Group disputes Planned Parenthood's standing in case
Posted: Monday, April 02, 2007
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to represent the rights of women seeking abortions in its challenge of a South Dakota law that would require doctors to tell those women that abortions end a human life, a conservative group argues.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with a federal appeals court, the Family Research Council says Planned Parenthood should have no legal standing to represent women's rights in the legal battle because it stands to profit financially from performing abortions.
"Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women would support a woman having access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision," Jordan Lorence, a lawyer representing the Family Research Council, said in a statement. "Instead, the abortionists argue adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies."
Lorence, of the Alliance Defense Fund, filed the brief last week on behalf of the Family Research Council.
Tim Branson, a Minneapolis lawyer who represents Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, said many court rulings have upheld Planned Parenthood's legal standing to represent women.
"We believe we have standing not only to represent our physicians but also our patients. There are lots of court cases that have so held," Branson told The Associated Press.
A federal judge and a three-judge appeals panel have ruled that Planned Parenthood does have standing to represent women's rights in the legal challenge. The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear the case April 11 in St. Louis, and the court has not indicated whether it will consider the Family Research Council's argument.
Written arguments filed for the rehearing have focused mainly on whether the state can make doctors tell women seeking abortions that the procedure will end the life of a human being.
The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling in October, upheld a lower court's order preventing South Dakota from enforcing the law while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality continues.
But the full appeals court decided in January to take another look at the case and decide whether the state will continue to be blocked from enforcing the law, which tests the limits of what a state can require doctors to tell women before they get abortions.
The informed consent law, passed by the Legislature in 2005, would make doctors tell women that abortions end human lives and may later cause serious psychological problems for women who have abortions. A woman also would have to be told she has a legal relationship with her unborn child and that relationship would be ended by an abortion.
The law provides that before an abortion can be done, a doctor would have to tell a woman that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, argues that the law violates the free-speech rights of doctors and could require them to tell women things that the doctors do not believe.
The state contends that the required information is medically accurate and supported by science. State lawyers have said the law would not curb reasonable access to abortion in South Dakota.
In written arguments filed for the April 11 hearing, the state argues that the use of the term "human being" is constitutional and not misleading or false. The requirement would not violate the free-speech rights of doctors, but would require them to give women correct information, the state says.
"That is, they should provide their patients with an accurate description of what they are aborting," the state's written brief says.
Planned Parenthood's written arguments say use of the term "human being" would be unconstitutional. The law could require doctors to convey a message that is ideological, misleading or untrue, and doctors could have trouble telling women they disagree with the statements required by the law, the organization contends.
If the state is allowed to tell women that abortion ends the life of a human being, it might next try to require that doctors tell women that abortion will murder a fetus, Planned Parenthood says.
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City issued an order preventing the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit proceeds. She has delayed a final ruling in the lawsuit while the appeals court considers her original ruling.
The three-judge panel's ruling said Schreier was correct in blocking the South Dakota law because prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings have declared that there is no medical, scientific or moral consensus on when life begins.
The appeals panel said the Supreme Court has allowed states to require that abortion providers give women information on the nature of the abortion procedure and health risks. But the nation's highest court has never said laws could force unwilling speakers, such as doctors, to express a particular viewpoint about abortion, two of the judges said.
The appeals panel also said Supreme Court opinions have prevented states from putting an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion before the point at which a fetus could live outside the womb, so the South Dakota law could be unconstitutional if it placed an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with a federal appeals court, the Family Research Council says Planned Parenthood should have no legal standing to represent women's rights in the legal battle because it stands to profit financially from performing abortions.
"Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women would support a woman having access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision," Jordan Lorence, a lawyer representing the Family Research Council, said in a statement. "Instead, the abortionists argue adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies."
Lorence, of the Alliance Defense Fund, filed the brief last week on behalf of the Family Research Council.
Tim Branson, a Minneapolis lawyer who represents Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, said many court rulings have upheld Planned Parenthood's legal standing to represent women.
"We believe we have standing not only to represent our physicians but also our patients. There are lots of court cases that have so held," Branson told The Associated Press.
A federal judge and a three-judge appeals panel have ruled that Planned Parenthood does have standing to represent women's rights in the legal challenge. The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear the case April 11 in St. Louis, and the court has not indicated whether it will consider the Family Research Council's argument.
Written arguments filed for the rehearing have focused mainly on whether the state can make doctors tell women seeking abortions that the procedure will end the life of a human being.
The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling in October, upheld a lower court's order preventing South Dakota from enforcing the law while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality continues.
But the full appeals court decided in January to take another look at the case and decide whether the state will continue to be blocked from enforcing the law, which tests the limits of what a state can require doctors to tell women before they get abortions.
The informed consent law, passed by the Legislature in 2005, would make doctors tell women that abortions end human lives and may later cause serious psychological problems for women who have abortions. A woman also would have to be told she has a legal relationship with her unborn child and that relationship would be ended by an abortion.
The law provides that before an abortion can be done, a doctor would have to tell a woman that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, argues that the law violates the free-speech rights of doctors and could require them to tell women things that the doctors do not believe.
The state contends that the required information is medically accurate and supported by science. State lawyers have said the law would not curb reasonable access to abortion in South Dakota.
In written arguments filed for the April 11 hearing, the state argues that the use of the term "human being" is constitutional and not misleading or false. The requirement would not violate the free-speech rights of doctors, but would require them to give women correct information, the state says.
"That is, they should provide their patients with an accurate description of what they are aborting," the state's written brief says.
Planned Parenthood's written arguments say use of the term "human being" would be unconstitutional. The law could require doctors to convey a message that is ideological, misleading or untrue, and doctors could have trouble telling women they disagree with the statements required by the law, the organization contends.
If the state is allowed to tell women that abortion ends the life of a human being, it might next try to require that doctors tell women that abortion will murder a fetus, Planned Parenthood says.
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City issued an order preventing the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit proceeds. She has delayed a final ruling in the lawsuit while the appeals court considers her original ruling.
The three-judge panel's ruling said Schreier was correct in blocking the South Dakota law because prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings have declared that there is no medical, scientific or moral consensus on when life begins.
The appeals panel said the Supreme Court has allowed states to require that abortion providers give women information on the nature of the abortion procedure and health risks. But the nation's highest court has never said laws could force unwilling speakers, such as doctors, to express a particular viewpoint about abortion, two of the judges said.
The appeals panel also said Supreme Court opinions have prevented states from putting an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion before the point at which a fetus could live outside the womb, so the South Dakota law could be unconstitutional if it placed an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 2 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
med student wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:27 AM:
lifer wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:25 AM: