SD Governor Signs 3-Day Wait for Abortion Into Law (longest in nation)

[Robb]

Source: ABC News

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law Tuesday requiring women to wait three days after meeting with a doctor to have an abortion, the longest waiting period in the nation.

Abortion rights groups have already said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which also requires women to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he has conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state's legal costs.

"I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives," the Republican governor said the statement. "I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13193927

[joeybee12]

1. I have no patience for people like Dennis Daugaard...

he can go fuck himself.

[freshwest]

2. So the teabaggers enact a law that applies to only one gender. Who or what's next?

What do we have to do, reinvent the wheel every generation with these frigging people?

[callous taoboy]

3. Thus creating a black market for those who want no waiting period. Brilliant plan.

[JohnnyRingo]

4. Maybe next they can pass a law that requires applicants to accept Jesus as their saviour.

I'm obviously not directly affected by this, but it appears some men revel in the power to determine the fate of women they don't even know. It seems to be a conservative trait that uses any means necessary to maintain proxy ownership of a woman's body.

This is GW Bush signing the so called "Partial Birth Abortion Act" into law:

[forty6]

19. This is a very good point, the law enforces a certain set of religious beliefs upon ALL...

the women citizens of the state. A clear and compelling violation of federal law, and the Constitution, itself, which REQUIRES a SEPARATION of religious beliefs from the actions and powers of the state. An argument that I am surprised has NOT been used in cases involving gay marriage, by the way. Religious beliefs about the nature marriage should NOT be a part of state restrictions. (Of course, this opens up polygamy to further Constitutional challenge, but arguments about the legitimacy of polygamy can be squelched by the state's right to restrict the nature of legitimacy of contracts between equal and aware, willing parties. (In other words, if each husband is allowed more than one wife, each wife would have to be equally entrusted with the SAME right... polygamy would die as a legitimate argument therein, only MEN argue for polygamy in courts!

Great point, both legally and as irony!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. These men sure spend a lot of time with their noses all up

in women's junk. Why such control freaks?

[Auntie Bush]

6. First, some poor women have to travel great distances to get an

abortion. Now they have to pay motel rents for three expensive nights to wait and maybe take taxi's to and from their required classes. Its hard to believe abortions are legal in this country. Next they will say you have to wait a week and bring two witnesses and a lawyer.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

25. Don't forget about being booed and hackled at every turn. I think it's gonna get nasty ...

no telling who will have the "list" of the women going to class for three weeks.

[Demit]

7. A sponsor has pledged private money to finance the state's legal costs?

That doesn't sound right at all.

[prairierose]

8. WEll, this was undoubtedly sponsored by one of the anit-choice groups...

They keep sticking their nose in here in SD. Almost every year there is some crazy anti-choice bill introduced or put on the ballot. So I am sure that it is one of those groups that will fund the state's legal bills for defending this new ridiculous "law". It was one of the few real objections that some people had to this and other repressive abortion laws. That it would cost the state millions to defend one of these laws.

We barely have abortion services here anyway. A Dr. flies in from another state once a week if there are women who have made appointments.

I am so tired of these people who want to move this country back to the dark ages. I have lost all patience with many people and not longer suffer fools gladly or any other way. I have started slapping them down in public whenever possible.

[Scout]

9. "...use this three-day period to make good choices"

:puke:

[LiberalFighter]

10. Are there any other medical procedures requiring a waiting period?

Are there any other medical procedures that are legislated for or against?

[alp227]

11. South Dakota Abortion Bill Signed Into Law By Governor Dennis Daugaard

Source: Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. — South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law Tuesday requiring women to wait three days after meeting with a doctor to have an abortion, the longest waiting period in the nation.

Abortion rights groups immediately said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which also requires women to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he has conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state's legal costs.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/south-dakota-abortion-bil_n_839063.html

[AtheistCrusader]

12. A private sponsor to fund the state's legal costs?

Is that even legal?

[Ilsa]

13. The "abortion counseling" will go something like this:

"Why do you want to murder your baby?
Does the daddy know you want to kill his baby?
Did you know you can get breast cancer from having an abortion?
God will send you to Hell because you broke the ten commandments.
You are a terrible person for wanting to kill your baby. You should have it and let some nice family adopt it.
At least your deformed and anencephalic (brainless) baby will have lived for awhile before dying a painful death which will make you and the baby better people."

Feel free to add on. I hate these people.

