WorldNetDaily has a report on a alleged legal infraction by the South Dakota Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood abortionists in South Dakota have been accused of "defying" a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found constitutional a state requirement for informed consent.
In a letter to the state, a copy of which was obtained by WND, a number of interveners in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against South Dakota over the law express alarm that even a full year after the appellate court issued its ruling, the organization apparently remains in deliberate violation.
"Planned Parenthood lost, our side won and yet Planned Parenthood defies the decision of the en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals," said the letter, obtained by WND from a source with links to the case.
The Cassidy Law Firm that represented the interveners said it could not comment or provide information on the situation. The office of the state attorney general did not provide a response to WND inquiries about the group's compliance.
Doneen Hollingsworth, the secretary of health for the state, told WND in a statement the agency "is required to inspect abortion facilities and enforce applicable laws and regulations. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the department met with Planned Parenthood representatives July 30 regarding findings from its most recent inspection.
"The department can not discuss specifics of those compliance issues at this stage in the regulatory process. The Department of Health does and will continue to enforce this and other laws," the statement said.
WND reported in July 2008 when the appellate judges ruled constitutional the state's law that requires abortionists to inform women – before an abortion – that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
The letter, dated just days ago, said, "The statute expressly states that the physician's disclosure statement must include the disclosure 'that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.' The term 'human being' is defined by S.D.C.L. 34-23A-1(4) in the biological sense."
Also, the letter said, "The Disclosure Form created by the South Dakota Department of Health, as it relates to the Human Being Disclosure, accurately reflects the command of the Statute, and is the only wording of the disclosure which would properly comply. Your language is correct as written: '1-b) The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; the term 'Human Being' means, for the purpose of this and following disclosures, 'an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens during its embryonic and fetal ages.'"
It continued, "The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that this disclosure as written was constitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). If Planned Parenthood does not use the language drafted by the Department of Health, it is not in compliance with the statute," the letter said.
"The language used by Planned Parenthood does not comply: 'South Dakota requires that you be informed that, as a matter of biology, the abortion will terminate a developing, living organism (an 'embryo' or 'fetus') of the human species ('Homo sapiens') that, in the absence of abnormality, has a complete, separate genetic makeup that is unique to that embryo or fetus,'" the letter said.
"The statute requires a straight forward statement that is easily understood by a lay person, that the abortion terminates the life of a human being. The precise language was carefully selected by the legislature. The language used by Planned Parenthood not only fails to use the clear and proper language, but Planned Parenthood’s language is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and very confusing," the letter said.
The South Dakota law is far more strict that other regulatory provisions. It allows a woman who alleges she was not provided with the proper informed consent to sue for damages. It allows a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against a physician who fails to provide the proper informed consent, and it allows the state to investigate and act against the license of any facility where the requirements for such informed consent are not met.