Ipas > Years after Roe v. Wade, states contest abortion rights

Years after Roe v. Wade, states contest abortion rights

January 23, 2006

In 2005, U.S. states considered a mixed bag of legislation affecting a woman’s right to choose abortion or make other reproductive-health decisions.

Thirty-three years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed women’s right to an abortion in the landmark case Roe v. Wade.

Three decades later, the right the justices recognized is being whittled away by a deluge of state-based legislation. In the past 10 years, the 50 states have passed more than 400 laws that limit American women’s access to safe abortion services. And according to a new report from NARAL Pro-Choice America, “The Status of Reproductive Rights in the United States,” state legislatures enacted about 60 measures that restrict abortion in 2005, doubling 2004’s number.

Among 2005’s anti-abortion legislation and trends:

The Guttmacher Institute reports that 73 laws requiring preabortion counseling were introduced in statehouses nationwide. Seven were successful — in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Already a routine part of abortion care, the state-mandated counseling includes requirements intended to create fear and spread misinformation about abortion. Some required text includes a disproved link between abortion and breast cancer or the implication that fetuses can feel pain at less than 20 weeks (also disproved in a 2005 scientific study).
With its continual pursuit of anti-abortion measures, South Dakota earns a special place in the hall of shame. It enacted a law that says that, “on the date that the states are given the exclusive authority to regulate abortion,” it will ban abortion throughout pregnancy except if necessary to preserve a woman's life. Such an action would put South Dakota in line with many developing countries or even behind Latin American nations, many of which permit abortion in cases of rape. This month, a task force charged with reducing abortion recommended the state adopt an amendment giving fetuses the same rights as children.
Missouri, one of many states to have a parental consent law for minors seeking an abortion, tried to make any adult who helps a minor get an abortion without consent from a parent or guardian liable in civil court. That provision has been challenged and is currently under an injunction.
But despite the wave of legislation that undermines women’s right to receive abortion and contraceptive information or services, there were positive advances across the nation.
Montana stood out as the only state to enact legislation protecting access to abortion clinics in 2005. People who try to give brochures, counsel, block entrances or display signage within a certain range of another person and a health-care facility can be fined.
While several states have enacted legislation that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions because of their beliefs, the governors of Arizona and Wisconsin nixed measures that would allow pharmacists to opt out. In April 2005, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an executive order compelling pharmacists to fill all legal prescriptions. In a public letter, Blagojevich said “access to birth control isn’t a privilege — it’s a right” and that if insurance companies cover Viagra for men, they have an obligation to cover birth control for women.
Massachusetts and New Jersey recognized that emergency contraception is an essential part of caring for sexual-assault survivors; both are requiring that emergency rooms make the drug available as a routine part of treatment.
Four states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Rhode Island — considered measures that would make the protections of Roe v. Wade a permanent part of state law.

For more information, contact:
Kirsten Sherk
Senior Associate, Media Relations
e-mail: sherkk@ipas.org
phone: 919.960.5612
fax: 919.929.0258