iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

South Dakota Abortion Bill Signed Into Law By Governor Dennis Daugaard

South Dakota Abortion Bill

CHET BROKAW   03/22/11 09:25 PM ET   AP

PIERRE, S.D. — Women who want an abortion in South Dakota will face the longest waiting period in the nation – three days – and have to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Within minutes of Daugaard's announcement that he had signed the measure, abortion rights groups said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which one said could create particular hardships for women who live in rural areas hundreds of miles from the state's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he had conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged to raise private money to finance the state's court fight. Officials have said estimated the cost of defending the law at $1.7 million to $4.5 million.

"I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives," the Republican governor said the statement. "I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices."

About half the states, including South Dakota, now have 24-hour waiting periods, but the state's new law is the first of its kind in having a three-day waiting period and requiring women to seek counseling at pregnancy help centers, said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

The law will certainly make it harder for some women to get abortions, said Kathi Di Nicola, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, which runs the clinic in Sioux Falls. Women could have to drive there several times to schedule an abortion, visit a crisis pregnancy center and then get an abortion, she said.

"It would most certainly be a barrier to women who have to travel. South Dakota is a rural state," Di Nicola said. "Many women who are seeking abortion care already have to take time off work, arrange for child care."

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota said they will ask a judge to strike down the measure as unconstitutional.

Supporters of the measure say the Planned Parenthood clinic gives women little information or counseling before they have abortions done by doctors flown in from out of state and the bill will help make sure women are not being coerced into abortions by boyfriends or relatives.

"Women need to just be reminded of the fact there is a natural, legal relationship between them and their child," said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, main sponsor of the law.

The law, which takes effect July 1, 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.

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.

Leslie Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center, a pregnancy help center in Sioux Falls, said many women have said they would never have had abortions if they had first received counseling at such a center.

"If we truly want to have less abortions, let's give these women the 72 hours they need to make this decision on their own without being coerced," Unruh said.

Jan Nicolay, co-chair of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which has opposed restrictions on abortion, said the measure would invade women's privacy by forcing them to go to crisis pregnancy centers that are sham clinics set up to dissuade women from getting abortions. The law could violate federal requirements that protect the privacy of medical records, and it assumes that women cannot make decisions about abortions after talking with their families and pastors, she said.

"Now, despite the fact that South Dakotans have repeatedly spoken on issues of government interference in private decisions, we will once more be pulled into a protracted legal battle that will potentially cost the state millions in tax dollars," Nicolay said in a written statement.

Hunt said the state would only have to pay legal costs if it lost the lawsuit, and the money would be well spent to try to prevent the 800 or so abortions done each year in South Dakota. But, he said, donations are already coming into to defend the law. Some people have pledged large sums, while others are giving $25 or $50, he said.

"They want to put their money where their mouth is in the sense of protecting unborn children," Hunt said.

The South Dakota Legislature has passed several other measures restricting abortions in the past decade.

Voters rejected statewide ballot measures in 2006 and 2008 that would have banned most abortions in the state. Those measures sought to provoke a court challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.

A 2005 law requiring that women be told that an abortion will end the life of a human being has yet to be fully implemented because it remains tied up in a court fight.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
PIERRE, S.D. — Women who want an abortion in South Dakota will face the longest waiting period in the nation – three days – and have to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers t...
PIERRE, S.D. — Women who want an abortion in South Dakota will face the longest waiting period in the nation – three days – and have to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers t...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,035
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (89 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:05 PM on 05/10/2011
This really mnakes my blood boil! Do these politicians have nothing better to do than to ruin the lives of the poor women who seek abortions because they cannot afford more chldren, especially now that the social services are being radically cut by republicans? It is a legal right to have an abortion and these idiots are thinking they are above the law and can prevent needy people from having a legal proceedure. they should be put in jail for that!
If you want to cut gov.expenses you should welcome less unwanted children in society. This only hurts the needy women,and cost tax payers more for the life of those chldren that will now be forced to be born! as any rich women can still exercise her rights to abortion, like the wives of these "pretending to be high and mighty" politicians! Find out how many of politicians wives have secretly had abortions. This is all just for the vote of the fanatic religious self righteous!
What loosers. Hope planned parenthood will defeat them completely!
06:13 PM on 04/14/2011
"Unlikelyconservative" said to "quit your whining" and that she has had "many friends who lived with regret for years regarding abortions." Is there anyone who truly doesn't regret an abortion? Abortion is difficult. Medical abortions, the method taken prior to nine weeks of pregnancy, can lead to incomplete or failed abortions. From which, a woman can be infected with a serious bacterial infection called Clostiridium sordelli. Failed abortions require surgical means to respond. When someone chooses an abortion it is always a difficult decision not only for her morality but for her health as well. If a woman is absolutely sure that she can not support a child why should we force her to wait three days and greater the risk of incomplete or failed abortions?

