Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 22, 2011

SOUTH DAKOTA'S ODIOUS NEW ANTI-ABORTION LAW.... The party that made widespread gains in 2010 thanks to a weak economy knows it exactly how it wants to spend 2011 -- by investing an inordinate amount of energy in restricting women's reproductive rights.

One of the more outrageous displays at the state level was signed into law yesterday.

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law Tuesday requiring women to wait three days after meeting with a doctor to have an abortion, the longest waiting period in the nation.

Abortion rights groups immediately said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which also requires women to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he has conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state's legal costs.

Small-government conservatives -- the ones who want less interference from government in Americans' health care decisions -- were delighted.

The three-day waiting period is absurd on its own. The idea is that public officials will force women to think for 72 hours before exercising their reproductive rights, as if women hadn't already thought about what's best beforehand.

But that's really only part of the new South Dakota policy. During the government-imposed waiting period, the state will also require women to seek counseling at "crisis pregnancy centers," or CPCs.

In case you're unfamiliar with these outlets, CPCs "often lack licensed medical personnel, and are designed solely to 'encourage' a woman to carry to term and keep her child. The federal government has documented that CPCs often provide women false and misleading information in order to achieve their goals."

And now South Dakota women will be forced by the state to go for CPC "counseling," whether they want to or not.

Twice in recent years -- in 2006 and again in 2008 -- South Dakota voters were given the chance to vote on severe new restrictions on abortion rights. In both instances, voters in this conservative "red" state rejected the efforts.

But the crusade continues apace. I'll let you know what happens with the court challenge.

Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

'Small-government conservatives -- the ones who want less interference from government in Americans' health care decisions -- were delighted.'

uh huh...except when THEY want to interfere between a 'woman and her doctor'...they oughta take a clue from Wyoming...if you REALLY want to have less interference then stay the F@ outta my crotch...

Posted by: SYSPROG on March 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Why should this be challenged in court?

Why don't women just accept that they are inferior and that their reproductives decisions are best left to older white males?

Posted by: RepublicanPointOfView on March 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Who's going to pay for these "counseling" sessions?

The proto-fascists want small government. Now we know why...so it'll fit into a woman's uterus.

Posted by: Athena on March 22, 2011 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

"The idea is that public officials will force women to think for 72 hours before exercising their reproductive rights..."

Here's my SIMPLE solution:
The women of the state need to tell their men to keep their peckers packed in their pants for three days every time they want sex, and then, if the women get pregnant, maybe THEN they'll be willing to listen to them lecture about what happens when you have sex.

Otherwise, STFU, and stay out my my vagina, uterus and ovaries!

ASSHOLES!!!

Posted by: c u n d gulag on March 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, gulag, good thought. Maybe there should be a 3 day waiting period for EVERYTHING. Might prevent/solve a lot of problems.

Posted by: Athena on March 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Athena at 2:54 wins the thread.

Aside from the near-certain violation of the Casey "undue burden" standard, the government-forced captive audience provision likely runs counter to various First Amendment cases.

Posted by: zeitgeist on March 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm wondering how the state can legally accept private money to pay the cost of defending this law.

Posted by: David W. on March 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

If David W. is wondering how a state can legally accept private money to pay the cost of defending this law, then I am wondering how the state can require women to pay a private conservative organization for 'counseling'?

Posted by: SadOldVet on March 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

The other problem with this law is that, because of all the violence, etc., there are very few abortion centers in many areas. Many women need to travel far to get an abortion. Now they will have to pay to stay in that location (and miss work, etc.) for 3 days.

Posted by: Alex on March 22, 2011 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Alex, that is the point of the law. Making it so burdensome that women are prevented from having abortions. As they say, it's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Nothing but the Ruth on March 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

@Nothing but the Ruth

I understand that's the point -- I was just saying that Steve hadn't mentioned the added cost (in addition to everything else he mentioned). Those of us who live in NYC would say "OK, I go sit in a lecture, and come back to the clinic in 3 days." Not the same as in SD.

Posted by: Alex on March 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

And of course to prove that she has had the mandatory "counseling," a woman will presumably have to obtain some sort of form, signature, etc., functionally giving veto power over every woman's abortion to some random anti-choice zealot she's only just met.

Posted by: nothingmuch on March 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

And the waiting period to buy a gun in SD is how long? And mandatory counseling (training) before purchasing a gun is required, right?

And cund gulag: rofl

Posted by: Hannah on March 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Serious question here. Is there anything that prevents Planned Parenthood, or a sympathetic organization, from opening a crisis pregnancy clinic? Why do CPCs always have to be run by right-wing, parachurch organizations?

Posted by: danimal on March 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

And before going to the polls to engage in another kind of legal activity, voters must undergo a counseling session conducted by the local Republican committee.

Posted by: tamiasmin on March 22, 2011 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Opponents of the law should call the CPCs what they really are, "indoctrination camps" and call the law the Mandatory Indoctrination Camp Law.

Posted by: rw on March 22, 2011 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think the CPCs charge for counseling - at least they didn't in our town when I used to work for *shock* an abortion provider (who didn't, btw, try to sway women one way or another, just provided medical advice and the procedure for women who chose it - how simple!!).

I wonder how the state can direct women to a private agency, regardless of point-of-view (and CPCs are definitely anti-abortion and anti-choice). Can the state be so specific in what it mandates? Can they require use of non-governmental services?

I also wonder what the logistics are for a state to accept private funding for fighting the appeal. Is it precedented? is it legal?

Posted by: Sister A on March 22, 2011 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

The circular logic of the pro-choice movement:

1) An unborn child is not a human being, so we know abortion is ethically acceptable.
2) We know abortion is ethically acceptable, so an unborn child must not be a human being.

Progressives assume away the whole central issue: whether or not a human being is murdered when an abortion takes place. If a human being is murdered, then that human being's right to life is greater than the "reproductive rights" progressives talk about in order to inaccurately frame abortion as only being a women's rights issue.

In fact, if an unborn child is a human being, then all defenses of abortion progressives use, from Republican hypocrisy to the difficulty of enforcing pro-life laws, are red herrings.

Posted by: Realpolitik on March 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine if the dems forced adults to get councilling at government centres that push a political view using false information? The words Fema re-education camp come to mind.

Posted by: lb22 on March 22, 2011 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

The idea is that public officials will force women to think for 72 hours before exercising their reproductive rights, as if women hadn't already thought about what's best beforehand.

That's not the idea. Between 80 and 90 percent of American counties have no abortion services, so travel, sometimes for long distances, is mandatory for most women seeking abortions. Taking four or five unpaid days off work (including travel and recovery time), coming up with the money for a hotel for several nights and restaurant meals for several days, and, often, finding childcare for that length of time presents a very large challenge for low-income women.

Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2011 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Now, is that three days as in 72 hours, or closer to 48, like the time Republicans display bills online before a vote?

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on March 22, 2011 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Time to reconstitute the Jane Collective. Women will have to do what they did before Roe V. Wade and provide services outside of the law.

Posted by: elisabeth on March 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly