South Dakota Can Require Doctors To Tell Women Seeking Abortions That They Have 'Existing Relationship' With Fetus, Court Rules

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- South Dakota can require doctors to tell women who seek abortions that they have an "existing relationship" with their fetus that is protected by law and that they can't be forced to undergo the procedure, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's ruling two years ago in which she struck down the requirement, which is part of a larger law requiring South Dakota doctors to provide women with certain information before an abortion can be deemed voluntary.

The law mandates that the doctor must tell an abortion seeker that she "has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota."

Schreier found the wording misleading because she said a relationship, in the eyes of the law, can only exist between people and the Supreme Court has ruled that the unborn are not legally considered people.

The appeals court disagreed with Schreier's reasoning, agreeing with the state's argument that doctors would be providing patients with valid legal advice – that they can't be compelled to have an abortion – allowing patients to make more informed decisions.

The court upheld Schreier's decision to overturn another aspect of the law that would have required doctors to tell patients that people who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide.

Both the state and Planned Parenthood, which challenged the law, praised Friday's ruling.

Mimi Liu, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, said the group believes the court has ruled that doctors must only inform patients of that one sentence written in the appeals court's decision.

"We think this decision can be read to say that is all that is required," she said.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said the decision will affect a separate lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to overturn a state law passed this year. That law, which has not taken effect because of the legal challenge, would require women to wait three days before they could have an abortion – the longest wait of any state – and submit to counseling at one of several centers that seek to dissuade women from terminating their pregnancies.

"This decision will provide further guidance and direction with respect to Planned Parenthood's challenge to recent legislation which establishes procedures to ensure that abortion decisions are voluntary and un-coerced," Jackley said.

Liu said she believes both lawsuits are relevant to each other.

"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood has a duty and has always been compliant to ensure that women are voluntarily seeking an abortion and making a decision to have an abortion, and are fully informed about the decision," she said.

Leslee Unruh, the founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy counseling center in Sioux Falls, which seeks to persuade women not to seek abortions, called Friday's court's decision regarding the existing relationship advisory "monumental."

"We are thrilled beyond words," she said. "This has been a very long and coming victory for us. We are so happy about this ruling. It just shows the tide has turned in this country and we need to protect unborn children, as well as the women in making that decision."

South Dakota 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.

Comments

[Ossit]

12:19 AM on 09/09/2011

wdc39 I have no idea why a post of mine you replied to didn't have a reply button that you had to track me down. I see that alot and it confuses me. I just post. I assume there's always a reply button. Sorry about that. I don't know how to change it. Still fingering things out.

[gloriaswanson43]

08:05 AM on 09/07/2011

This sounds like some folks are grasping at straws. Abortion providers do not force adults into choosing to have an abortion. From what I've read, it's boyfriends and parents (underage kids) that put the pressure on. Saying that a woman has an existing relationship with the fetus is absurd. Waiting 3 days is only increasing the anxiety level of the woman as does forced counseling, making the statement that "we're protecting women" invalid. Doctors are not lawyers and forcing them to give legal counsel puts them at risk. No, women are not at increased risk of suicide because they have abortions: again, absurd. Women know what they are doing when they choose to have an abortion. Please stop assuming that we are stupid. And yet again, please mind your own business. (Good luck trying to tell this 43 year old woman that she must carry a high risk pregnancy because you say so. This is my body and this would be my child. My decision. )

[Ossit]

09:26 PM on 09/06/2011

I had an abortion 24 years ago. Here are the facts from MY procedure. Was it birth control?
Nope. Never entered my mind. Mine was done at a hospital. Not all abortions are done at the corner clinic. Was it a hard or easy choice. It was an easy choice, hard to go through because a hospital procedure has more physical preparation days before the abortion. I can't speak for clinic procedures because I went to a hospital. It was painful because I had to walk around with a piece of vegetable matter that had to be expanded by water drinking to open the cervix. In that I had no choice. It was done to prevent damage to the cervix. How it's done at a clinic, I don't know. Did I feel the abortion? No. I was put under general anesthesia and it was my first operation. I was totally out. How late was my pregnancy? 12 weeks. From pictures it looks human but only a quarter of an inch long and still underdeveloped in terms of viability. Was there the propagandized ripping limbs and crushing skulls? No. It was sucked out by a tube. Was I given or asked for a sonogram 24 years ago? No and no. Did I ever hear the heartbeat? It was never offered, I never asked, The only "existing relationship" I felt was that I knew I was pregnant.

