Defenders of a woman’s right to choose said they will challenge the legislation as an unconstitutional violation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, which decriminalized abortion. At the same time, the law has sparked debate among opponents of women’s rights, including some who argue that a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade now might backfire, given the widespread public support for a woman’s right to choose abortion.

As part of the March 9 national “day of solidarity,” 200 defenders of women’s rights rallied at the federal courthouse in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, while 30 counterprotesters gathered across the street. Hundreds protested the law at the federal building in Rapid City, South Dakota. Smaller demonstrations took place in Bradenton, Florida; Trenton, New Jersey; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; and Washington, D.C.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, said it is preparing to challenge the state law. Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, said they were discussing whether to appeal through the courts or petition for a statewide referendum that could rescind the law in the November elections. “Either way, the law will not take effect,” Sarah Stoesz of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota and the Dakotas told the press. “Our clinic will remain open for years to come.”

The law has generated debate among opponents of women’s rights on how to further their aim of re-criminalizing abortion. Several anti-abortion groups expressed tactical disagreements with pushing for an outright ban on abortion. Instead they argue that the steady chipping away at a woman’s right to choose, which Democratic and Republican politicians have carried out over the past three decades, is more effective.

“Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade,” Cristina Minniti, a spokesperson for the anti-choice National Right to Life Committee, told the New York Times.

A March 8 editorial in the conservative National Review Online said that laws like the South Dakota ban “set back the cause of overturning Roe.” If the law did reach the Supreme Court, it said, the court “will surely strike the law down as a direct violation of Roe v. Wade” and “will elicit yet another re-affirmation of that decision.”

Opponents of a woman’s right to choose “have gained ground over the last decade and a half by pursuing a savvy increment strategy,” the editorial said. “That strategy puts the end of Roe within sight. If Roe falls, pro-lifers should then try to persuade the public in each state to prohibit most abortions. After that, they should try to persuade them to prohibit abortion in the case of rape and incest.”

In a March 7 news briefing, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that the South Dakota law “is a state matter.” He also indicated that the law is at variance with the position of President George Bush of allowing abortion in case of rape and incest as well as when a woman’s life is endangered.

Women’s access to abortion has been steadily eroded since women won the decriminalization of this medical procedure. Some 87 percent of all counties in the United States have no health facilities or doctors that provide abortions. Nearly a quarter of all women who obtain an abortion must travel more than 50 miles to reach the nearest provider. Other obstacles include parental consent laws, mandatory waiting times, and required “counseling.”

Maura DeLuca from Pittsburgh and Sara Lobman from Newark, New Jersey, contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home