On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law
In this morning’s civil rights roundup David brought us the headline — doctors in South Dakota are now required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit last week lifted a preliminary injunction handing a victory to antiabortion forces:
The doctors’ script that officially took effect Friday has been tied up in court since 2005, when Planned Parenthood challenged a law that instructed physicians what to tell abortion patients. Under the law, doctors must say that the woman has “an existing relationship” with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that “her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.” Also, the doctor is required to say that “abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”
The message must be delivered no earlier than two hours before the procedure. The woman must say in writing that she understands.
Emily Bazelon, who did a background story on the law a few weeks ago, blames Justice Kennedy’s SCOTUS blathering and won’t be surprised if other states copy follow suit:
The 8th Circuit’s decision to uphold the South Dakota law, even though it compels doctors to say things they don’t believe, is in part the fault of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In his 2007 decision banning a method of late-term abortion, Kennedy worried a lot about women who regret having abortions. With paternalistic abandon, he wrote about their “distress” in terms of their “lack of information” about abortion. Kennedy was talking, in graphic specifics, about lack of information on the way a so-called partial-birth abortion unfolds. Whether or not he’s right, these details have nothing to do with philosophical musings about whether the fetus is a human being. But that didn’t stop the 8th Circuit from quoting him at length in the very different context of the South Dakota law.
The fraught claim that abortion harms women, which I’ve written about before, was languishing in legal Nowheresville until Kennedy unexpectedly raised it up and blessed it. Now that notion, and the small minority of women who attest to it, are a handy new tool for abortion opponents. The 8th Circuit includes six other states—Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Laws that compel doctors’ speech, as this one does, would now be legal in all those places, should state legislators adopt them. And if states in other regions want to try passing such laws, they’ll have a great precedent to cite to the other circuit courts.
Also from Slate William Saletan weighed in on fetal separation, then wound up talking birth control again. Jessica@Feministing points to the AP story, the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota statement — “We remain optimistic that, in time, the court will find that the law is unconstitutional,” says PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz — and Get Involved page, and her co-blogger Ann on the politics of “informed consent.”
6 Responses to “On South Dakota’s unbelievable new abortion law”
Here's an interesting thought. If S.D. has a law that permits medical practitioners to refuse to conduct certain procedures (say, dispense a morning after pill) can they use that same standard of law to refuse to quote this “pledge”. Every other medical procedure is left up to doctors, patent holders and professional licensing boards to work among themselves and agree upon standards that are followed. If we are going to allow a practitioner to refuse a procedure based on whatever standard s/he wants, be it religious, personal, or professional, they have that right. Whether they are kept on as a worthwhile employee is up to their boss and whether they keep a license to practice is up to the boards.
The tide is turning against abortion, especially since teens seem to have a visceral reaction against it. Roe v. Wade may stand, but it's being hedged-in by enough laws to bring some balance to the issue. About time.
This ruling represents a step forward for those who believe women should be discouraged from considering their bodies their own, and should ultimately not have the right to make important decisions regarding their own reproductive systems. The wording, “whole, separate, unique living human being” suggests that a zygote is somehow equivalent to a mature human being, which is of course, absurd. Keep in mind, before abortion was legal in the USA, illegal abortions were one of the leading causes of death among women. I have no doubt there are many anti-choice folks who are far gone enough to consider that some sort of divine justice. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the rational nature of my remarks.
What is wrong with these people. It seems the fundies are trying to take over the country and impose their own law on us.
Is this country going mad by slow degrees?
First, creationism, now this.
Creationism is taught in LA and this law (which doesn't even pretend to have a connection to science and denies a woman's ability to reason) is effective in SD. Science and reason are losing on every front.
The separation of church and state is becoming dangerously blurred.
What's next – burning witches at the stake? Priests deciding the consittutionalty of laws? The Christian version of Sharia law? While we're out bringing democracy to the wrold, what's happening to ours?
Although I'm an atheist, I make a concerted effort to respect the religious nature of others – as long as they confine their beleifs to their own lives. . With this, however, these particular religious people have crossed the line, and I can't respect those who have no respect for others.
Just a short while ago, I relented and agreed to Obama's plan for a cooperative effort between government and faith based groups. Now, I'm reconsidering.
In some areas, if you give an inch, they take a mile.
Maybe doctors can say it as fast as those disclaimers on drug ads. Wonder if they can use a recording, like a NY cabbie.
Seriously, though, this tramples the doctor's first amendment right to free speech. And should anti-abortionists succeed in getting abortion outlawed, it will be the first time (but doubtful the last) that ANY American could be compelled by the government to make a medical decision that could threaten her life, for the sake of another human, in this case only a potential human, since many factors could keep the fetus from a live birth. In no other area can the government tell you what medical procedures on your own body to accept or decline. A very dangerous trend. Could a woman on chemotherapy, cholesterol or blood pressure medication or other drug treatment be forced to stop treating her own disease to increase the chances for her fetus? (Why not, if the fetus's rights are more important than the woman's?) Could we be forced to donate a kidney (by the same argument anti-abortionists use, if you don't, it's murder)?