Planned Parenthood challenges abortion ballot proposal

By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Planned Parenthood sought Monday to strike down a Missouri ballot proposal by claiming that its new requirements for abortion providers would make almost all abortions illegal.

A proposal targeted for the November 2008 ballot would make it an act of “medical negligence” to perform or refer someone for an abortion without first determining it is warranted to prevent death, serious injury or other health risks from the pregnancy.

The proposal lays out no criminal penalties. Rather, it would let a woman who later regrets an abortion sue the doctors or nurses on allegations they failed to screen her for risk factors, evaluate whether she was coerced into having the abortion or allow her 48 hours to reflect upon the information.

A lawsuit financed by Planned Parenthood affiliates claims the ballot proposal, “if enacted, would render virtually all abortions unlawful,” and thus violate the U.S. Constitution. It also challenges the official ballot summary and cost estimate prepared by the secretary of state and Missouri auditor.

“What we have is a dangerous and deceptive and extreme ban that would even go so far as to propose — even if a women’s life were in imminent danger — forcing the doctor to wait to help the woman,” said Paula Gianino, president and chief executive office of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Backers of the ballot measure claim abortion advocates are twisting its intent.

“It doesn’t make anything illegal. It’s all about establishing a proper right to redress for negligence in pre-abortion screening and counseling,” said David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, a Springfield, Ill.-based group that tries to show the negative effects of abortion.

Reardon said he filed the ballot proposal as an organizer of a separate group, the Stop Forced Abortions Alliance.

He objected to characterizations that the ballot measure would restrict abortions, because he said the allowance for documented physical and psychological health risks could be interpreted broadly.

The lawsuit was filed in Cole County Circuit Court by St. Louis County resident Mary Hickey, whom Planned Parenthood described only as a married mother and teacher. Gianino said Hickey was not responding to interview requests.

Earlier this month, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan cleared sponsors of the abortion ballot measure to begin gathering the roughly 90,000 petition signatures necessary to make the Missouri ballot. Anyone wishing to challenge the ballot language had until Monday to sue.

Lawsuits contesting ballot summaries and cost estimates are common in Missouri, especially on controversial topics.

For example, a Cole County judge heard arguments Monday on dueling challenges from both supporters and opponents of a ballot measure that targets affirmative action by prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public education, employment and contracting.

Those court arguments focused largely on a claim by opponents that the financial estimate approved by Auditor Susan Montee fails to reflect the full costs of adopting the measure.

The lawsuit against the abortion ballot measure was filed by Chuck Hatfield, the same attorney who is handling the affirmative action measure. It makes many of the same arguments that Montee’s office failed to adequately evaluate the financial costs.

The auditor’s ballot summary concludes the abortion measure would have no costs or savings to state or local governments.

But the lawsuit claims the measure, if adopted, would result in prolonged litigation with significant costs as future lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the measure.

Reardon said supporters did not plan to file a legal challenge to the language approved for their ballot measure, even though they take issue with Carnahan’s summary that the measure would “make it illegal” for doctors to perform abortions in certain circumstances.

A procedural hearing also was scheduled Monday for dueling lawsuits challenging the ballot language and financial estimate for a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit a cloning procedure from being used in human stem cell research. Arguments on the merits of that lawsuit aren’t expected until later.

Archives Web Site Marketplace Obits Babies Jobs