South Dakota law stirs controversy.(News)

Antiabortion and abortion rights activists in South Dakota are battling over how much and what kind of information physicians should be required to give patients seeking an abortion.

The fight is over a new informed consent law, which was passed by the state legislature in February and signed by the governor in March. The law was supposed to go into effect on July 1 but was halted in late June by a temporary injunction issued by a U.S. district judge.

The law states that "a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child may be subject to pressures which can cause an emotional crisis, undue reliance on the advice of others, clouded judgment, and a willingness to violate conscience to avoid those pressures."

The law requires physicians to tell patients that, among other things, an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and that the risks of an abortion include depression and an increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide, as well as "infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility."

The law also requires abortion providers to inform patients that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care and that "the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth." The information must be given in writing, and the doctor must certify that the patient has read and understood the information.

In late June, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier granted a temporary injunction against the law; the injunction had been sought by the local Planned Parenthood organization. A hearing on a permanent injunction is scheduled for October.

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota noted in its lawsuit that the law's requirements "unconstitutionally force physicians to articulate the state's abortion ideology and opinions."