Reproductive Rights Attacks Gather Force at State and Federal Level

By Campbell Roth, Publications Coordinator

October 1, 2005

Reproductive rights supporters across the country are feeling the heat this year, as attacks on abortion laws arose in 20 states and the Supreme Court prepares to weigh the constitutionality of a federal abortion procedure ban.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Oct. 6 —just days after the start of the high court's new term —in National Abortion Federation v. Gonzalez, to rule on whether a 2003 federal law banning so-called "partial-birth abortions" is unconstitutional. The ACLU will represent NAF and argue that the law — which does not provide an exception in cases where the health of the woman is at stake-is vague and overreaching. The law was previously struck down by federal courts in Nebraska, New York and California. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Bush Administration, filed a brief on Monday urging the Supreme Court to overturn the circuit court's decision, reinstating the ban. A similar federal ban was overturned by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart.

In California, an initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that would amend the state constitution, requiring abortion providers to notify parents and guardians of unmarried minors 48 hours before the procedure. Last week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his support of "the concept" of the amendment, Proposition 73, which would also require abortion providers to keep statistics on the number of abortions performed on minors.

A federal court in Cincinnati issued a temporary restraining order to block an Ohio law that would require women seeking abortions to meet with a doctor at least 24 hours before the procedure to hear a description of the process, risks and alternatives. The law, which was passed in 1998 but never enforced due to an immediate appeal, also requires unmarried minors to obtain parental consent before seeking abortions. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the injunction on Sept. 22 and will rule "in the near future" on whether to continue blocking the law.

In Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law on Sept. 15 requiring doctors who provide abortions to have hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the procedure which offers gynecological and obstetric care. This would limit the number of doctors who could perform abortions to those within 30 miles of a hospital that would grant such privileges, which eliminates many Catholic-run facilities, and in fact put a halt to abortions in Springfield, Mo.for several days, until an federal judge, Nanette Laughrey, granted a temporary injunction pending a challenge to the law.

On another Missouri law, women and girls (Mo. also has a parental consent law) saw a temporary reprieve when a state judge granted a temporary restraining order against a new law that allows a civil lawsuit against anyone who helps a minor obtain an abortion out of state. Judge Charles Atwell granted the temporary measure, requested by Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, on the basis that the law is "potentially void for vagueness." A hearing to make the injunction permanent is pending.

Three states enacted laws or expanded an existing law requiring a delay of abortion procedures. Georgia and Oklahoma passed laws requiring a woman to delay her abortion for an established period, while abortion providers in South Dakota are required to tell a woman in writing, at least two hours before the abortion, that the abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and could produce adverse mental health outcomes and death to the woman.

Legislators in South Dakota are already prepared in the event the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade: The state passed a bill to outlaw abortion "on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortions at all stages of pregnancy."

The attacks at the state and federal level will continue, and as George W. Bush leaves his mark on the Supreme Court, we may not be able to rely on the High Court to protect reproductive rights.