Planned Parenthood and ACLU File Lawsuit in South Dakota to Protect Women’s Health and Safety

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS), represented by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and joined by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit today in federal district court against a new law that severely restricts abortion access.

The lawsuit charges that HB 1217, which passed the South Dakota legislature in March and is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, is unconstitutional because it requires a woman who is seeking an abortion to first prove that she has received so-called “counseling” from an unlicensed, unaccredited and unregulated crisis pregnancy center. Further, it imposes a 72-hour mandatory delay for an abortion after a woman’s initial consultation with her doctor and requires her doctor to obtain written proof from her that she sought counseling at a crisis pregnancy center. The mandatory delay would be the longest in the nation.

“The voters of South Dakota, by resounding measures at the ballot box, twice have told their legislators that the decision to have an abortion is between a woman, her family and her doctor and the government should not intrude on that decision,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. “This law goes farther than any other in the country in intruding on the doctor-patient relationship and putting women and families at risk.”

“The Act has both the purpose and the effect of severely restricting access to health care, and violates patients’ and physicians’ First Amendment rights against compelled speech and patients’ right to privacy in their personal and medical information,” said PPFA attorney Mimi Liu.

“It is demeaning for the government to force a woman to visit a non-medical facility with a political agenda when she is making one of the most personal medical decisions of her life,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “We hope the court will stop the law from going into effect.”

In addition to the 72-hour mandatory delay and counseling requirements, the act requires a physician to identify every article that mentions any ostensible risk factor associated with abortion published in the past 40 years and to discuss with women seeking an abortion all manner of so-called risk factors and complications related to abortion discussed in these articles, no matter how questionable, out of date or refuted by the medical community they may be.

South Dakota’s abortion regulations are the most burdensome in the country. The state already has a 24-hour mandatory delay in place. In addition, a woman must be offered the opportunity to view a sonogram and her responses must be recorded as part of her permanent medical records. She must also receive a government-dictated message from her doctor that is designed to intimidate and dissuade her.

“We will muster everything in our power to counter this law and to protect the health and well-being of South Dakota’s women and families,” said Stoesz. “The voters have made their wishes clear. It’s a travesty that their lawmakers have ignored them.”

Pro-RH groups celebrate International Women’s Health Day

MORE than 10 booths from government and non-government organizations were set up inside the Davao Recreation Center Friday as RH Network Davao celebrated the 15th International Women’s Health Day.

The International Day of Action for Women’s Health was started in 1987 during the 5th International Health meeting in Costa Rica.

Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte, in her speech read by Councilor April Marie C. Dayap, said the celebration is timely in the wake of heated debates on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

“But here in Davao City, we have always advocated for the sexual and reproductive rights not only on women but of all the members of the society,” Duterte’s speech read.

She added that the fight for reproductive justice goes on until all can be assured that no woman loses her life due to abuse or sexually transmitted disease, or gives up her life as she gives life.

Lyda Canson, RH Network Davao convenor, cited the different struggles of the women and children have encountered, adding it is about time to push for the approval of the RH bill.

“Gusto ba nato magpadayon ang kalisud sa mga kababaihan labaw na ang mga nagbubuntis o ang mga pagdaghan sa mga bata nga nagasakit kay may kakulangan financially sa pamilya. Pwes, dapat na ipasa ang RH bill,” Canson said.

Different barangay women’s groups displayed their livelihood products to the public while Talikala — a center for abused women – also showcased the creations of children in their care.

Non-government organizations who were present include Gabriela, Lawig Bubai, Iwag Davao,Tambayan, Public for RH, Kaugmaon, Alagad, Luna, No to Coal-Davao, City Integrated Gender and Development Division and Catholic for RH.

The Brokenshire Women’s Center, Department of Health, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines and City Health Office set up booths to accommodate queries about family planning.

The Office of City Councilor Leah A. Librado also put up a booth to give free legal services.

Optimistic that the RH bill will be passed soon, everybody in the gymnasium showed their support in saying “RH Bill Ipasa Na. Now Na” and sang a revised version of “Lagkaw” with lyrics changed, depicting the urgency to pass the RH bill.

Guest Column: The Case for Family Planning Funding

This session we have seen an all out assault on women’s health driven by the erroneous assumption that family planning is synonymous with abortion. This narrow construction ignores the comprehensive nature of family planning, which is central to women and children’s health before, during and after pregnancy. Eliminating these services will have huge repercussions on the demand for (i.e., the cost of) state services, access to care and the number of unintended pregnancies.

Let’s be clear about what family planning actually means. According to the Department of State Health Services, the state’s family planning budget — which is a combination of state and federal dollars — helps fund more than 300 sites across the state. Most of this money goes toward reducing expenditures for Medicaid-paid births and providing reproductive health care to low-income and uninsured women who are U.S. citizens. Family planning services are offered by a range of providers and can take many forms, whether it’s providing contraception, screening for breast or cervical cancer or conducting a postpartum evaluation.

Probably the most well-known program is a family planning waiver called the Medicaid Women’s Health Program (WHP). Texas ranks highest in the nation in the number of its residents who are uninsured women between the ages of 18 to 44, creating a huge need for this program, which matches $9 from the federal government for every $1 the state contributes. During the first two years of its implementation, Texas saved $37,640,727 and served 141,506 clients. If the Legislature does not reauthorize the WHP this session, as it appears will be the case, these women will lose access to family planning and basic health services, and the state will leave significant federal dollars on the table — meaning other states will get the money set aside for Texans.

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), 26 other states had Medicaid waivers for family planning services as of June 2009, and studies comparing the various waivers have found that the WHP is structured to include several design features that are considered best practices. In fact, the LBB recommended expanding eligibility for the WHP and establishing an outreach program to encourage pregnant women in the Medicaid program to enroll before their post-partum coverage expires.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding the family planning budget cuts appeared to be an effort to defund Planned Parenthood. However, most amendments debated on the House floor would have significantly reduced family planning funding altogether for local health departments, medical schools, hospitals, and community and rural health centers. This is the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bath water.

While Planned Parenthood’s non-profit health centers do serve almost half of the women participating in the WHP, none of the funds they receive are used to pay for abortions because the law already requires that Medicaid providers must be legally separate organizations from abortion providers. To clarify this mandate, a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has defined separation requirements for Medicaid providers that include audits to ensure compliance. In addition, WHP providers are paid on a per patient, per procedure basis and are only reimbursed for certain, specified family planning healthcare services.

The fact is that Texas already has a shortage of health care providers who are willing to accept Medicaid patients and half of all births in the state are covered by Medicaid. Each Medicaid birth costs taxpayers more than $16,000 in Medicaid coverage for prenatal care, delivery and first-year health coverage for the child, while care provided through the WHP costs approximately $250 per patient.

Eliminating funds for family planning services is not a responsible or compassionate choice. It will shift the burden of care to our already overloaded local hospitals and leave the women who depend on these services with few options. Unfortunately, fewer options can mean unintended consequences for these women and their families and, ironically, unintended consequences for those pushing the funding cuts: an increase in the number of abortions.