June 2008

8th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Planned Parenthood

(St. Paul, MN) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis today issued a 7 to 4 ruling against Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, a case challenging a South Dakota law that would have required doctors to give ideologically charged, inaccurate information to women seeking abortion care. This case was brought by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS).

Planned Parenthood challenged the law in federal district court to protect women in South Dakota who rely on Planned Parenthood for abortion care. The lawsuit was brought on a number of bases, including that it violates doctors’ and patients’ constitutional rights by interfering in the doctor/patient relationship.

“We have always believed and worked hard to ensure that every woman has the best, medically accurate information so that she can make the right decision for her unique circumstances.  But this law is interference, not information,” said PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz.

“Nowhere in the United States is it more difficult to obtain an abortion than in South Dakota. This ruling adds yet another barrier between women and the safe, legal reproductive health care they need,” said Stoesz.

South Dakota has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation and one of the lowest rates of abortion in the U.S. No abortion can be performed in the state without a 24-hour  waiting  period, mandatory education about the woman's options, parental notification in the case of a minor and the review of a sonogram.

Passed by the South Dakota legislature in 2005, this law was pushed through by the same politicians and special interest groups who tried to ban all abortions in South Dakota in 2006. In a critical victory for women’s health, the people of South Dakota voted down the dangerous ban by a margin of 12 points in the November 2006 elections.

Another abortion ban, crafted by these same special interest groups specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade, is slated for the ballot in South Dakota this November.

“Today’s decision places South Dakota politicians between women and the doctors who care for them by requiring health care providers to deliver a state-mandated ideology,” Stoesz said. “Planned Parenthood’s top priorities are the health and safety of our patients, and we will continue to provide the best health care possible under the ruling.”

“This case is about whether women in South Dakota should be able to make personal health care decisions with their doctors – free from political interference,” said Mimi Liu, PPFA Staff Attorney. “Planned Parenthood asked the court to strike down this unconstitutional law and protect the doctor-patient relationship from government interference and state-mandated ideology.”

Prior federal court rulings have supported Planned Parenthood’s position, and the district court originally concluded that the law is likely unconstitutional and granted a preliminary injunction against it. South Dakota and two intervenors appealed that decision, and, on October 30, 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit again ruled 2-1 to affirm the preliminary injunction. The State and the intervenors then asked that the panel’s decision be reviewed by all the judges of the Eighth Circuit, in an “en banc” review. 

June 6, 2008

Planned Parenthood Celebrates 43rd Anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court's Landmark Birth Control Ruling

St. Paul — On June 7, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) will celebrate the 43rd anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.  This landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision paved the way for recognition that birth control is basic health care for women.  The 1965 ruling marked the first time that the Supreme Court recognized that women’s reproductive decisions are protected by the Constitution and paved the way for the almost universal acceptance of contraception that now exists in this country.  However, many women still face barriers in accessing affordable health care, including access to birth control and family planning services.

"Griswold v. Connecticut is a powerful reminder about the importance of access to birth control," said PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz. "Four decades later, too few women and couples have comprehensive, affordable access to contraception and family planning services.  As the region’s leading reproductive health care advocate and provider, Planned Parenthood knows that prevention is the key to building strong, healthy families.”

Griswold v. Connecticut was the first in a long line of Supreme Court cases that established the constitutional right of women to plan and space healthy, wanted pregnancies, including Eisenstadt v. Baird, which extended the right to use birth control to unmarried women, and Roe v. Wade, which guarantees women the right to choose abortion free from unwarranted governmental intrusion. 

“Birth control is basic health care.  It is imperative that politicians support programs that provide access to affordable contraception for low-income families, ensure that insurance companies cover the cost of contraceptives, and restore access to low-cost birth control to universities and safety-net health care providers,” said Stoesz.