What are biased-counseling and mandatory-delay laws, and how do they endanger women's health?
Biased-counseling and mandatory-delay laws prohibit women from receiving abortion care until they are subjected to a state-mandated lecture and/or materials typically followed by a delay of usually at least 24 hours. Like any patient, a woman considering abortion should receive full and unbiased information from her doctor about her medical options. However, these laws impose unnecessary government intrusion into private decisions and the doctor-patient relationship; often, they require that women be provided with medically inaccurate information, such as the disproven claim that abortion causes breast cancer. Mandatory delays create additional burdens for women, especially women in rural areas who often have to travel for many hours to reach a health-care provider, and for women who do not have the resources to take extra time off work or pay for child care. Mandatory-delay laws endanger women’s health by creating unnecessary burdens that can impede earlier, and therefore safer, abortion care.
Current State Laws
32 states have laws that subject women seeking abortion services to biased-counseling requirements and/or mandatory delays: AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI.
- 7 of these laws have been found fully or partially unconstitutional by courts: DE, KY, MA, MI, MT, SD, TN.
2011 Enacted State Legislation
6 states enacted 6 measures related to biased counseling and/or mandatory delays: IN, KS, LA, ND, SD, TX.
2011 Notable Developments
In March 2011, South Dakota received national attention when Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed into law a first-of-its-kind biased-counseling mandate. Of the law’s onerous provisions, perhaps the most shocking is its mandate that a woman seeking abortion care submit to an in-person lecture at a so-called crisis pregnancy center (CPC) – many of which are biased, anti-choice, anti-contraception facilities – even if she does not want to involve an outside party in her decision. In addition, the law mandates a precedent-setting 72-hour waiting period before care, forcing women to make a total of three separate, in-person trips. Planned Parenthood immediately challenged the law as unconstitutional. One day before the law was to go into effect, a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the case is litigated. In her decision, Judge Karen Schreier said the provision requiring a woman to visit a CPC “humiliates and degrades her as a human being.” Judge Schreier also predicted the law would be found unconstitutional.
