legislation violates a woman's constitutional right to abortion established under the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
In her written ruling Thursday, Schreier said that requiring women to attend pregnancy help centers would create an undue burden.
"Forcing a woman to divulge to a stranger at a pregnancy help center the fact that she has chosen to undergo an abortion humiliates and degrades her as a human being," she wrote. "The woman will feel degraded by the compulsive nature of the Pregnancy Help Center Requirements, which suggest that she has made the `wrong' decision, has not really `thought' about her decision to undergo an abortion, or is `not intelligent enough' to make the decision with the advice of a physician."
Schreier let stand a small part of the law allowing pregnancy help centers to register with the state, but she suspended all the sections that require women to consult with those centers.
Supporters of the measure say the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls gives women little information or counseling before they have abortions done by doctors flown in from out of state. They say the bill would help make sure women are not being coerced into abortions by boyfriends or relatives.
Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy help center and supporter of the law, said that Schreier's decision was not a surprise and her organization planned to intervene on Friday.
"We're in it for the long haul," Unruh said after the ruling.
Mimi Liu, an attorney for Planned Parenthood who argued for the injunction, said Alpha Center is not a party to the case and she wasn't worried about its plan to intervene.
"This is a case between Planned Parenthood and the state," Liu said.
Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, said the law passed by the Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard was an overreach that represents a blatant intrusion by politicians into difficult decisions that women and families sometimes need to make.
Voters rejected statewide ballot measures in 2006 and 2008 that would have banned most abortions in the state, measures that sought to provoke a court challenge of Roe v. Wade.
"The current legislature and governor are clearly out of step with the people of South Dakota," Stoesz said. "I think the judge recognized that."
Daugaard said the preliminary decision was not a surprise.
"I believe everyone agrees — no matter what their stance on abortion — that it's a laudable goal to reduce abortions by encouraging consideration of other alternatives," Daugaard said in a statement. "The three-day waiting period called for in HB1217 gives women time to reflect and make good choices."
Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, filed the lawsuit on May 27.
South Dakota's law says an abortion can only be scheduled by a doctor who has personally met with a woman and determined she is voluntarily seeking an abortion. The procedure can't be done until at least 72 hours after that first consultation, establishing the longest waiting period in the nation.
Before getting an abortion, a woman also will have to consult with a pregnancy help center to get information about services available to help her give birth and keep a child. The state will publish a list of pregnancy help centers, all of which seek to persuade women to give birth.
Planned Parenthood says the law would intrude on women's right to make personal decisions about medical treatment and require women seeking abortions to receive counseling from unlicensed and unaccredited pregnancy centers that are often religiously motivated.
About half the states, including South Dakota, now have 24-hour waiting periods. No other state requires women to visit pregnancy crisis centers before getting abortions.
The South Dakota Legislature has passed several other measures restricting abortions in the past decade.
A 2005 law passed by the Legislature already requires that women be told that an abortion will end the life of a human being. That law remains tied up in a court appeal.
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 77 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 163 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- Treasury secretary's loopy signature is now less loopy
Sugar...what if we said that about a 6 month old? It would have the SAME validity as your statement.
----
No Mortarman at 6 months old your DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE rules take over and if the child has no person to provide income or medical care your in the ultimate act of selfishness you have declared the child should die. Only the unborn merit your protection according to your own posting, Mortarman.
You lies throughout your post. I have never said, nor shown in my life, that only the unborn deserve to have their life protected. I think Casey Anthony needs to be put to death for killing her daughter.
You see, you STILL dont get it! When I say that NO ONE is entitled to or can demand charity from another person is NOT the same thing as saying that charity should not be provided. I know you cannot think in the logicial world...but please try at least for a moment!
Charity is the willful act of a person using their OWN resources to help another person who did nothing to earn that help.
Charity CANNOT be forced. Then it isnt charity...it then becomes a form of slavery...a form of theft.
My wife and I help pregnant women and women with newborns thru toddlers. With our time, our resources, etc. So, you have NO IDEA what we are about.
But, I have NO RIGHT to FORCE you to help us in that endeavor. You must do so of your own volition. Otherwise, if I force you to help...that would make me immoral and evil.
So, because the child is a burden, you kill it? Really?
----
That may be your reasoning Mortarman but there are many other reasons including the health of the mother that mau be providing both nurture and income to support other children. Children you claim do not deserve access to others money should they require food or medical care after their provider dies because of your absurd notion of fairness. Does it make a difference that you are a man immune from potential DEATH due to pregnancy or child birth == I bet it does. Egotistical maniacs like you would cry like a baby pleading for an exemption if you had to die to protect your own unborn child. We could equalize the law by killing the man that impregnated any woman that dies in child birth -- that satisifies your requirements of a life for a life.
Does it make a difference that I am a man? Not at all! As I have said, I have a wife, a daughter and a mother. I fully understand, as do they, the issue and everything behind it. As you dont know my, or my family's history...you have no idea that we know this situation PERSONALLY!
Again...when do you start protecting human life? At what stage?
Remember, we have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness. We dont have a right to happiness. As ben Franklin stated, you have to get that yourself.
Killing an innocent human being is not!
ccdsswrkr08...Have you ever attempted to adopt? It's very costly and it takes forever. Both of my brothers in law, have gone through the legal procedure of adopting..you should try it!
______________________________________________________
Oh no, there will be no actual adopting process. I say should abortion ever become illegal again, all those who made it that way must sign an agreement that they will take in any child who would have been aborted and take care of the children with no help from the government.
ccdss....here is the thing. You take the extreme to try to define the norm. Most abortions are NOT for the reason you are citing here. So, we get rid of those...and then we can talk about the minority.
Now, to address your question. On the issue of mother's life versus child's...if it comes down to that (which is a rarity), then basically whatever choice is made, someone is going to die. Well, that is a simple choice to make. Not easy, but simple.
On the rape issue...here's the thing. I have a wife and daughter. If either of them were raped and a child resulted from it...I very much understand the issue. And the pain.
But here's where my wife and my daughter would tell you "while this child is from a violent act...it is my child. How can I kill it? That baby did nothing wrong."
______________________________________________________________
And that is your opinion. I respect that. The arguement is, my body should not be ruled by someone else's opinion. And while I'm sure your wife and daughter would treat the child wonderfully, 8 times out of ten that child ends up being abused and suffers severely. I work for child protective services in my state and have watched children born of that situation, I've watched them grow up and because of the emotional toll, and sometimes physical as the physical abuse can get to the point where it actually hurts the child for life, end up growing up and leeching for their entire lives on society and living an absolutely miserable life. Also these aren't just children who resulted in rape, these are also children who are the results of an unwanted pregnancy as well, since you pretty much have to go to another state to get an abortion as there are almost no clinics around my area. I believe the whole abortion issue would be solved if we were allowed to sterilize certian people heh.
88Ronin
Yes, let's continue to kill all those babies, how dare you speak about the value of human life to us. Human life is cheap so allow us stupid animals continue to inflict pain and suffering, torture and murder of these little babes!
_________________________________________________________
And when all those babies(who were not aborted when the mother wanted to but couldn't) are born, how about we drop them off on you stoop and you can take care of them. All of them.
Love the fetus!
Hate the child!
You don't need to post anything. Just stamp your cloven hoof, you know, the way you normally respond to people.