By Dave Andrusko
Pro-life advocates in South Dakota had waited patiently for almost a decade for a positive legal response to HB 1217, a law passed in 2011,which among things required that a pregnant woman consult with a pregnancy help center, ensuring that she had all facts available, before deciding whether to abort her unborn child.
But with Judge Karen Schreier [a Clinton appointee] involved, the chances were slim to none, as NRL News Today has outlined on many occasions. True to form, last Friday Judge Schreier refused to dissolve the injunction she’d issued in June 2011 that blocked the consultation component. Fortunately, the three-day wait period eventually became law and remains in effect.
Pro-life Gov. Governor Kristi Noem immediately announced the state of South Dakota would appeal the decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“All life is precious. Mothers should have the opportunity to hear all relevant information before they are faced with the ‘choice’ of whether to end their unborn child’s life,” said Gov. Noem. “I look forward to the day when all life – born and unborn – is protected by law. Given that the US Supreme Court will soon decide on the constitutionality of prohibiting abortion before ‘viability,’ we are asking the 8th Circuit to recognize that the people’s legislators should have the ability to pass pro-life laws.”
She added, “Today’s decision by the District Court [Judge Schreier] refused to dissolve the injunction, so the law passed by the people’s representatives is suspended until a final court decision is rendered. In doing so, the Court rejected the will of the people when it comes to protecting unborn life.”
Judge Schreier’s 30-page decision was pro forma in every sense.
She tells us that “In the order granting preliminary injunction [handed down in 2011], the court… analyzed whether the pregnancy health center requirement operate[s] as a substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion ‘in a large fraction of the cases in which [it] is relevant,’ ” and is therefore invalid” [quoting another decision which quoted the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision]. She also concluded the requirement “implicate[d] pregnant women’s free speech rights.”
Judge Schreier concluded the answer on both counts then and now was yes. Her conclusion read
No legal or factual change since the court’s preliminary injunction in 2011 warrants dissolution of the preliminary injunction of the pregnancy help center requirement. It continues to likely infringe on women’s right to free speech secured in the First Amendment, and it presents an undue burden on a woman’s right to access abortion.