Another more obvious issue with this law is its lack of explicitness. How in the world will we even determine if a woman is "three days pregnant" or "just conceived?" A woman typically shows symptoms after the first week. Does she have to wait till these symptoms show in order to prove to the doctor that she waited for the appropriate time? There are no tests in order to determine the progression of a pregnancy to the day if a woman is lying.

On the other hand, you can claim that these medical issues show that a woman needs to consider her actions. But at what risk? If a woman does decide to have the abortion, the risk has been increased.
10:04 PM on 04/11/2011
Because the best way to make an informed decision is to have a priest (oops, "counselors") shout at you for 3 days about how abortion is murder, it's God's will to have that baby, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:11 PM on 05/10/2011
I agree with you Jack! like we dont have enough people on this earth already!!!! Why dont they just get over this , let the woman have her abortion and give her free birth control so she doesnt have to have a second or third abortion. Nobody wants to go through an aboetion,but so far its the cheapest solution to a very expensive problem...raising a kid for many years when you have to work and have no money, and the GOP wants to to cut all your social services that would support a woman to have a baby! ! I am our first fan!
Ipanemagirl.
02:34 AM on 04/08/2011
South Dakota is not alone in its attempt to curtail a woman's right to choose: Idaho's latest bill prohibits abortion when incest or rape are involved. According to the Republican lawmakers there, the pregnancy is part of a divine plan from God and the victim should derive happiness with the resultant child. Ironic that these same lawmakers were probably those voicing concern about "Sharia law finding its way into our system"...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lupis Noctum
Reality is not democratic.
05:04 PM on 04/02/2011
While I'm no legal or medical expert, it seems that some of this nonsense could be easily circumvented by having the doctor's "initial consultation" that starts the 72 hour timer take place over the phone. This would save the already beleaguered patient the expense of at least one trip to the clinic.

Anyone well versed in medical rules care to comment on this? Is there any real reason that a doctor has to sit in the same room with the patient simply to determine if the patient is "voluntarily seeking an abortion?"

Just this first requirement transforms the 72 hour waiting period to a minimum of a seven waiting period if the ONE doctor who provides abortion services is only available one day a week.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:15 PM on 05/10/2011
why should any woman have to sit with an a opposing self righteous group that want to make her guilty about her choice yet offer no help raising the chi ld they want to force being born.!
Its their legal right to have an abortion and nobody should have to the right to impose their religious beliefs in her decision, she has already made. Hey guys, its just a bunch of cells , just a fetus , not a person yet! get over it!
09:31 PM on 03/26/2011
how about a 72 hour waiting period before taking a viagra. y'know...just to make sure you are prepared for the consequences.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psmarc93
Mean people suck
11:13 PM on 03/31/2011
We can only hope they would make "good choices" after those hours to consider their actions.
04:19 PM on 03/25/2011
Would you favor removing government funding for all abortions in order to take politics and politicians out of the issue once and for all?



www.matterofopinion.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psmarc93
Mean people suck
11:11 PM on 03/31/2011
What funding are you referring to?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:25 PM on 05/10/2011
abortions are already not funded by tax payers, they already removed that priviledge from women long time ago as well!I It should be funded for those that cannot afford to pay, although abortions are relatively cheap compared to raising a child for its entire life span.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:19 PM on 05/10/2011
abortion are already not funded by the tax payer. They should be but they have already removed that priviledge for needy women! Te poor always bear the brunt of havingtoo many kids< so then we wonder why our jails are full!!!!
photo
danno7575
Obey gravity. It's the law!
03:40 PM on 03/25/2011
Just reading through some of the new posts here and can we all agree to start calling these "pregnancy crisis centres" what they really are. A minister's office at some church.
photo
FireDog
Peace lovin, Tree huggin, Progressive Lib
09:42 PM on 03/24/2011
Somebody please tell these Repub men it’s no longer cool to exert control over women.

