Rewritten abortion initiative language draws second lawsuit

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Abortion opponents have revised a ballot proposal placing new requirements on doctors and nurses, prompting a renewed legal challenge from Planned Parenthood.

A lawsuit Monday by a Planned Parenthood supporter contends the ballot summary prepared by the secretary of state understates the measure's "far-reaching legal changes" and "thus is likely to deceive and mislead voters."

Sponsors of the ballot initiative aren't too pleased with the state's official description either, though they are not suing.

The proposal targeted for the November ballot would make it an act of "medical negligence" to perform or refer someone for an abortion without first evaluating the woman for abortion risk factors and documenting those as either negligible or less than continuing the pregnancy.

A woman who later regrets an abortion can sue the doctors or nurses for $10,000 on allegations they failed to screen her for risk factors and inform her of potential complications.

The ballot measure was submitted by David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, a Springfield, Ill.-based group that tries to show the negative effects of abortion. Reardon filed the proposal as an organizer of a separate group, the Stop Forced Abortions Alliance.

Sponsors received clearance in December from Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to begin gathering petition signatures. But the group feared that Carnahan's original ballot summary could have biased voters against the measure, so it submitted a revised ballot proposal in late January in hopes of getting a more favorable summary. Carnahan approved a new ballot summary Feb. 21.

Planned Parenthood, which had challenged the initial ballot summary, also backed a lawsuit against the second version. That lawsuit was filed Monday in Cole County Circuit Court by St. Louis resident Mary Hickey, whom Planned Parenthood has described as a married mother and teacher who is not responding to interview requests.

Carnahan's ballot summary says the proposal would "make it illegal" for a doctor to perform an abortion "without extensive and documented emotional, psychological, physical, situational and demographic evaluations," unless it's necessary to prevent immediate death or harm.

Although he is not challenging the language in court, Reardon contends his ballot proposal makes nothing illegal, but allows only civil lawsuits. The measure does not preclude doctors from performing elective abortions, Reardon said, but simply requires them to explain all the risks to women.

"He's supposed to bring his judgment to it, and not just show up to work, punch in and start doing abortions," Reardon said. "A doctor should act like a doctor."

But Planned Parenthood contends the measure is "purposely deceptive and vaguely written" and could either ban abortions not necessary for a woman's health and safety or create a chilling effect in which doctors would be afraid to perform certain abortions for fear they could later be sued.

"What it really is is a wolf in sheep's clothing that we believe is an attempt to take away a women's right to make this decision and to really compromise the doctor-patient relationship," said Paula Gianino, president and chief executive office of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Reardon said supporters hoped to work with churches and intended to begin gathering petition signatures even though Planned Parenthood is challenging the ballot summary. If a court revises the new ballot summary, signatures collected before then would be invalid.

Supporters of initiatives have until May 3 to turn in petition signatures to the secretary of state's office.