South Dakota Passes Draconian Waiting Period Regulation
South Dakota governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law a bill requiring women to wait 72 hours before obtaining an abortion. Like all “waiting period” regulations, the law is based on the inherently sexist assumptions that Anthony Kennedy made explicit in his infamous Carhart II opinion: namely, the idea that women who choose to obtain an abortion must be acting irrationally and need states to coerce them to reconsider. And the 3-day waiting period (rather than the more typical 24-hour one) imposes a particular burden on poor women and women who have to travel long distances (a particular problem in a rural state in which 98% of counties lack an abortion provider.)
There is an argument that the provision is unconstitutional — the waiting period upheld in Casey was only 24 hours, and it’s possible to argue that the 72 hour waiting period constitutes an “undue burden.” But if it gets to the Supreme Court, I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that it would be upheld. The Court’s four most conservative justices would almost certainly uphold an outright ban, and while Kennedy was part of the Casey plurality he hasn’t found an abortion regulation unconstitutional since. Regrettably, the Supreme Court would probably continue to facilitate the pincer movement against abortion access.
…more from Pema Levy.
Are there any abortion providers in South Dakota ?
There is a clinic in Sioux Falls. A doctor comes in from Minnesota on a regular basis to provide the services.
“There’s a doctor in Chicago,
Lord I know she’ll be all right…”
–Kinky Friedman, “Rapid City, South Dakota”
So, I would support Planned Parenthood doing a background check on all abortion clients. If they registered Republican or contributed to a Republican in the last 5 years they can go find their own clinic.
If only the health insurance mandate hadn’t passed we could have avoided going down this slippery slope.
Please, these folks would cut off body parts before they gave up their precious mandate.
This law also does away with medical standards of care (mandatory indoctrination sessions at propaganda centers), and medical privacy (no HIPAA protection since the propaganda centers are not medical entities).
Why not just have the women stand on the side of highways and pick up trash and hand out copies of their medical charts to random strangers for three days? It would accomplish the same goals but with the added benefit of beautifying the state.
72 hours more that an unborn child might live. That’s not undue, but of course, you prefer dead babies, Lameieux.
Thank you for making it immediately clear, for slow readers, that waiting periods are backdoor criminalisation of abortion.
Please move to Pine Ridge.
What did the Oglala ever do to you?
I change my vote, I want NewMediaMeade back.
What is this thing, “unborn child?”
If you value a fetus over a loving, living woman, you’re a misogynist with bad, anti-life values.
Bear in mind that he also opposes maternal access to prenatal care unless she is rich. Hardly a “pro-life” position.
What “fetus” too? A majority of abortions occur before a “fetus” exists.
you’re a misogynist with bad, anti-life values.
Given that we’re talking about Donald Douglas and I’ve seen what he posts to his blog, yeah we already knew that.
Please, everybody knows his preference is undead blog commenters.
72 hours more that an unborn child might live.
except, of course, if the woman is wealthy and white and able to afford traveling for medical attention! in which case, full steam ahead!
I find it CONSTANTLY amusing how privileged men are willing to dictate how women should live their lives.
It’s Daugaard not Dugard (although they are pronounced the same, I think).
I think if the Donalde were to move to SD (which I hope will not happen), he should try Lemmon or maybe Nunda
Mitchell.
Home of the world-famous Corn Palace.
Who’s this sponsor he conferred with, and is it common for a third party to finance a state government’s legal costs? How is this even legal?
I wonder about the legality of legislation interfering in legal medical procedures – are they not covered by the (I suppose) SD Medical Association?
What will they legislate next – mandatory circumcision?
Next: Sex only during a woman’s fertile days of the month.
How about mandatory sex changes before male legislators can vote for laws on women’s medical procedures?
Are there any other medical procedures for which the legislature feels compelled to impose a cooling-down period?
How about Viagra prescriptions. It would do a lot to cut down on abortions.
Hair plugs.
or maybe hemorrhoids.
Hmm. Aside from tying up the state in litigation, would it be possible for pro-Choice groups to set up counseling centers as well, so that women would have… a choice?
You mean like Planned Parenthood does?
[...] South Dakota Passes Draconian Waiting Period Regulation : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
Which face will you show us today?
Which face will you show us today, Big Wrongful President Jim?
…how can you then turn around and with the other face say…
Women aren’t mindless inanimate objects that can be used to kill people.
See your mistake?
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m happy to be corrected, but you can only infringe on a right if there is a compelling state interest involved. If one values a fetus highly enough, I suppose the protection of a fetus could be considered a compelling state interest, but then you’d have to demonstrate that a waiting period furthers this interest. And it only does so if you accept Kennedy’s paternalistic view of the state of mind of women seeking abortions.
The logic is not the same as a waiting period for a gun, especially when couple with background checks (that take time) and with the knowledge that crimes of passion occur and a waiting period can prevent this from escalating to a shooting. Without giving this too much thought, I think the latter argument is somewhat week, so a waiting period not designed to do a background check is on shaky ground and would not have a problem with it being declared unconstitutional.
I demand that the 5 day waiting period also be subject to this fancy “undue burden” test! Which I refuse to Google! You hypocrut libruls!!!
Since Kennedy is the swing vote, that is the “acceptance” needed at the end of the day. The Casey ruling also replaced a clear “compelling interest” test with a more hazy “undue burden” rule that if nothing else was weaker somehow.
It did leave open the chance to strike down waiting periods etc. in certain individual cases and judges have. The SC never accepts cases for review really in this area (the exception was the so-called “partial birth abortion” case and even there Kennedy ended up leaving some opening for relief).
The best one can hope for is lower courts to deem this a step too far and the SC to continue to avoid worrying about split rulings on the subject.