I hoped I dispelled some myths that are still propagated.

[gloriaswanson43]

08:17 AM on 09/07/2011

Mine was about 22 years ago, done in a clinic. I opted to be put under for the procedure. I barely remember any of it: no guilt, just the normal fear anyone would have being put under anesthetic. I wouldn't have the child that I have now if I hadn't done that. I was too young and way too thin to be carrying a child. The physical and emotional damage would have occured had I carried the child. No damage done to me physically, emotionally or mentally by having the abortion. Even God forgave me for testing Him.

[Ossit]

03:12 PM on 09/07/2011

I'm glad you too feel no guilt for having yours. What I don't understand because I'm not religious is that you think your god forgives your for testing Him? What do you think you did wrong? Being too young? What was too young? In my opinion, when you're able to conceive, you're never too young. Society places an arbitrary too young tag on everything.

[Ossit]

07:21 PM on 09/06/2011

Another hypocrisy I don't understand about those who don't like abortion is saying that a woman has just made a "mistake", so you must have that "mistake" and the unwanted child is usually blamed for that "mistake" when they had no control. First people condemn abortion and say it's just a "mistake" raise it, yet consider that unwanted child as a "mistake" to begin with! We love children. They should all be born. But if you don't want that "mistake" we don't have a problem calling that child a "mistake" that we love so much and think it should live. But no one says of a man of his "mistake" of absolutely refusing to wear a condom because "it doesn't feel good." They like to go...what's the term? "Bareback"?

Why is abortion fine because it's "inconvenient" to raise a child with abnormalities because your precious pocketbook is more important than paying high medical bills, and no one says that 'abnormal' child has the same right to live and fine if a father says "I don't want the kid go get an abortion" because he doesn't like an "inconvenient" child he'd have to support?

Seems abortion is selective to those who demand the right to dictate.

[BiznessLady]

11:56 AM on 09/12/2011

The fact is that an unintentional pregnancy is sometimes due to a mistake. Sometimes a crime. Not every pregnancy results in a birth, that is reality.
Ever have to care for a family member with a disability? I have and every dollar spent has been worth it but I had the resources to help, not every family has that. You have NO IDEA what kind of life it is. Although no my own child it changed the entire dynamic of our family. The way we did everything. Shopped, cooked, interacted, worked. As much as I love them I wouldn't wish that life on anyone.

Abortion will happen no matter what. It should continue to be safe and LEGAL and people are not going to stop it by making something legal unaffordable and unaccessible, that will result in the deaths of woman from back alley abortions.

[Ossit]

06:42 PM on 09/06/2011

Women you can't have an abortion! Shame on you! Women, if you want to go to another country to adopt a toddler and ignore all the unwanted babies because it's easier to handle a foreign child that can talk and walk rather than an American toddler that are in Children Services by the thousands who can walk and talk? Noooo problem. Women you can't have an abortion! Shame on you! Women you want to go to another country to adopt your 'novelty' child, no problem. There aren't enough people saying to women who go to another country to adopt a foreign child "Shame on you! There are unwanted babies and toddlers in the U.S. why don't you adopt THEM?" And nooooo one says "Parents shame on you for dumping your kid in Children's Services because you don't want them!" but there are plenty who think warehousing unwanted kids is great. Outta sight outta mind! Then of course there's the whole subject of adoption in itself. Women! Shame on you for wanting an abortion! No one says "Shame on you for BUYING a child like property. Adoption ain't free, right? So you're buying flesh! Abortion is wrong, but buying a child through adoption is peachy keen? I'm really confused by the hypocrisy of condemning abortion but let's all buy our kids and if they don't 'work' out, send them back to Children's Services.

