ACLU blocks informed consent law in court
Predictably defending abortion at all costs, even against reasonable rules
From Kentucky Citizen Digest, May, 1999

After an arduous legislative journey that once met the governor’s veto pen and more recently survived an unfriendly implementation committee, House Bill 85, otherwise known as “informed consent,” has met two additional obstacles.The first is a lawsuit filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).The second is that it ended up before the same judge who struck down the state ban on partial-birth abortion.

The ACLU filed the suit on behalf of Louisville abortionists Ronachai Banchong-manie, Samuel G. Eubanks Jr. and Ernest W. Marshall.The lawsuit argues that requiring abortionists to provide educational material about the abortion procedure at their expense violates their First Amendment rights.It also claims that legislating a 24-hour waiting period poses an undue hardship for poor rural women.

In the past, abortionists were not bound by law to tell women about the risks or the details of the abortion procedure. Nor were they required to tell expecting mothers about fetal development, alternatives to abortion, state childcare assistance, and the father’s responsibility for child support. The law, passed in the 1998 General Assembly, addressed these issues, but in March the implementation committee, composed predominantly of abortion supporters, deliberately censored information about abortion risks and abortion’s link to breast cancer.

Dona Wells, executive director of the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, contended that pregnant women already have all the information they need and have considered their options.“The state of Kentucky penalizes these women by saying they can’t make an adequate decision about their lives,” Wells said.“We personally find it very intrusive.”

But pro-lifers disagree.They stress that the 24-hour delay is a reflection period, where women can thoroughly review the information and carefully assess their options — something that wasn’t previously guaranteed under law.Margie Montgomery of Kentucky Right to Life said of the ACLU, “If they’re truly concerned about women, they should favor that period of time. Sometimes in a crisis, you do something in a hurry and may regret it later on.”

Kentucky has waiting period laws on the books for other important decisions. “Isn’t it curious,” said Bob Cetrullo of Northern Kentucky Right to Life, “that Kentucky has waiting periods for marriage, divorce and sterilization, yet [informed consent] is the only one the ACLU challenges?How can a girl be harmed by this? To say that a 24-hour wait is unreasonable for a life and death decision is startling.They [ACLU] are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.” 

Altogether 20 states have passed laws similar to Kentucky’s informed consent law and all but two have waiting periods ranging from one hour to three days.State Sen. Katie Stine, R-Fort Thomas, the bill’s sponsor, was optimistic about the outcome of the decision that Judge John Heyburn said he would take up on May 6.Stine cited the landmark 1992 Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey.“I think anyone who examines the law would recognize that our informed consent bill was created to conform to the Supreme Court decision,’’ said Stine.

Despite these recent actions by the ACLU, if past comebacks are any indication, HB 85 may actually become public policy for the Commonwealth.
 

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander, Executive Director Martin Cothran, Senior Associate Policy Analyst