Abortion effectively outlawed in S.Dakota

TraneWreck

Philosopher
TraneWreck
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
7,929
South Dakota may have just managed to ban abortion without actually banning abortion outright. They did it by pushing the “undue burden” restriction way past the “undue” part and into the “impossible” territory.

How did South Dakota do it? The new law requires women seeking abortion to speak to the doctor, then wait 72 hours, then get counseled at an anti-choice propaganda station called a “crisis pregnancy center,” only after which would she be allowed to obtain an abortion.
Click to expand...
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/...RHRealityCheck.org)&utm_content=Google+Reader

With all the tea party goofballs taking over in the various states, these restrictions have been popping up all over the place. The laws are designed to test Roe and Casey, but so far the legal challenges haven't come.

This is a tough situation. Laws like South Dakota's are clearly illegal under current precedent, but any challenges will inevitably end up in front a Court that could overturn existing abortion law. Because the right wing zealots on the Court are so young, it doesn't look like they can be waited out. There will be a major confrontation in the next few years, and if there isn't, abortion can be effectively outlawed as South Dakota has managed to do.

Remember, the Tea Party was all about debt and taxes...
 
While I trust your judgement that this places undue burden on those looking for abortions, I don't see that the hyperbole is required. Abortions are not effectively outlawed, only a few more hoops than necessary have been added (hence the undue part).
 
BobTheDonkey said:
While I trust your judgement that this places undue burden on those looking for abortions, I don't see that the hyperbole is required. Abortions are not effectively outlawed, only a few more hoops than necessary have been added (hence the undue part).
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

The new law requires women seeking abortion to speak to the doctor, then wait 72 hours, then get counseled at an anti-choice propaganda station called a “crisis pregnancy center,” only after which would she be allowed to obtain an abortion.
Click to expand...
But:
not a single crisis pregnancy center has agreed to counsel patients seeking abortion so that those patients can fill their requirements to get their abortions. Not even the centers that lobbied to get the requirement pushed through. Without centers willing to say they saw the patients seeking abortion, patients could be caught in a red tape nightmare that makes getting abortions impossible.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if there are any legal remedies to this other than a challenge that could end up before the Supreme Court that might overturn Roe v. Wade. I dunno. . .like a court order turning over "crisis pregnancy centers" to control of the state and mandating that they do the counseling and sign off on patients in a timely manner. Courts are only supposed to decide the matter before them, so challenges to a court order like that shouldn't end up being a challenge to Roe v. Wade by any stretch of the imagination.

That is, it cuts both ways. If they want to try to do an end run around Roe, then deal with it as if it doesn't address Roe (which, FWIW, even Alito said was established law that he indicated he'd be reluctant to overturn).

ETA: In other words, if they're claiming their intention is not to try to reverse Roe by state legislation, then this new law has to be interpreted NOT as intending to present a barrier to a woman's right to have an abortion.
 
Last edited:
Those republicans sure hate the government interfering with people's lives.
 
So, the Tea-Party is ok with government bureaucracy coming between a patient and her doctor?
 
They've got a problem if they want to overturn Roe v. Wade on this--the SC is likely to decide simply that the law is being averted and remedy that problem.

To overturn Roe they need to pass a law in open defiance of that ruling--not one that unconstitutionally wriggles around it. The supreme court only decides the constitutionality of the core issue if there is no other way to resolve it-- to ensure that it becomes clear precedent when they do so.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
To overturn Roe they need to pass a law in open defiance of that ruling--not one that unconstitutionally wriggles around it. The supreme court only decides the constitutionality of the core issue if there is no other way to resolve it-- to ensure that it becomes clear precedent when they do so.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say.
 
gnome said:
They've got a problem if they want to overturn Roe v. Wade on this--the SC is likely to decide simply that the law is being averted and remedy that problem.

To overturn Roe they need to pass a law in open defiance of that ruling--not one that unconstitutionally wriggles around it. The supreme court only decides the constitutionality of the core issue if there is no other way to resolve it-- to ensure that it becomes clear precedent when they do so.
Click to expand...

Well, not to descend into overly technical legal talk, but the controlling Court case with respect to abortion isn't Roe, it's Casey, as the article points out.

