Media Examine State Ballot Initiatives Seen As Potential Challenges To Roe

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 21 Oct 2008 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The Christian Science Monitor on Friday examined how ballot initiatives in South Dakota, California and Colorado related to abortion rights could have "profound implications for the national debate on the issue" and lead to direct challenges of Roe v. Wade. According to the Monitor, the California voters are seeing the third effort in four years to enact a law requiring parental notification before a minor can have an abortion. The South Dakota measure would ban abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a pregnant woman, while the measure in Colorado would amend the state constitution to define the term "person" to include a fertilized egg. The measures in South Dakota and Colorado are particularly far-reaching and have been "unusually divisive among the antiabortion community," providing "a window into the direction that the abortion conversation is headed," the Monitor reports. Antiabortion rights groups "have been far from uniform in their support" of the South Dakota and Colorado measures, "often questioning the timing and legal wisdom of bringing such a direct challenge" to Roe, according to the Monitor.

In South Dakota, a strongly conservative state, the proposed abortion ban "would seem like a no-brainer," but voters rejected a similar measure two years ago. Polling data at the time revealed that many voters wanted to see exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the pregnant woman, which have been included in this year's measure (Paulson, Christian Science Monitor, 10/20). According to an AP/Google.com examination of the South Dakota imitative, opponents of the measure, including several physician and health care groups, argue that the measure's exceptions are too narrowly defined and could "jeopardize the patient-doctor relationship because physicians could be criminally charged for exceeding its bounds." Supporters, including more than 40 state and national organizations, say the legal concerns are unfounded. According to supporter Patti Giebink, a former abortion provider who is now chair of VoteYesForLife.com, physicians who perform abortions would not have to fear legal ramifications as long as they abide by standard medical practices (Walker, AP/Google.com, 10/18).

Opinion Piece

In a Salon opinion piece, Tracy Clark-Flory discussed an internal memo by lawyers at South Dakota's Sanford Hospital -- which does not perform elective abortions -- that concluded that the ban's exception for health of the mother "imposes a standard that is not clearly defined." As such, it could "require a physician to choose between possibly committing a felony or subjecting a pregnant woman to a higher degree of medical risk than what would otherwise be clinically desirable." According to Clark-Flory, the hospital's memo "isn't aimed at defeating the ban and broadly protecting women's right to choose." Rather, "if anything, it's a defense of the hospital's current policy, which already restricts abortion to cases where the mother's health is threatened." The attorneys' findings refute claims by the ballot initiatives supporters that the measure is "more moderate, more reasonable" than the attempted abortion ban two years ago, Clark-Flory writes, adding, "Note to the ban's supporters: You might want to adjust the sheep's clothing; your fur is showing" (Clark-Flory, Salon, 10/17).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.