Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

South Dakota Passes Anti-Abortion Bill Forcing Women To Have LATER Abortions

Posted by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:30 PM
  • 19 Replies

Women often have to drive great distances in order to obtain abortion services. They often have to arrange for people to watch their children because they have to stay overnight.  This new law will cause some women to delay their abortions even longer because not only will they have to arrange child care, they will have to save up the money for several nights at a hotel/motel on top of the cost of the procedure.  This will cause an increase in second trimester abortions.  For more information on how anti-choice laws result in more second trimester abortions, please read the following: 

Pro-Life Legislation Results in Second Trimester Abortions

The main article of this thread/post is:


South Dakota Senate Passes Bill Requiring 72 Hour Wait Before Abortion

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Senate voted Wednesday to require women to wait 72 hours before they can have abortions and to submit to counseling about why they shouldn't go through with the procedures.

The state Senate voted 21-13 in favor of the legislation, sending it to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard for approval. Daugaard, who generally opposes abortion rights, declined to tell The Associated Press if he intends to sign the bill.

"I haven't looked at it," he said, adding that he had not studied the bill earlier because of the possibility it could be amended.

About half the states, including South Dakota, make women wait 24 hours before going through with an abortion. But the 72-hour wait would be the longest in the nation, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

Under the new guidelines, a woman would have to undergo counseling at one of several state-approved "pregnancy help centers," all of which seek to persuade women not to have abortions. No other state has such a requirement, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota.

Sen. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, the legislation's main sponsor in the state Senate, said it would better protect women from being pressured into having abortions and better inform them of other options. He contends that women get little counseling at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls – the only place women can get non-emergency abortions in South Dakota – and that women only see a doctor once the procedure is performed.

"Defend the right of women to be informed and know the risk before they go forward," Novstrup said during the floor debate before the vote.

Opponents of the legislation contend it would place an undue burden on abortion seekers, violating their rights by interfering with their access to medical care, and is meant to make an already difficult choice even more so. They also predict that if signed into law, the new abortion guidelines will be challenged in court and will ultimately get overturned.

"If we send this bill out, it will not do what you want it to. This bill provides legs only to the courtroom." Republican state Sen. Joni Cutler, of Sioux Falls, warned her colleagues before they voted.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a group that supports abortion rights, might join a court challenge or refer the measure to a statewide vote Daugaard signs it into law, said Elaine Roberts, its co-chair.

Republican Sen. Deb Peters, of Hartford, said before the vote that she was troubled that women seeking abortions would have to visit pregnancy help centers.

"This bill inserts a stranger between a woman and her medical doctor," Peters said.

Leslie Unruh, the president and founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy help agency in Sioux Falls, which would be one of those approved by the state, said she thinks the bill is needed to protect women. "Women will be safer in South Dakota," said Unrah.

The South Dakota Legislature passed two measures in the past decade that would have banned nearly all abortions in attempts to generate court battles seeking to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, but voters statewide rejected those bills in 2006 and 2008.

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by Emerald Member on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:32 PM


by Ruby Member on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:33 PM


by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I just love that their idea of "helping women" is taking their rights away. 

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:36 PM

So much for "your body your choice"

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:37 PM

 hmmm. i think its a good idea, but on the other hand, who wants to talk about it? i think it would be good for teen girls. i think alot of teen girls just think if they get prego, oh well, i'll just get an abortion. but i think the counciling would be good for them before any decisions. however they should have councilors who aren't one way or the other.

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I wish these dumbasses understood what they were doing. This is a slippery slope.

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:39 PM

really this kind of crap has me seriously looking into moving to Canada

by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Quoting Sirenabella:

I just love that their idea of "helping women" is taking their rights away. 

"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say" Ralph Waldo Emerson
by on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:42 PM

I also think America is becoming more and more of a dictatorship. I think what one does to their body isnt our say,its their own.

by Crazy Chris on Mar. 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM

 Very very stupid law!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)