[gloriaswanson43]

08:23 AM on 09/07/2011

If I think way too hard about human adoption I get reminded too much of animal adoption: go in, choose the cutest or the friendliest. I can't imagine what the unadopted children feel like having been paraded in front of potential parents and "forever homes" only to not be chosen. Do they feel unworthy, not loveable? Do they wonder if they're defective somehow or that they're doing something wrong, no one will ever want them? It hurts enough to see dogs and cats in cages, wanting out, petted and played with. What do the children feel? Has anyone ever asked? How can anyone with a heart choose just one child? Wouldn't you want to take them all home? (shudder)

[Ossit]

06:22 PM on 09/06/2011

Are vasectomies and abortions two separate issues, one a guy preventing himself to not reproduce, another abortion a fetus? In my mind they're the same. A woman wants an abortion everyone shouts you can't, you mustn't. A man wants a vasectomy, no one says a word. It's obviously a fact that a vasectomy is birth control, too many go under the misconception that women use abortion as birth control because it's fun to find a reason to blame. Women are forced into another Catch-22. You're darned if you want an abortion to terminate a pregnancy when everyone yells about unwanted kids, darned if you want to 'fix' yourself so you never have kids, some Churches darn a woman who wants to use birth control because then birth control is 'wrong', while at the same time you're darned by many if the woman DOESN'T have birth control which sadly is still put soly on her back alone. Men have a hairball when asked to wear a condom people say okay your choice. You don't want to have a baby? Okay. You don't want to raise your kid and be a deadbeat? Okay. Women close your legs! Men choose to jump in them? Okay. Women you're having too many kids, women stop your desire to get rid of them. Women fought for the right of abortion and people want to take that away. But alive unwanted babies FEW want if they're not biological.

[sympathy]

06:09 PM on 09/06/2011

I would tell the do ctor that I had had an existing relationship with the father and that was over too. Birth control is everywhere...how do men and women put themselves in this position to begin with? I think it's odd that bible thumpers don't demand the name of the father and penalize him.

[anne1stoftwo]

03:30 PM on 09/06/2011

Some more of the Morally correct thinking they know best. Rather than abort a child these folks would have you drown them in bathrooms, beat them to death, drive them in a lake and let the drown or give them to the likes of David Koresh so he has toys to play with. They must like the Casey Anthony type os disposal of baby. Shame on them for never getting out of our bedrooms. We are in a recession so deep it feels like we will never climb out and still the only thing the white boys in the courts and in our congress can think about is not allowing a woman a right to choose.

[fairness4all]

01:56 PM on 09/06/2011

Note the last sentence of this story: "South Dakota 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."

It is very clear that South Dakota voters don't want to make abortion illegal, so who are these
legislators representing - the Pope?  

Here are a few more examples of the nonsense in that state:

Some South Dakota schools have adopted the four-day school week to compensate for the education cuts by the backwards-thinking S.D. legislature.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/south-dakota-school-districts-no-more-fridays_n_932612.html

There is such a vacuum of intelligence in their Republican legislature, the South Dakota House declared carbon dioxide the "gas of life."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/25/83917/south-dakota-legislators-tell-schools-to-teach-astrological-explanation-for-global-warming/

South Dakota ranchers and farmers don't pay sales taxes on feed, equipment, and other business expenses

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/south-dakota/article_1745dda4-cdda-11e0-b9c3-001cc4c03286.html

but they have happily accepted $9.66 billion in farm subsidies from 1995-2010.

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=46000

[kristiemaureen]

05:17 AM on 09/06/2011

"The appeals court disagreed with Schreier's reasoning, agreeing with the state's argument that doctors would be providing patients with valid legal advice"

So in the State of South Dakota, doctors are also allowed to practice law without a license? In most States non-lawyers aren't allowed to provide legal advice. I just find it interesting that lawyers for South Dakota made this particular argument as they're usually the first to jump on the bandwagon that only those who've been to law school can actually read a law.

[jamesonscales]

05:16 PM on 09/05/2011

If anti-abortionists were genuinely concerned about preventing abortions (and not just advancing their religious ideological agendas), they'd be out advocating, with the same zeal, laws requiring comprehensive and ongoing sexual education in all schools, as well as free and unhindered access to condoms, the pill and all other effective forms of birth control from the 8th grade onward. The number of abortions being sought plummet when education and access to effective birth control are readily available. But i guess that's not their point, is it?

