Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Utah governor signs law mandating 72-hour wait for abortion

Related Topics

Utah Governor Gary Herbert talks about the state's economic development in Salt Lake City, Utah January 11, 2012. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart

Utah Governor Gary Herbert talks about the state's economic development in Salt Lake City, Utah January 11, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jim Urquhart

SALT LAKE CITY | Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:27pm EDT

SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - Utah's Republican governor signed a law extending a required waiting period for women seeking an abortion to 72 hours on Tuesday, even though a similar requirement in South Dakota has been blocked in court, a spokeswoman said.

The decision by Governor Gary Herbert is expected to meet with approval from social conservatives in the heavily Republican state just four days after he upset some members of his party by vetoing a bill to curb sex education in schools.

"Governor Herbert is an adamant supporter of rights for the unborn," said Ally Isom, a spokeswoman for the governor. "He felt the bill appropriately allows a woman who's facing that decision to fully weigh her options and the implications of that decision."

The state currently requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

The law is the latest salvo in the long-running national battle over abortion that has seen a host of states pass laws imposing requirements on women before they can undergo the procedure. In neighboring Idaho, lawmakers are considering requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before ending a pregnancy.

A South Dakota law that passed last year also required women seeking an abortion to wait three days before having the procedure, but the state's Planned Parenthood group sued in federal court saying the law violated the equal protection and due process rights of women.

Chief Judge Karen Schreier of the U.S. District Court for South Dakota preliminarily blocked the requirement in June when she found it imposed an undue burden on women, noting that some low-income abortion patients travel long distances and cannot afford to go home and then return.

A representative for the National Organization for Women could not be reached late on Tuesday to comment on the Utah governor's action.

"We believe that a court will find the 72-hour waiting period (in Utah) is not an undue burden," Isom said.

One difference between the two state laws is that, unlike in South Dakota where lawmakers sought to require that women wait 72 hours after first meeting with the abortion provider, Utah would allow the waiting period to begin after an initial consultation with a health professional. That person need not be an abortion doctor.

The Utah law is due to take effect on May 7 in a state that is one of the most conservative in the nation and has not had a Democratic governor since 1985.

While South Dakota was the first state to pass legislation for a three-day wait in 2011, 26 states require women to wait before receiving an abortion. Most often, that is a 24-hour period, according to reproductive health organization the Guttmacher Institute.

(Writing By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
powerwhip wrote:
repulsivecons….

Mar 21, 2012 1:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
white_peacock wrote:
Why don’t they just go ahead and make the waiting period nine months?

Mar 22, 2012 12:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.