Press Release in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds
October 2, 2007
This morning SUNN has received a press release from Marlene Goldenberg in the case of Planed Parenthood V. Rounds. She is attempting to make a case for the court to hear her client’s case. This week is when the Supreme Court will announce which cases will be heard in this term.
The full text can be found after the break
Marlene Goldenberg
On behalf of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
In 2005, South Dakota passed House Bill 1166, modifying the 1993 version. The addition to the bill contained new mandatory disclosures that are required to be read and signed by a woman seeking an abortion. These new statements, however, overstep the boundaries of the Constitution.
The contents of the disclosures include information that a mother will be terminating the life of a separate, living being, and that the mother will be terminating her constitutional rights to her relationship with the unborn baby by having the abortion. [1]
After examining the case, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that the laws were unconstitutional.[2] Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota immediately intervened, arguing that the new disclosures violated a physician’s right to free speech (the First Amendment) and a patient’s right to due process (the Fourteenth Amendment). [3]
Fortunately, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Planned Parenthood in its ruling, but the State of South Dakota has not stopped there. They are determined to hinder a woman’s right to choose.
Cases similar to this one are emerging throughout the country and it is time for the Court to draw a firm line between morality and constitutionality. While neutral and informative facts are permitted to be distributed and/or read to a patient seeking an abortion, the accuracy of these statements must be guaranteed and fully accepted within the scientific community.
Just as the government has no power to advocate a certain religion, states’ powers do not extend to promoting certain lines of moral thought. However it appears that this precedent has not been firmly set, as laws such as House Bill 1166 are still permitted to pass through state legislatures without sufficient opposition in the name of the Constitution.
It is imperative that the Supreme Court hears this case and that the public immediately begin to rally behind the cause. We cannot permit states to chip away at Roe v. Wade. A woman’s right to choose must be preserved.
[1] Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
[2] Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
[3] Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
The full text can be downloaded here.