[SpankMe]

14. Sting operation needed

We need someone like a James O'Keefe on the left who'll go in with hidden cameras and document whether these counseling sessions are coercive or in any way inappropriate. I bet these sessions would be highly biased.

[Holly_Hobby]

15. Why doesn't Federal law trump State law in this instance?

Why are States able to change Federal law? Or am I misinformed?

[former9thward]

20. Other than restrictions on federal tax support for abortion there is no

federal law on abortion itself. States have to comply with Supreme Court case law, most notably Roe v. Wade. Roe has been chipped away by the Supreme Court over the years in other cases which have approved restrictions such as most recently Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007.

[SpankMe]

16. Abortion v. Guns

So, it is asserted by these "lovers of women" that these measures are *not* an undue burden for women who have a constitutional right to have an abortion.

And yet, closing the gun show loophole - or banning high capacity clips - presents a huge and insurmountable burden on gun owners' constitutional rights to bear arms.

Perfectly consistent. <insert sarcasm thingy here>

[Ter]

17. Well, to be fair, guns is specifically mentioned in the constitution

There's no way around that. As for abortion, whether you are pro-choice of pro-life, having a constitutional right to an abortion was up for debate until 1973. Having a constitutional right to an and abortion in three days is up for debate.

Personally, I think the waiting period is a bad law.

[forty6]

18. I see an ACLU challenge to this law in court is going to be required here

This legislation is a disgusting example of how white men and perhaps a few women in SD have not figured out how to live and let live, how to NOT morally judge the lives and actions of others in different circumstances.

On a legal ground, there are several avenues to making this legislation (or similar restrictions upon the actions of Americans) unconstitutional on a national basis.

This law only applied to one sex and one procedure, sexist, and arbitrary application of a law targeted to only one small subgroup.

If ALL people (men and women, of any age, in any circumstance) had to wait 3 days for a medical procedure, (from face-lift to appendectomy, etc.) then this law would pass Constitutional muster. And we would see THOUSANDS of people die from appendicitis, but it would be a fair and Constitutional law. Get the point? We HAVE to TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME in order for a law to be Constitutionally proper!

If MEN would have to wait 3 days for an operation upon their sexual organs, as part of the same law, then perhaps we could justify both sexes being subject to the same moral standards of the community with this law, not so with this case, and yes, I know that tying off the sperm bank in a man is not the same as an abortion, but some of the same process of biological baby creation is involved here.

Another ground to argue for unConstitutionality would involve the arbitrary and capricious nature of the law. The geographic location of a woman within the USA should have no effect upon her rights to proper, humane, reasonable, psychologically and medically sound treatment. This legislation singles out women in a certain state for different medical treatment. An unfair burden imposed upon Roe V Wade beneficiaries.

Better Constitutional lawyers than me can provide more sound, more compelling legal arguments against this capricious, religiously based legislation, including, most likely the very dogmatic faith-based nature of the act, which treats ALL women in that state from now-on as victims of a select set of religious beliefs, excluding all OTHER beliefs from equal consideration under that law. That's my last attempt to bring up rational arguments in a federal court, a court which would have final jurisdiction over any state law which threatens the rights of people living in the USA, no matter which state, no matter which group of people, no matter which freedom it threatens. In a nutshell, that's how absurd this legislation is!

[Solly Mack]

21. Fuck him, his "private" sponsor/money POS... and everyone who thinks like him.

[Ilsa]

22. TRMS is covering this extensively, plus what is happening at the federal level. nt

[No Elephants]

23. Life and/or health of the woman??? Some will die within 3 days.

[Maeve]

24. Gotta protect them poor stupid women from themselves! eom

[RedCloud]

26. What about God's natural abortions? How long do they wait?

[slackmaster]

27. A right delayed is a right denied.

I am opposed to a waiting period for an abortion for the same reason I am against requiring a waiting period for buying a gun.

Either you have the right to do something or you don't. If you do have the right, government has no business making you wait before exercising it.

[yardwork]

28. What about women who need the abortions for medical reasons? They have to go to class for three days

Women from all over South Dakota will have to travel across the state to get to the only city that offers abortion services, pay for a hotel for three nights, and go to class for three days? What if they have a serious medical issue that is necessitating the abortion? What if their mental health is fragile - they have to sit in class for three days and listen to biased anti-abortion crap?

Will the classes include religious instruction? Is the state of South Dakota mandating religious instruction?