Editor's note: This is the first of a two-day series looking at South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11, a proposed ban on non-medical abortions in the state. The series will look at the bill itself and University of Nebraska-Lincoln students who traveled to protest it.
Sioux Falls, S.D. - In addition to presidential considerations, voters in South Dakota this year will decide between the right to life of an unborn fetus and the personal choice and privacy of a pregnant woman.
Initiated Measure 11 would ban almost all abortions in South Dakota. It poses a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade 1973 decision, which legalized abortions in the United States.
The bill contains provisional exceptions, making it slightly different from its 2006 predecessor vetoed by South Dakotans.
The ban tries to stop non-medical abortions, said Brandi Gruis of voteyesforlife.com, the principal anti-abortion group supporting the bill.
"A panel of 11 legal experts spent a lot of time evaluating the correct way to go about writing (this bill)," she said. "Under the direction of the state attorney general, it took a very long time but they came out with a very well-written and very clear measure."
Gruis said she doesn't see the ban as an end of the procedures in South Dakota.
"We see it ending possibly 97 percent of abortions in our state," she said. "There are so few that are done for medical reasons, rape and incest. Most were done because the mother didn't want the child."
Rape or incest-related abortions happen about once every four years, said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue, a group based in Kansas.
"This voter initiative is different from the previous bill and most of the time, we don't support bans like this," she said. "The reason we support this one is because it would save the vast majority, nearly 100 percent of all babies, and we couldn't turn our back on that."
The 2006 referendum ban failed by a measure of 56 to 44 percent, said Chris Cassidy, media coordinator for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the main abortion rights group opposing the ban.
Both sides of the issue agree the question of this ban's constitutionality is important.
"Absolutely there are questions about constitutionality," Cassidy said. "It's a direct challenge to the legal precedent; it's a direct assault on Roe v. Wade."
The anti-abortion authors and their legal team included language to specifically appeal to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's swing vote. His vote might be a tie-breaker in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade if the ban is voted into law and abortion rights groups legally challenge it.
Cassidy said he got a memo from a lawyer consultant on the anti-abortion side containing this information.
"South Dakota is just a pawn in an incremental plan toward an abortion-free America," he said.
If the ban passes, it can only be deemed unconstitutional if challenged, Gruis said.
"Unconstitutional? That is a choice for Planned Parenthood. They can choose not to (challenge) that," she said.
If the South Dakota ban is successful in overturning Roe v. Wade, the decision to allow abortions will go back to individual states. Cassidy said 26 states have passed "trigger" laws in anticipation of the decision's reversal.
"If Roe v. Wade is reversed, half of America is abortion-free," he said.
Sullenger called South Dakota a "bellwether state" that other states are looking to see if the abortion ban passes.
"They would follow South Dakota's lead and attempt abortion bans. It's a really critical vote for every state in the union."
South Dakota already has the most legal restrictions on abortion access in the nation, said Megan Maas, field coordinator for the Campaign for Healthy Families.
She said Sioux Falls is the only city in South Dakota where a woman can get an abortion - after a mandatory 24-waiting period. Patients who are minors must present a parental notification, and all must review a sonogram, which is an ultrasound image.
Patients are then told getting an abortion will increase their risk of suicide, which Cassidy said is medically untrue. Then a patient has two hours to herself to contemplate her decision, he added.
"A lot of women can't afford to stay in Sioux Falls for more than 26 hours, so there's already a limitation on access," Maas said. "South Dakota has the fourth lowest abortion rate in the country: 0.1 percent of the nation's abortions."
If the ban passes, women from South Dakota may be traveling to nearby states, such as Nebraska, to get an abortion.
"People travel from one state to another all the time," Sullenger said. "If they wanted to go to another state, they're free to do that. The reason their state made it illegal was for their own protection and good. They take a risk when they do that. Laws are made for the protection of people."
Gruis said the point and goal of the ban is to end abortion as a form of birth control.
"Planned Parenthood's business is abortion," she said. "They made billions of dollars in 2007 performing abortions, some of which are paid by tax payers.
"To see their business come to an end makes them fearful. The reason they don't like this bill is that this will end 97 percent of abortions and will cut into profits."
Cassidy said both sides are preparing for the final days leading up to the election.
"The fact of the matter is the government can't cover the unique circumstances (women face)," he said. "A woman should be able to make this decision with whoever they think they should: pastors, family or friends. It shouldn't be forced on them.
"No one takes this decision lightly. It's already hard enough (to get an abortion) in South Dakota."
Jamie Klein contributed to this report
kiahhaslett@dailynebraskan.com
Be the first to comment on this article!