The primary struggle for reproductive choice has shifted to
the state level, with new legislation limiting access to reproductive
health care traveling from state to state until enough momentum
develops to bring it to the national arena. Many
states currently have restrictions on abortion that could
result in outright bans if Roe v. Wade is overturned. In such
a climate, we need healthy state organizations to stop each
new threat as it arises. RCRC works at the state level with
our affiliates. We currently have affiliates in 25 states.
State affiliates work together with people of all faiths to
protect reproductive choice. Click here
to learn more.
South Dakota
On March 6, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) of South Dakota signed a
bill into law that will prohibit all abortions in the state
except if a woman is dying. The law makes South Dakota the
first state to ban all abortions except if a doctor decides
the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life. Doctors
performing an abortion would not be charged with a crime as
long as they make "reasonable medical efforts" to
"preserve both the life of the mother and the life of
her unborn child." Under changes made by the state Senate
Affairs Committee, the bill states that "a pregnant mother
and her unborn child each possess a natural and inalienable
right to life" and due process under the South Dakota
Constitution.
Planned Parenthood has said it will immediately file suit
to stop it. Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in
South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each
year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota.
Supporters of the bill said it was designed as a direct challenge
to Roe. They said the timing is right to challenge the Roe
decision, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. Both have
said they oppose Roe v. Wade. This spring, the Supreme Court
will hear another challenge to Roe v. Wade, the Federal Abortion
Ban ("Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003"), which
is expected to reveal the extent to which the high court,
with the two new Bush appointees, will restrict abortion rights.
In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic holding
of Roe v. Wade--that a woman's health and life must be protected
in any law on abortion--in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but
left open the way for restrictions. Since then, states have
passed dozens of restrictions involving mandatory notification
and counseling. The South Dakota law concludes that life begins
at conception based on medical advances over the past three
decades. Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions
to specifically protect the health of the woman, or in cases
of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment
to put the proposal in the hands of voters.
Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether
it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation
would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An
anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray
the costs of litigation.
Other States
State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and Missippi introduced measures similar to South
Dakota's this year.
President Bush: Pro-Life?
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan last
week suggested that President Bush might not support the South
Dakota ban. He did not say the president opposes the ban,
but he did say that the president is "pro-life with three
exceptions": rape, incest, and a womana's life. The last
exception is the only one allowed under the South Dakota bill.
Missouri
The Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
is challenging the state's new teen endangerment law. In an
increasingly familiar legislative action, the state targeted
clergy, healthcare providers, and other trusted adults who
help teens who are considering an abortion. Often, these teens
come from abusive homes and cannot, for good reason, involve
a parent in their decision. Although a state court upheld
the law on November 18, an injunction bars its enforcement.
RCRC clergy who provide "all-options" counseling
have joined with Planned Parenthood in challenging the constitutionality
of the law. The Missouri RCRC argues that the intent of the
law is to intimidate clergy and healthcare providers who care
for teens.
Reverend Rebecca Turner, executive director of the Missouri
RCRC and a trained "all-options" counselor, points
out that the language of the Missouri law is so vague that
it could apply to anyone who talks to teens about abortion.
It could even apply to a person who tells a young woman where
to find a clinic that provides reproductive health services.
"This law puts a frightening chill on freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, and the sanctity of the relationship
between clergy and congregant," Reverend Turner says.
"Some teens cannot talk with their parents about these
sensitive issues, and they turn to their trusted clergy for
support," said Reverend Turner. "Judge Judge Charles
Atwell of the Jackson County State Circuit Court Atwell agreed
that this law raises serious concerns about whether our clergy
members can provide trusted and confidential support to teens
without fear of being sued.”
In 1991, the Missouri RCRC originated the All-Options Clergy
Counseling program, which trains clergy of all faiths to provide
counseling that helps women to explore their options in the
context of their faith. The program has been adopted throughout
the country by Religious Coalition state affiliates. In Missouri,
clergy who are Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, United
Church of Christ, United Methodist, Southern Baptist, American
Baptist, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Reform Jewish,
Conservative Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist have received training
as all-options counselors.
Learn about the Missouri
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
January 11, 2006
Kansas
A federal trial that could result in criminal prosecution
of minors who seek birth control or treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases is underway in Kansas. The attorney general
of that state had been trying to enforce a legal opinion that
would require health care workers and counselors to report
teens younger than 16 who are suspected of being involved
in sexual activity, even if it is consensual with someone
of the same age. Evidence of sexual activity would include
seeking contraception, having an STD or becoming pregnant.
In Kansas, it is a crime to engage in sexual activity with
a teen younger than sixteen.
A U.S. District judge had issued an injunction on the opinion
in July 2004, saying that full arguments needed to be heard
in the case before such a rule could be enforced. A U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals recently ruled a minor's interest in protecting
their sexual privacy is overridden by the state's interest
in protecting public health and the minor's own best interests.
The Court of Appeals ruling allowd the federal trial to begin.
The law, which prosecutors say will alert authorities to
incidences of child abuse, may have dire consequences for
teens. First, they will be less likely to seek treatment for
disease, prevention of pregnancy, or prenatal care. They may
not talk to a doctor or counselor
if abuse is involved for fear of being prosecuted themselves.
Doctors and others who fail to report suspected incidences
of sexual activity could face a $1000 fine and up to six months
in jail.
February 6, 2005
|
