Six years ago, South Dakota adopted a law requiring that women who wish to obtain an abortion be fully informed of the consequences.
Such as that an abortion terminates the life of a separate individual and it increases the risk of suicide.
Planned Parenthood ferociously fought the requirement, which ultimately was upheld several times by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take an appeal, so Planned Parenthood took another tack.
It inserted a preface into the required warnings stating: “Politicians in the state of South Dakota require us to tell you …”
On several of the warnings it added, “We dispute this statement.”
So the state legislature, which has a significant pro-life contingency, took action.
It approved a bill to requiring women seeking an abortion to receive counseling at a third-party counseling center that has the responsibility of delivering the warnings to women
Senate Bill 110, which is only a governor’s signature away from becoming law, states Planned Parenthood’s warning procedure “does not comply with the mandatory disclosures required” by law.
The failure to comply “is contrary to the interests of pregnant mothers and pregnant mothers’ need to make truly informed and voluntary decisions.”
Further, Planned Parenthood “is not in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the law” and “is antithetical to the purpose and effectiveness of the disclosures, and evidence of a hostility to the required disclosures and signals to the pregnant mothers that the required disclosures, to the extent they are made at all, should be ignored.”
Under the law, the third-party counseling centers will inform a woman she has a right to maintain her relationship with her unborn child and that abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” If the mother wishes, the center will set up an appointment with a physician “for the purpose of discussing the physical and psychological risks of abortion.”
The lawmakers said abortionists have “proven to be unreliable providers and counselors of the disclosures required” by law.
WND previously reported the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the state’s informed-consent law.
At the time, lawyer Harold J. Cassidy called the decision “a fabulous victory for the women of the state of South Dakota.”
Cassidy represented Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center of Sioux Falls, and Stacy Wollman, president of Care Net of Rapid City. They were allowed in intervene in the case filed by Planned Parenthood against the state’s law.
“This victory represents the fourth separate decision of the 8th Circuit reversing the district court in this one case, two decisions issued by en banc (full) courts four years apart – a rare occurrence that underscores the importance of the issues presented by the case,” said Cassidy.
“As a result of this case upholding all eight major provisions of South Dakota’s Abortion Informed Consent Statute, pregnant mothers will now be informed: 1) that ‘an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;’ 2) that the mother’s ‘relationship with that second human being enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of South Dakota;’ 3) ‘that relationship and all rights attached to it will be terminated;’ and 4) the abortion places the mother ‘at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide,'” he said.
The court’s opinion said even Planned Parenthood’s own testimony documented a link between abortion and suicide.
Meanwhile, pro-life counseling centers in several states are fighting requirements that they advertise and promote nearby abortionists.
WND also reported when lawmakers in South Dakota adopted a resolution called on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It notes the Supreme Court has embarrassed the United States with rulings such as Dred Scott, which declared that blacks are property, and it has corrected previous rulings 233 times.
“The fact that the United States Supreme Court has held that certain conduct is constitutional or protected by the Constitution, does not mean, in and of itself, that such a decision is correct,” the resolution argues.