1. South Dakota, ABORT MISSION! By Jocelyn Karlan and Rebecca Rosen

2. Those South Dakotans…  Almost 89% are white  About 86% are Christians  Generally Republican  has not supported Democratic presidential candidate since 1964  Economy based on agriculture The only thing worth seeing in SD

3. What’s Your Issue!?  The most significant modern political issues of South Dakota are the legality of the state lottery, the low rankings in education finance, and abortion  Surprisingly 48% of voters supported medicinal marijuana and gay marriage in 2006 Look at all those R’s!

4. The South Dakota Abortion Bill (2006)  States that it is a felony for doctors to perform any abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman  No exception though for rape or incest

5. Planed Parenthood v. Casey (1992)  5 provisions of abortion regulation being challenged  1. informed consent (doctors must explain abortion to patient)  2. spousal notification  3. parental consent (for minors)  4. 24 hour waiting period (between consulting doctor and actual abortion)  5. reporting requirements on abortion facilities

6. What Went Down  In the case, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to uphold Roe v. Wade and oppose the new Pennsylvania state law that restricted abortions

7. Who’s Involved?  1 st direct challenge of Roe v. Wade was expected to be a pro-life victory  Only 2 obvious supporting judges at start of case  Justices Souter and Kennedy changed sides to support Roe  Sandra Day O’Connor changed to become strong supporter of Roe I’m Sandra Day O’Connor and I promote the principle of undue burden! Wanna know what that is? Proceed to the next slide!

8. What is Undue Burden?  The concept of undue burden is this: a state cannot regulate abortion to such an extent that it completely interferes with a woman’s right to an abortion  PROBLEM! This lowered the standard for pro- choice support in that regulation and interference was legalized, as long as it didn’t create and “undue burden”  South Dakota Law WAS imposing an undue burden by banning abortions all together

9. A Victory for Abortion Rights?  Yes, the Casey case did support Roe v. Wade as it permitted certain abortions and supported the 14 th Amendment’s due process clause  No, the undue burden principle was ambiguous  1. allowed for regulation while creating opportunity to find loopholes in legality  2. allowed regulation: shortened trimester period, upheld waiting period, upheld informed consent– SOME WOMEN might see this as burdensome  Created “procedural hurdles” in seeking an abortion She DEFINITELY does not want states to impose an undue burden

10. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)  Missouri Law created mandate restricting the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing or counseling abortions  Supreme Court voted that the law WAS constitutional, with strong support from O’Connor who explained that the law does not cause an undue burden There was no undue burden caused by limiting state funding because any woman could still receive an abortion through private funding. Get it?

11. South Dakota vs. Missouri  Both the Missouri Law and South Dakota Law were attacks on Roe v Wade  Both disallow any situational exceptions  Only difference is that Missouri Law is limited to state funding regulation, whereas South Dakota is universal regulation For Example: according the MO law, if a poor woman could not privately afford an abortion, she could not turn to the state for assistance She cannot afford an abortion. Will the state help her? NO!

12. Stenberg vs. Cahart (2000)  Nebraska Law made it illegal to perform a partial-birth abortion without any exception for health of the mother  Supreme Court Struck Down the Law  Win for Roe v Wade unlike Planned v. Casey or Webster v Reproductive By completely illegalizing partial-birth abortions, the Nebraska Law made doctors constantly afraid of being sued by the state for performing an abortion. Causing such fear is an UNDUE BURDEN! This is similar to South Dakota Law in that both produce an undue burden that is eventually struck down

13. Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro- Choice America “When you seen them [i.e. The states] have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter.” This creates an issue of Federalism vs. morality

14. What are you going to do, Senator? I’m gonna stick by States’ Rights! 1.States are more responsible for my personal issues because they have a smaller constituency 2.The local electorate can help support the ideals and opinions felt in a specific county or region, whereas demographics on a national level are just too diverse 3.I might be pro-choice, but the state comes first Morals or Bust! 1.I am willing to rely on the federal government because federalism protects states rights while also taking into consideration the greater benefit of the nation 2.I am pro-choice, and that overrides my loyalty to my state What happens if you are pro-choice but also a states’ rightist? Do you support federal intervention? THE VERDICT: We feel that personal passions or morals will outweigh loyalty to the state. People are often influenced by tradition and religion, and will fight even harder to support morality

15. What eventually happened in South Dakota?  The original bill passed both the House and Senate of the SD Legislature  Governor Mike Rounds revised the bill and sent it back to the legislature for approval  The House passed the revised bill  The Senate State Affairs Committee voted down the measure 8-1. Even supporters from the previous year when the bill originally passed had changed sides and did not want to argue the committee decision In the end, Roe held strong! In the end, there was no conflict between morals and state loyalty because the state legislature voted down the bill before it even reached the Supreme Court or any Federal level

16. When consulting the 2005 abortion popularity statistics, we found that Vermont was the most strongly pro-choice state, and Utah was the most strongly pro- life.

17. What they’re thinkin’ in the Beehive State (Utah)  In 1991 Utah tried to ban abortion, but the federal government struck it down– now Utah waits for the fall of Roe v. Wade to enact their ban  Today, Utah abortion is strictly regulated: parental notification and consent, sonogram requirement  Strongly impacted by Mormon ideals

18. What they’re thinkin’ in the Green Mountain State (Vermont)  The only state in the union who hasn’t tried to pass an abortion law since 1973  Does not require any parental consent or notification for minors seeking abortions  Doesn’t allow a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, even if acting in a religious medical facility

19. Mmm…marble cake federalism The Federal Stance on abortion regulation is an example of cooperative or marble cake federalism: The federal government upholds Roe v. Wade and is thus involved in the state sphere of government However, the ambiguity of modern abortion regulation gives some freedom and sovereignty to the states In the case of the South Dakota ban, many South Dakotans opposed abortion, but the overall feeling and influence of the national government impacted the eventual decision to override the ban