These sorts of restrictions are designed specifically to challenge the "undue burden" language. Or, to be more precise, push the standard of what constitutes an "undue burden" so far beyond reason that they've effectively rendered it meaningless. Subjecting someone to anti-abortion propaganda from non-health care providers that have consistently been shown to distribute false and misleading information (ABORTION CAUSES CANCER!!!) is so far beyond any reasonable understanding of the legal standard that it can only be viewed as planting the seed for a court challenge.

The current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to draw very broad decisions. Setting aside the merits of Citizens United, the Court directly overruled two previous decisions and made their ruling on a broad Constitutional principle. Since Brandeis, the prevailing Court ethos is to base decsions on narrow statutory grounds and avoid the larger philosophical rulings. The shift to a Court relying on such widely drawn principles has obvious implications for a case designed to challenge Casey.
 
Dancing David said:
I think this one will get stuck for the 'pregnancy counseling' requirement, that sounds like an undue burden.
Click to expand...

You've missed the greater undue burden.

There is only one clinic in South Dakota that provides abortions, in Sioux Falls. They don't have a doctor on staff, instead, a doctor travels, one day a week, from Minnesota.

So the three day wait is effectively 7 days, and Sioux Falls is in the far south eastern corner (a good 6 hour drive from the next largest city, Rapid City); doubling the travel requirements (with limited options for choosing when to travel) is the greater burden.

However, it might be arguable whether that is "undue". Where I grew up, for even the most basic healthcare, the choices were to see a nurse-practitioner almost immediately, wait a week for a traveling doctor to come to the local clinic, or drive an hour to a proper hospital. Anything requiring a specialist would similarly require extensive travel and time.
 
dakotajudo said:
You've missed the greater undue burden.

There is only one clinic in South Dakota that provides abortions, in Sioux Falls. They don't have a doctor on staff, instead, a doctor travels, one day a week, from Minnesota.

So the three day wait is effectively 7 days, and Sioux Falls is in the far south eastern corner (a good 6 hour drive from the next largest city, Rapid City); doubling the travel requirements (with limited options for choosing when to travel) is the greater burden.

However, it might be arguable whether that is "undue". Where I grew up, for even the most basic healthcare, the choices were to see a nurse-practitioner almost immediately, wait a week for a traveling doctor to come to the local clinic, or drive an hour to a proper hospital. Anything requiring a specialist would similarly require extensive travel and time.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the waiting time is the greater undue burden. While it is extremely inconvenient, time consuming, and based on a fundamentally insulting premise (that women don’t really understand what they are asking for when they ask for an abortion and need time to think about it) it is at least achievable.

The requirement that a woman seeking an abortion must obtain a permission slip from a professional pro-life advocate who is under no obligation to provide one is effectively impossible.
 
You know, sans " idiotic centers that refuse to provide this counselling." this would be a more pain in the *** situation versus rights being violated.

I mean, sure its going to suck sitting there listening to some a-hole tell you its wrong, but if your getting an abortion, you have to know these a-holes are out there.

As written the law is silly, immoral ( in the sense it pushes other people's morality on people.) and the equivelent of asking someone to provide the links that confirm their statement the sky is blue. But all said and done a solid 7/10 on the P.I.T.A scale, but a 2-3 on the "Jackbooted thugs " scale.

As practiced , with the clinics refusing to do their job ( as tasteless and crappy as that job may be.) it is not only stepping on rights, but dragging them into a mosh pit for a few hours.
 
dakotajudo said:
You've missed the greater undue burden.

There is only one clinic in South Dakota that provides abortions, in Sioux Falls. They don't have a doctor on staff, instead, a doctor travels, one day a week, from Minnesota.

So the three day wait is effectively 7 days, and Sioux Falls is in the far south eastern corner (a good 6 hour drive from the next largest city, Rapid City); doubling the travel requirements (with limited options for choosing when to travel) is the greater burden.

However, it might be arguable whether that is "undue". Where I grew up, for even the most basic healthcare, the choices were to see a nurse-practitioner almost immediately, wait a week for a traveling doctor to come to the local clinic, or drive an hour to a proper hospital. Anything requiring a specialist would similarly require extensive travel and time.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that and it is an issue, however even without the phusician constraint, it is an undue burden.

especially since they left out the 'life and health of the mother' exclusion.
 
This will die. What's next, gays can't get health care until they go to a straightening clinic?
 
Dorian Gray said:
This will die. What's next, gays can't get health care until they go to a straightening clinic?
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. It seems like a law similar to the S. Dakota one gets proposed here in Missouri with alarming regularity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom