PIERRE, SD — South Dakota’s Republican-led Legislature is trying to thwart a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. The initiative’s leader says the Republican Party’s efforts threaten the state’s tradition of direct democracy.
Supporters need about 35,000 valid signatures by May 7 to qualify for the November ballot. Dakotans for Health co-founder Rick Weiland said they already have more than 50,000.
Republican lawmakers say the language is too extreme and overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing the initiative after criticizing Weiland during a committee hearing.
South Dakota bans all abortions except to save the mother’s life under a trigger ban that took effect in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
If voters approve, the addition of three paragraphs to the South Dakota Constitution would prohibit the state from regulating first-trimester abortion and allowing second-trimester regulation only in ways reasonably related to physical health of the pregnant woman. ” The state could regulate or ban abortions in the third trimester, “except when abortion, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
“We looked at the rights that women had for 50 years under Roe v. Wade and basically adopted that language into our amendment,” Weiland said.
Seven states have passed abortion-related ballot measures since the Dobbs decision, and in all states voters supported abortion rights. Four of them – California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont – have enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions.
The South Dakota Legislature’s resolution opposing the initiative states that the measure would “severely limit any future implementation of protections for a pregnant woman, her child, and her caregivers” and would “fail to protect human life.” would fail to protect a pregnant woman. , and would fail to protect the child she bears.”
Republican House Majority Leader Will Mortenson said they approved the resolution to help the public by pointing out “some of the unintended or intended, perhaps, consequences of the measure so that the public can see what it means.” does in practice.”
Republican Rep. Jon Hansen — co-chairman of the Life Defense Fund, created to defeat the initiative — said his language goes too far and prohibits “reasonable, common-sense, bipartisan protections that this state has had for decades.”
“When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, we could at least have protection to say that if an abortion must be done, it must be done by a physician, under a physician’s supervision, in an inspected facility, Hansen said. “You cannot get these protections in the first trimester of this proposed constitutional amendment. That’s crazy. That is far too extreme.”
Weiland said the language is consistent with Roe v. Wade and attempts to say otherwise are misleading and ill-informed.
Democratic House Minority Leader Oren Lesmeister said voters, not lawmakers, should decide. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Reynold Nesiba also supports the initiative.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, however, does not support the initiative, telling its supporters in a December email that the language “is not sufficient to restore access to abortion in South Dakota.”
The South Dakota House on Tuesday passed a bill from Hansen that would allow signers of initiative petitions to withdraw their signatures. It now goes to the Senate.
Hansen said the bill is about people being misled or “fraudulently induced” to sign petitions. Weiland said Hansen’s bill is an attack on direct democracy. Hansen said: “This is a right that is entirely in the hands of the person who signed; if they want to, to withdraw, they can withdraw.”
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday raised concerns about potential abuses and class action lawsuits over signature removals. They said state laws already exist to ensure ballot initiatives are implemented properly.
The Senate will soon consider a House-passed bill that would require the Department of Health, which answers to Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, to produce an informational video, with consultation with the attorney general and legal and medical experts, which describes how to apply the state’s abortion laws.
Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt said she introduced the bill to clarify questions from healthcare providers about when they can intervene to save a pregnant woman’s life. The goal is to “just talk about women’s health, what the law says and what the opinions of health care professionals and legal professionals are around what our law currently says,” Rehfeldt said.
Weiland said he was skeptical because he didn’t know what the video would contain.
“Hopefully it’s enough guidance for doctors to be able to make these medical decisions,” he said.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.