The full 11-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Wednesday is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging a 2005 South Dakota law (HB 1166) that would require abortion providers in the state to tell women before performing the procedure that it would "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," the New York Times reports (Saulny, New York Times, 4/11). The law, which was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R) in March 2005 and was scheduled to take effect in July 2005, requires physicians to fully inform women about risks, consequences and alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, at least two hours before performing the procedure. The law also says that women have a relationship with the fetus until birth and that the state has an interest in protecting that relationship. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota-North Dakota-South Dakota in June 2005 filed suit requesting that the law be blocked because it violates doctors' free speech rights by requiring them to provide inaccurate and ideological information to women seeking abortion. The state argues that the law would not restrict access to abortion and that the required information is accurate and supported by science. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in July 2006 issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the regulation and said the state cannot violate abortion providers' First Amendment rights by requiring them to "espouse the state's theology." A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court in October 2006 ruled 2-1 to uphold Schreier's ruling and sent the case back to her for a final opinion (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/12). The court is not expected to rule on the case until late summer or early fall, the Times reports (New York Times, 4/11). According to the AP/Fargo Forum, the case represents the first time a federal appeals court will address whether abortion terminates a human life, increases the woman's risk for depression and suicide, and ends a relationship between the woman and the fetus (Wittenauer, AP/Fargo Forum, 4/10).

Reaction
Mimi Liu, an attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that the group was "surprised" that the court decided to rehear the case but added that "we believe that the law is on our side as the panel already found." South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long (R) said the appeal is based off the dissent on the three-judge panel, adding that the phrase "human being" in the law is not meant to be a value judgment (New York Times, 4/11). Long said the court could strike down parts of the law it finds unconstitutional rather than striking down the whole law. He added that if the court strikes down only parts of the law, it would be a signal to other legislators who oppose abortion rights to draft laws more carefully to avoid the possibility of them being overturned in legal challenges. Planned Parenthood has said that similar legislation could be adopted in other states if it loses this case (AP/Fargo Forum, 4/10).

"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.