[Lady1genius]

07:21 PM on 09/05/2011

At the core, they don't like birth control either. Except for natural family planning aka the rythym method, aka periodic abstinence, aka vatican roulette.

[MoeJava]

02:35 PM on 09/05/2011

when will they be crafting similar legislative remedies for "existing relationship" to every man's sperm? sems to me those little mobile swimmers are the ones that ought to be regulated, watched over and protected. guys need to be held accountable, and inventory if you will, be turned over to authorities on demand. the sperm police will be ever vigilant to any signs of onanism.
.
but that would be sexist to concentrate only on one sector of society and limiting their personal choices, wouldn't it?
.
yes it would..... like it is right now for women
.

[gloriaswanson43]

08:24 AM on 09/07/2011

"Every sperm is sacred!"

[bjwtaylor]

02:23 PM on 09/05/2011

No need to blush. You deserve it.

Besides, maybe you need to store up some positive vibes. Conservatives will knock you down pretty hard sometimes.

Happy posting!.

[AZDave2]

01:40 PM on 09/05/2011

Leslie Unruh you are so misguided! You this that in your zeal to protect the unborn you are making life safer for the unborn. But what have you done for the born? What have you done for the mother of the unborn? What have you done for the education of the born? What have you done for feeding the born? Until you can answer these questions you have no right to even think that you are doing something good. You are just kicking the can down the road. I would love to see a world where there is no need for abortion. But I would also like to see a world where children are protected, educated, grow and have a future. Shame on you Ms. Unruh what have you done for them?

[doctor-ruth]

11:30 AM on 09/05/2011

These laws are often justified by supporters (like this one) by saying the mandate will help women be more informed. Why is it always assumed women seeking an abortion are uninformed?

In this particular legal language, how many women seeking an abortion are under the impression that they are being forced to have one? I just don't buy it.

[Lady1genius]

03:07 PM on 09/05/2011

I would go so far as to say that women who opt for abortions have already gathered the information they need and made up their minds. no woman is so stupid as to not know what an abortion is (unless they're 10 years old, which unfortunately DOES happen).
What is being peddled as "information" is in fact, intimidation, shaming and discouragement. Information is empowering.
Some women are pressured to have an abortion, however, informing her does not change the fact that at the end of the day... she will be going home with the pressurer. It does nothing to help or change her situation, so it is needless cruelty.

[BiznessLady]

06:01 PM on 09/05/2011

proud to be a fan, hope to be a friend!

[jeremyemilio]

03:15 PM on 09/05/2011

I have Crohn's disease. A few years ago I was very sick a seriously considered a colostomy. I researched the procedure on my own. Then after a consultation with my family doctor I was referred to a specialist and a surgeon. A series of tests was conducted. Further information was provided outlining the procedure (including diagrams and photos), and I ultimately changed my mind.

This is standard practice, and legally required for most medical procedures. Why supposed feminists are so opposed to information... and especially opposed to the idea that a woman might even change her mind upon being given more information... is quite beyond me.

[Free2BeMe]

04:11 PM on 09/05/2011

When you had your considerations about a colostomy you did exactly as you should have done, researched your options, talked to your doctor, and reached a decision. I imagine that women and girls have undertaken the same care when considering an abortion. The idea of when life begins is a very personal matter.

Legislating that a doctor must say that there is an existing relationship is a good example of government overreach. Until our population, republicans included, are humane enough to support social programs that care for all children's welfare, we are not in a moral position to make decisions for others.

[BiznessLady]

04:40 PM on 09/05/2011

YOU sought further information on your own. It was your decision, your body and your right. Your CHOICE! They are systematically restricting that right for women. The right to weigh their own options on their own terms. In the process they are limiting a woman's access to the medical professionals that they consult on reproductive health.

Wonderful that you had the resources and/or your coverage was good enough to get referrals with specialists and surgeons. Goody-good for you!

Now try to step in the shoes of a woman considering abortion. Try to navigate through all the issues she has in her life. Because the procedure is legal now it is a safe option. Keep making it harder for a woman to exercise her rights to terminate a pregnancy and watch the senseless death of women at the hands of busy-bodies who need to mind their own damned business.
Your attempt to legislate a woman's personal life will result in the death of many women if you succeed.