The inevitable Planned Parenthood lawsuit has been filed against the new 3 day waiting period and pre-abortion counseling law that passed the legislature this past session. No surprises here.
However, I am curious behind the strategy to go with the lawsuit approach rather than collecting the signatures for a referred law — which could automatically stay the implementation of the law. Could it be that Planned Parenthood doesn’t believe they could win at the ballot box with a referred law? That doesn’t seem likely as it worked out for them in 2006. Was getting nearly 16,000 signatures too onerous? Again — doesn’t seem to make sense as Planned Parenthood won again at the ballot box on an initiated measure in 2008. Surely they still have the lists of their volunteers and supporters.
Could it be that Planned Parenthood was concerned that SD voters might understand that if they have to have counseling and wait before routine surgical procedures, it’s not asking too much to ask the same for abortions. If so, maybe Planned Parenthood weighed the risk and decided they’d rather roll the dice in court where they might be awarded fees from the court instead of having to pay the cost of explaining why abortions — which according to them is just another surgical procedure — should be treated differently than something routine.
So could it be cost? Could it be that lawyers are actually a more cost-effective method? Curiouser and Curiouser….