Planned Parenthood and ACLU File Lawsuit in South Dakota to Protect Women’s Health and Safety

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS), represented by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and joined by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit today in federal district court against a new law that severely restricts abortion access. The lawsuit charges that HB 1217, which passed the South Dakota legislature in March and is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, is unconstitutional because it requires a woman who is seeking an abortion to first prove that she has received so-called “counseling” from an unlicensed, unaccredited and unregulated crisis pregnancy center. Further, it imposes a 72-hour mandatory delay for an abortion after a woman’s initial consultation with her doctor and requires her doctor to obtain written proof from her that she sought counseling at a crisis pregnancy center. The mandatory delay would be the longest in the nation. “The voters of South Dakota, by resounding measures at the ballot box, twice have told their legislators that the decision to have an abortion is between a woman, her family and her doctor and the government should not intrude on that decision,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. “This law goes farther than any other in the country in intruding on the doctor-patient relationship and putting women and families at risk.” “The Act has both the purpose and the effect of severely restricting access to health care, and violates patients’ and physicians’ First Amendment rights against compelled speech and patients’ right to privacy in their personal and medical information,” said PPFA attorney Mimi Liu. “It is demeaning for the government to force a woman to visit a non-medical facility with a political agenda when she is making one of the most personal medical decisions of her life,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “We hope the court will stop the law from going into effect.” In addition to the 72-hour mandatory delay and counseling requirements, the act requires a physician to identify every article that mentions any ostensible risk factor associated with abortion published in the past 40 years and to discuss with women seeking an abortion all manner of so-called risk factors and complications related to abortion discussed in these articles, no matter how questionable, out of date refuted by the medical community they may be. South Dakota’s abortion regulations are the most burdensome in the country. The state already has a 24-hour mandatory delay in place. In addition, a woman must be offered the opportunity to view a sonogram and her responses must be recorded as part of her permanent medical records. She must also receive a government-dictated message from her doctor that is designed to intimidate and dissuade her. “We will muster everything in our power to counter this law and to protect the health and well-being of South Dakota’s women and families,” said Stoesz. “The voters have made their wishes clear. It’s a travesty that their lawmakers have ignored them.” To view the complaint, please visit: www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/ppmns-v-daugaard-complaint

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.