South Dakota abortion providers are now required to recite a script telling patients that the procedure will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

[Monkeytrousers]

Feminist Daily News Wire
July 21, 2008
South Dakota Abortion Law Takes Effect

They must then warn the woman of a supposed increased risk of suicide.

The law additionally requires that doctors tell a woman seeking an abortion that there is "an existing relationship" with the fetus that "enjoys protection under the United States Constitution" and that, by having an abortion, "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated," reports to the Washington Post.

The law came into effect last Friday, after a 2005 court order that prevented the enforcement of the law expired. It will affect the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood, the only recognized abortion provider in the state.

"We have always believed and worked hard to ensure that every woman has the best, medically accurate information so that she can make the right decision for her unique circumstances," said South Dakota Planned Parenthood President, Sarah Stoesz in a company statement. "This law is not about informed consent, it's about compelling doctors to deliver state mandated ideology."

South Dakota will also face a ballot measure this November. The referendum would ban all abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and a threat to a woman's life, according the Associated Press. The measure is similar to a ballot measure rejected by South Dakota voters in 2006.

Media Resources: Washington Post 7/20/2008; Associated Press 7/18/2008; Planned Parenthood statement 7/18/2008; Feminist Daily Newswire 11/8/2006

GOd. I am not pro-abortion, inasmuch as I believe it to be a horrible thing. However, I am utterly in favour of it being legal and accessible. This judgement stinks.

omg. ffs. and other exclamations of disbelief and disapproval...

I'm not at all surprised.

awful decision

Those poor women. I rememember reading a book by Marge Piercy, where she recounts stories of having to help women across state borders to get legal abortions, in order to avoid back street abortions. Judges should watch Vera Drake. Sounds very odd to me that Foetus has constitutional protection.

I don't undrstand the bit about constitutional rights with regards to the relationship with the fetus and why the emphasis on it.

Expat, can you help me understadn what this means?

"The law additionally requires that doctors tell a woman seeking an abortion that there is "an existing relationship" with the fetus that "enjoys protection under the United States Constitution" and that, by having an abortion, "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated," reports to the Washington Post."

To me it reads like a state's deliberately broad and vague interpretation of the Bill of Rights in order to set up a test case heard before the Supreme Court - if the Court will hear it, and they may or may not.

But it was most likely deliberately worded in such an ambiguous fashion so the Court would give its interpretation (called an opinion), obstensibly to take advantage of the Court currently having justice(s) appointed by present or past Conservative/Republic adminstrations and confirmed by a Republic Congress.

Getting the Court's opinion is crucial, of course, because abortion was opinionated as Constitutional via a Court case.

Although, the justices have for the most part stuck to surprisingly balanced opinions throughout its history and continues to do so.

Still, I think the state was aiming for a challenge with this.

Another direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

What relationshiop is it talking about though? Is it saying that the mother 'terminates' her constitutional rights by abusing the constiutional rights of the fetus? Anything else is just meaningless, isn;t it?

Well, see, it's interpreting that her right to pursue happiness with regards to her 'baby' will be terminated, as well as its right to pursue happiness.

I agree it's a nonsensical argument, but it's spoiling for a fight is what I think.