S. Dakota Becomes Abortion Focal Point

S. Dakota Becomes Abortion Focal Point
Voters to Decide Fate of State Ban
By Peter Slevin
Copyright by The Washington Post
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A01

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Kayla Brandt had an abortion three years ago and instantly hated having done it. Now, hoping to stop other women from making the same choice, she is a public advocate for the most severe abortion ban in the nation.

"I don't want anyone to feel what I did," Brandt says.

"To think passing a law will stop abortion is incredibly naive," said Maria Bell, a physician in Sioux Falls, home to South Dakota's only abortion clinic. Her "Ask Me" button refers to emergency contraception. (By Lara Neel -- Argus Leader)
From FindLaw

Maria Bell is a Sioux Falls obstetrician-gynecologist who also joined the political fray for the first time, but on the opposite side. Appalled by the attempt to shut the state's only abortion clinic, she says she would not be able to live with herself unless she worked to overturn the law.

"To think passing a law will stop abortion is incredibly naive," Bell said.

South Dakota is the unlikely home of this year's most intense duel over abortion, a Nov. 7 referendum to decide the future of HB 1215, a measure that would institute a broad ban on the procedure. No exceptions would be allowed for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest -- abortion would be permitted only when the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Partisans across the nation are delivering money and tactical advice on an issue that has divided residents of the state. South Dakota's fight could be a harbinger of political battles across the country should the Supreme Court strike down Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

"This has become the focal point in the country for the choice debate," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is channeling cash into the campaign. "The stakes are very high, especially for us to win in November and again say America is pro-choice, America doesn't think politicians should be involved in these private decisions, and enough is enough."

A fresh poll suggests voters are inclined to oppose the law as too severe. In a late-July sounding, opponents of the ban held an eight-point lead, with 14 percent undecided.

"There's going to be a lot of money spent," said state Rep. Roger W. Hunt (R), the ban's chief sponsor, urging voters to defend the unborn. Pointing to the vivid statewide conversation over HB 1215, formally known as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, he said, "There are a lot of people who have gotten very political because of HB 1215."

People such as Brandt, a 29-year-old financial auditor, who described a period of quiet misery after an abortion about three years ago. When the doctor finished, Brandt said, she felt an emptiness that led to a long year of grief.

Later, she decided to speak out, hoping to create what she called a "haven" for women and children in South Dakota by outlawing abortion. Her smiling face now appears on the letterhead of VoteYesForLife.com, the umbrella group mobilizing support for the ban.

"I was in a relationship and panicked and got scared and ashamed, and thought an abortion was the means to fix my mistake," said Brandt, who came to see herself as a "mother who was sadly stripped of her child."

"Where's the baby's choice?" Brandt asked. "What about the life of the baby?"

The bold South Dakota strategy has energized some proponents while highlighting strategic splits in the antiabortion movement. Many committed foes, focusing on incremental steps to make abortion less accessible, believe that Roe v. Wade cannot realistically be challenged until the composition of the Supreme Court shifts further.


"To think passing a law will stop abortion is incredibly naive," said Maria Bell, a physician in Sioux Falls, home to South Dakota's only abortion clinic. Her "Ask Me" button refers to emergency contraception. (By Lara Neel -- Argus Leader)
From FindLaw

The ban is not "something we would have chosen," said Daniel S. McConchie, chief of staff of Chicago-based Americans United for Life. "To overturn Roe v. Wade , which is the goal here, you have to be able to count to five members of the court. We count five in favor of keeping Roe."

McConchie considers it unlikely that any one case -- even a near-total ban on abortions -- would force the high court to reconsider the landmark decision before the justices are ready. Nor, he believes, is such a law necessary to get the Supreme Court's attention.

Performing an abortion in South Dakota would be a felony if the mother's life is not in danger, according to the law, which declares that mother and fetus "each possess a natural and inalienable right to life." There is no exception for rape, although rape victims would be permitted to take morning-after contraceptives "prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing."

Gov. Mike Rounds (R) signed the bill into law in March, declaring that the unborn are "the most helpless persons in our society." Architects of the law never really expected it to be implemented. Instead, they figured that it would be the subject of a lawsuit that would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where they hoped it would be upheld by the overturning of Roe v. Wade .

But instead of suing to block the law, opponents are using a 19th-century provision that allows voters to overrule the legislature by referendum. Meanwhile, the law is on hold.

In a socially conservative state of 775,000 residents who twice gave George W. Bush 60 percent of the vote, abortion defenders gathered more than 38,000 signatures -- more than twice the number necessary -- to place the measure on the ballot. Supporters drew on traditional abortion rights advocates, as well as Republicans who feel the legislature is too intrusive.

Also on the Nov. 7 ballot is a constitutional amendment that would define a marriage as being between a man and a woman while prohibiting the recognition of "civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex."

Seated on a park bench, reading "When Life and Beliefs Collide," insurance company employee Laurie Harsch said the unborn must be protected. Questioning the abortion rights advocates' contention that giving a woman a right to choose is more tolerant and moral, she asked whether tolerance is always moral.

"There were people in Germany who were tolerant of what Hitler did to the Jews," said Harsch, a born-again Christian and mother of three. "I understand the people who say, 'It's my body. I can do what I want.' But I don't believe it's only their body."

Meanwhile, the abortion issue proved potent in the state's June primary. Conservative Republicans defeated four GOP state senators who had voted against the ban. One defeated incumbent later became a Democrat, and another endorsed a Democrat for the November elections.

Indeed, party labels offer only limited help in identifying opinions on abortion here. In the state House, where HB 1215 was approved 50 to 18, the primary sponsor was Hunt, a Republican. In the state Senate, where the vote was 23 to 12, the chief sponsor was Julie Bartling, a Democrat.

NARAL named Republican state Rep. Casey Murschel as its statewide executive director. Jan Nicolay, a leading spokeswoman for an abortion rights coalition called the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, spent 14 years as a Republican state lawmaker before quitting the party.

"I have never had an experience like this. There's an intensity," said Nicolay. "It's an issue that most people weren't talking about, and are now doing so."

The state's lone clinic, run by Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, is open one day a week, when a doctor flies in from Minnesota -- the organization could not find a South Dakotan willing to do elective abortions. State figures show that 814 abortions were performed in South Dakota in 2004.

A sign on the outside of the secure one-story building proclaims in bold letters: "These Doors Will Stay Open!"

A recent Mason-Dixon poll suggested that they just may. Forty-seven percent of 800 respondents said they opposed the ban, while 39 percent said they supported it. If the law had included an exception for rape and incest, the poll found, 59 percent would have favored it, with 29 percent opposed.

"If they put in an exception for rape and incest, the ban would pass, but leaving it out, they showed who they are," said Jean Beddow, a former state legislator who hosted a recent party to rally abortion rights forces. "If we lose it this fall, we're going to be in court."