A judge will listen Monday to arguments for and against an injunction against the new 72-hour waiting period and mandatory counseling law in South Dakota until a ruling is given on the constitutionality of the law. Without an injunction, the new rules will go into effect on July 1st, making South Dakota women seeking abortion subject to the longest waiting periods in the country.
Before getting an abortion, a woman will first need to visit the doctor who would be providing the service, then wait 72 hours after that first appointment before having the procedure. In the meantime, she must visit one of three “pregnancy counseling centers” in the state that have registered to “counsel” women to decide if they are being coerced into an abortion, and ostensibly offer assistance if she will agree to give birth.
But what exactly will happen during those counseling sessions? The law doesn’t provide any guidelines, and the centers themselves are being very closed-lipped.
The new law provides little detailed guidance on how counseling sessions would be conducted. The Alpha Center declined a request by The Associated Press to interview counselors or see guidelines for counseling sessions, citing its intention to join the legal defense of the counseling law.
But during a facility tour, Unruh described staff procedures. In a room where ultrasounds are done, posters around the examination table show paintings of fetuses and describe what a fetus can do at various stages of development.
Unruh said a counseling session mostly deals with finding solutions to problems faced by pregnant women. A counselor can refer women to services that help them find or keep jobs, get back into school or get free medical care, she said. Women also can talk to others who’ve had abortions.
The legislature is adamantly against women being coerced into abortions, but have absolutely no concern about passing laws meant to coerce them into carrying a pregnancy to term or bearing a child they do not want or can not afford.
Illinois is one of a handful of states that ban so-called gay conversion therapy. Lawmakers in four states—California, Oregon, Vermont, and New Jersey—along with Washington, D.C. have passed such bans.
A group of pastors filed a lawsuit last week arguing an Illinois law that bans mental health providers from engaging in so-called gay conversion therapy unconstitutionally infringes on rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
The Illinois legislature passed the Youth Mental Health Protection Act, which went into effect on January 1. The measure bans mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts or so-called conversion therapy with a minor.
The pastors in their lawsuit argue the enactment of the law means they are “deprived of the right to further minister to those who seek their help.”
While the pastors do not qualify as mental health providers since they are neither licensed counselors nor social workers, the pastors allege that they may be liable for consumer fraud under Section 25 of the law, which states that “no person or entity” may advertise or otherwise offer “conversion therapy” services “in a manner that represents homosexuality as a mental disease, disorder, or illness.”
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
The pastors’ lawsuit seeks an order from a federal court in Illinois exempting pastoral counseling from the law. The pastors believe that “the law should not apply to pastoral counseling which informs counselees that homosexuality conduct is a sin and disorder from God’s plan for humanity,” according to a press release issued by the pastors’ attorneys.
Illinois is one of a handful of states that ban gay “conversion therapy.” Lawmakers in four states—California, Oregon, Vermont, and New Jersey—along with Washington, D.C. have passed such bans. None have been struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court this year declined to take up a case challenging New Jersey’s “gay conversion therapy” ban on First Amendment grounds.
The pastors say the Illinois law is different. The complaint alleges that the Illinois statute is broader than those like it in other states because the prohibitions in the law is not limited to licensed counselors, but also apply to “any person or entity in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” which they claim affects clergy.
The pastors allege that the law is not limited to counseling minors but “prohibits offering such counseling services to any person, regardless of age.”
Aside from demanding protection for their own rights, the group of pastors asked the court for an order “protecting the rights of counselees in their congregations and others to receive pastoral counseling and teaching on the matters of homosexuality.”
“This is an essential human right. However, this law undermines the dignity and integrity of those who choose a different path for their lives than politicians and activists prefer,” he continued.
“Gay conversion therapy” bans have gained traction after Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager, committed suicide following her experience with so-called conversion therapy.
Before taking her own life, Alcorn posted on Reddit that her parents had refused her request to transition to a woman.
“The[y] would only let me see biased Christian therapists, who instead of listening to my feelings would try to change me into a straight male who loved God, and I would cry after every session because I felt like it was hopeless and there was no way I would ever become a girl,” she wrote of her experience with conversion therapy.
An anti-choice group has announced plans to file a lawsuit and launch a public protest over Chicago’s nearly seven-year-old “bubble zone” ordinance for patients seeking care at local abortion clinics.
The Pro-Life Action League, an anti-choice group based in Chicago, announced on its website that its lawyers at the Thomas More Society would file the lawsuit this week.
City officials in October 2009 passed the ordinance with nearly two-thirds of the city aldermen in support. The law makes it illegal to come within eight feet of someone walking toward an abortion clinic once that person is within 50 feet of the entrance, if the person did not give their consent.
Harassment of people seeking abortion care has been well documented. A 2013 survey from the National Abortion Federation found that 92 percent of providers had a patient entering their facility express personal safety concerns.
The ordinance targets people seeking to pass a leaflet or handbill or engaging in “oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way.” The regulation bans the use of force, threat of force and physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or health-care facility.
The Pro-Life Action League lamented on its website that the law makes it difficult for anti-choice sidewalk counselors “to reach abortion-bound mothers.” The group suggested that lawmakers created the ordinance to create confusion and that police have repeatedly violated counselors’ First Amendment rights.
“Chicago police have been misapplying it from Day One, and it’s caused endless problems for our faithful sidewalk counselors,” the group said.
The League said it would protest and hold a press conference outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic in the city’s Old Town neighborhood.
Julie Lynn, a Planned Parenthood of Illinois spokesperson, told Rewire in an email that the health-care provider is preparing for the protest.
“We plan to have volunteer escorts at the health center to make sure all patients have safe access to the entrance,” Lynn said.
Pam Sutherland, vice president of public policy and education for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, told the Chicago Tribune back then that the health-care provider expected the city’s bubble zone to be challenged following the 2014 decision.
But in an effort to avoid legal challenges, Chicago city officials had based its bubble zone law on a Colorado law that created an eight-foot no-approach zone within 100 feet of all health-care facilities, according to the Tribune. Sidewalk counselor Leila Hill and others challenged that Colorado law, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it in 2000.