Women know and have always known what they want, when they want it and three days is not going to make a difference.

Women are generally more patient than men.

They waited 125 years to get to vote so three days is nothing!

What a st()()pid law!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:22 PM on 05/10/2011
point is , they should not be allowed to force women to undergo all this torture , in order to get some service that is totally legal! It should be against the law for them to even interfere!
Dont they have anything better to do than worry about women's private issues?Like mind their own business/?
photo
FireDog
Peace lovin, Tree huggin, Progressive Lib
03:08 PM on 05/10/2011
This is just another “kick them when their down” bullying divisive bill meant to control and break the vulnerable and the weak.
photo
ProfessorMacphisto
Am I the only sane one left?
03:20 PM on 03/24/2011
If I were the organizers of the Sturgis S.D. Motorcycle rally, I would look for another place to hold it. Boycott the state. Too backwards for fun loving people.
photo
ProfessorMacphisto
Am I the only sane one left?
03:14 PM on 03/24/2011
I am surprised that the law didn't include a requirement for bagger political indoctrination camps. This is what a dictatorship looks like folks. Goppers/baggers ≠ freedom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarkInEugene
A blasphemy a day keeps the deities away.
12:22 PM on 03/25/2011
Absolutely.....this is tyranny plain and simple. What nerve for a political leader to impose this on the people of a Democracy. The man doesn't understand what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. It's called FREEDOM.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
We Should Care
We Prefer the Truth, Please
02:29 PM on 03/24/2011
I certianly hope they will have a check written for the support of any child born due to intimidation that this state had now legalized; I hope they plan to support any childred born this horrible way. Nothing worse then raising a child you did not want to begin with. It is just harassment and intimidation, I hope the women of South Dacota can indure this horrible state treatment; I hope someone with money will file a law suit to overturn this very sad situation. I wish there was more we could do. This is so very sad. Women, leave the state to take care of private business, put the doctors out of business in South Dacota; they will lose income too!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachael Crawley
Canadian and proud
01:22 PM on 03/24/2011
Oh, right, and they're NOT being coerced by going to pregnancy crisis centres? The people behind this law seem to think that women are too dumb to think for themselves, or to consider their actions, and need to be pushed in the right direction. Women do not need to be "reminded" of anything about the fetus. No woman wants to have an abortion- most seek them after careful consideration and thought. I feel awful for the women of South Dakota, who will have to put up with this nonsense or go out of state. This law has nothing to do with protecting life, but it has everything to do with controlling women.
06:00 AM on 03/24/2011
Another thought about South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period for abortions: Also, anyone there planning to use a gun for any reason should be forced to announce that in court and then have a 72-hour waiting period, when they must consult with animal cruelty experts. What's fair for abortions should be fair for car buyers, shooters, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
10:17 AM on 03/24/2011
no
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachael Crawley
Canadian and proud
01:24 PM on 03/24/2011
How about any other non-emergency medical procedure? Wisdom teeth removal, tonsillectomy, etc. They need to know the consequences of their relationship with their tonsils.
09:41 PM on 03/24/2011
yes, we also need a 72 hour cooling down period before circumcisions!
05:59 AM on 03/24/2011
2 seconds ago · Like ·
Good idea, should be expanded: In response to South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period for all abortions, when the woman must consult an anti-abortion expert: Let's have South Dakota also enact a 72-hour waiting period for anyone planning to buy a car or truck that gives less than 28 MPG. During that time, they must consult with a global warming expert, such as the Sierra Club.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
10:18 AM on 03/24/2011
no