Supporters of an abortion rights initiative in South Dakota submitted far more signatures than needed Wednesday to move to a vote this fall. But its outcome is unclear in the conservative state, where Republican lawmakers strongly oppose the measure and a major abortion rights advocate does not support it.
This effort mirrors similar actions in seven other states where voters have approved abortion rights measures, including four — California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont — that have written abortion rights into their constitutions. Abortion rights measures could also appear on several other state ballots this year.
The signatures were submitted on the same day that the Arizona Legislature approved a repeal of a long-dormant ban on nearly all abortions, and then a ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant , came into effect. in Florida.
Dakotans for Health co-founder Rick Weiland said backers of the ballot initiative have collected more than 55,000 signatures to submit to Secretary of State Monae Johnson, which far exceeds the 35,017 valid signatures needed for the general election of November. Johnson’s office has until August 13 to validate the constitutional initiative. A group opposing the measure says they already plan to legally challenge the petition, claiming the signatures were not collected properly.
South Dakota bans all abortions except to save the mother’s life under a trigger law that took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
“South Dakota’s abortion law is currently the most restrictive law in the country. It is virtually identical to Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban,” Weiland said, referring to the law that Arizona lawmakers repealed on Wednesday. “Women who are raped, victims of incest, women who have non-viable or problem pregnancies, have zero options.”
Weiland said the ballot measure is based on Roe v. Wade, which established a nationwide right to abortion. It would prevent the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its implementation” in the first trimester, but allow second-trimester regulation only in ways reasonably related to the pregnant woman’s physical health” , such as licensing requirements. for suppliers and facility requirements for safety and hygiene.
The initiative would allow the state to regulate or ban abortion in the third trimester, “except when, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
“Our Roe framework allows abortion in the first two trimesters,” Weiland said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota does not support the measure.
“In particular, it does not have the strongest legal standard against which a court should assess restrictions on abortion, and therefore risks establishing a right to abortion in name only, which could hamper future efforts to ensure that every South Dakotan has meaningful access to abortion. abortion without medically unnecessary restrictions,” director Libby Skarin said in a written statement.
Planned Parenthood North Central States, the former sole abortion provider in South Dakota, did not say whether the organization would support the measure. In a joint statement with the ACLU of South Dakota, the two groups said: “We are encouraged by the enthusiasm South Dakotans have shown for securing abortion rights in our state.”
Weiland said he is hopeful once the measure is up for a vote, “There will be another conversation with some of these organizations.” He cited his group’s hard work in getting the measure to this point, saying the measure’s backers are “optimistic that we will have the resources we need to get the message out.”
Republican opponents, meanwhile, vow to fight the initiative. Earlier this year, the Republican Party-led Legislature passed a resolution formally opposing it, along with a bill for a signature revocation process. The backer of this latest bill was Republican state Rep. Jon Hansen, co-chair of the Life Defense Fund, the group that vowed to challenge the ballot initiative.
Hansen called the measure extreme during a forum last month.
“If the proponents of this abortion amendment just wanted to legalize exceptions for rape and incest, they could have done so, but they did not,” Hansen said at the time. “Instead, what they wrote is an amendment that legalizes abortion beyond the point of viability, beyond the point where the baby can simply be born outside the womb and up to the point of birth.”
Hansen also claimed the measure would not allow for “basic health and safety standards for mothers” in the first trimester.
Weiland has repeatedly disputed Hansen’s claims, calling the Life Defense Fund’s planned lawsuit “just a desperate accusation on their part.”