Good grief—Pathfinder International can protect women's reproductive rights by setting up a women's health clinic in rural Bangladesh, but Planned Parenthood can't muster the legal resources to protect rural South Dakota women against the oppression of a 72-hour abortion waiting period:
On Thursday, Planned Parenthood said it no longer needs to challenge the 72-hour waiting period requirement....
"Currently, we are focusing our energy and resources on fighting the most egregious part of this law – the Crisis Pregnancy Center requirement," said Sarah Stoesz, director of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We still believe the 72-hour waiting period provision of this law is unconstitutional and an example of politicians interfering in the medical care of women. However, we have found a way to implement this provision while minimizing the negative effects for our patients."
Stoesz said she doubts the Eighth Circuit would uphold their challenge to the 72-hour requirement.
Honestly, this provision in the law is wrong," Stoesz said. "We simply are being realistic in what we can accomplish" [John Hult, "Planned Parenthood Drops Portion of Abortion Appeal," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.12.21].
No, a woman from Timber Lake who has to drive five hours across South Dakota to wait 72 hours for a medical procedure to which she is Constitutionally entitled may find that state-imposed delay on her medical choice the most egregious part of South Dakota's iron-maiden laws. Listening to Leslee Unruh lie to her may feel like a minor annoyance compared to missing three days of work that could have paid for three days of daycare and three nights in some crackerbox motel in Sioux Falls. It doesn't matter if Planned Parenthood has twenty abortion providers on staff full-time: the 72-hour waiting period will prevent some rural women from obtaining Constitutionally protected health care.
Planned Parenthood wants the court to let them drop this portion of the appeal without prejudice, leaving the door open to resume that attack later. But why wait? Come on, Planned Parenthood. Kick your lawyers in the pants, tell them to write that 72-hour brief, and submit it with the rest of the arguments you're planning to bring to court.
Maybe PP is waiting for a case that shows this 72 hour wait is violating this right? Voter ID laws are being instilled without proof of voter fraud, and are being thrown out by courts.
More than half of the sitting 8th Circuit judge appointments have been within the past 10 years so, so there probably won't be much turnover any time soon.
PP dismissing this part is a psychological (and physical) blow to women. We don't have enough agencies advocating for women's rights.
However, where does the injunction stand if only a portion of the suit is dropped?
Good question about the injunction, Taunia. I would assume that the judge has to act to lift it, which the judge would likely do upon receiving response from the state to PP's request.
Even if the reasons you give for withdrawing this challenge are legally sensible, it still is a hard blow to women. Instead of pre-emptively ceding the argument, PP should spend the few extra dollars and hours, stick with the argument, and make the court issue that ruling.
How much money is Gov. DumDum spending on encouraging young people to stay in South Dakota? With stupid laws like this, he couldn't chase intelligent people away any faster than if he used a whip and a pistol.
I learned in management class that the best decisions are made by first waiting for the most information possible without waiting to long and miss an opportunity. In a nine month pregnancy to wait three days is not missing an opportunity. Not wanting to hear both sides of an issue is limiting the amount of information for that very important decision. Waiting nine months would give you the kids opinion also but then you would miss YOUR opportunity. But three days and hearing the other side of the story is just good decision making.
waiting period to make a decision to have an abortion, signed into law in this state. waiting period to buy a gun? naw, Gov Rounds got rid of that back in 2009.
Women of South Dakota, we don't trust you to make a decision about your own body (and thank you Cory, for reminding everyone, that it IS a constitutional right). But people that might be making a gun purchase, based on emotion and anger? (just got fired, caught wife in bed with the milkman, etc) . NO PROBLEM, we trust you immensely!
Yes, this is very disappointing that PP made this decision. I hope that they have a bigger plan in mind. Women continue to take hits like this, and it angers and saddens me.
Hope nobody confuses Pat Powers with Planned Parenthood.
Maybe a better law would be a mandatory three-day waiting period before having sex with a new stranger or drunk in a bar might make more sense.
One should never have sex in a bar, Mr. Wiken. 3 days, stranger or not.
But what if someone confuses Wayne LaPierre with a human being and Mike Crapo with the capital of South Dakota?
Alcoholism is a mental illness, innit?
Oh, wrong thread: men have no rules.
Douglas, that PP thing threw me at first, too!
Dana, if South Dakota thinks it can force every woman seeking abortion to go give Leslee Unruh a chance to talk her out of it, then I want every gun buyer to have to wait 72 hours and come talk to me first so I can show them statistics about violent crime and household gun accidents and make sure they aren't being coerced into buying a gun.
Totally agree, Cory. TOTALLY. The hypocrisy of the "waiting period" for abortions versus no waiting period to buy a weapon is ridiculous. (perhaps my sarcastic comments weren't as clear as they should have been)
When Rounds got rid of the waiting period, I was stunned. But then again, maybe not. Yet, a few years later, Gov D says that he just doesn't trust women to make up their own minds about things. (the same Gov that doesn't believe in big gov't, but wants the gov't to be right there "helping" a woman with her decision. vomit)
oh yeah, Cory, I totally agree. The hypocrisy on the "gun issue" is ridiculous. And yes, there are a ton of statistics to highlight what you are saying. A ton! And we need to look no further than the massacre at Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a long gun prior to Sandy Hook. Why wasn't he sold that weapon? Because he didn't want to wait for the 14 day "waiting period" and background check. A part of the system that DID work! Yay! (Gov Rounds/Gov D - take note)
But no, he decided to go to the place where weapons were plentiful and apparently not responsibly secured. A place where, according to statistics, a gun is MOST OFTEN used for gun violence. In their own home. (Ms Lanza's guns didn't protect her - they were used against her)
Don't take my word for it. Take it from David Frum, (Republican) who has done extensive research on this
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/frum-nra-nightmare-vision/index.html
Probably better posted on some of the "gun discussion" blogs - but my initial intent was to bring up the waiting period hypocrisy on this PP decision.