JULY 19, 2024:
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — An anti-abortion group in South Dakota has appealed to the state’s Supreme Court after a judge dismissed its lawsuit to take an abortion rights initiative off the November ballot.
In a statement, Life Defense Fund Co-Chair Leslee Unruh said the group has asked for an expedited order from the court “because there are absolutely no legal grounds for this dismissal.” The appeal was filed Wednesday (July 17, 2024).
“We will do everything we can to move this case as fast as possible,” she said.
The group sought to remove the initiated measure, alleging wrongdoing related to petition circulators. Measure group Dakotans for Health submitted tens of thousands of petition signatures in May. Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office later validated the initiative for the Nov. 5 general election ballot.
The measure would bar the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester, but it would allow second-trimester regulations “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.”
The constitutional amendment would allow the state to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester, “except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
South Dakota outlaws abortion as a felony crime except in instances to save the life of the mother, under a trigger law that took effect in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion.
Since that decision, abortion rights measures have passed in all seven states where voters have weighed in. Similar measures will be before voters in a handful of other states this year.
JULY 15, 2024:
UNDATED (AP)- A state court judge’s ruling Monday (July 15, 2024) keeps an abortion-rights question on the November ballot in South Dakota.
Judge John Pekas dismissed a lawsuit filed by an anti-abortion group, Life Defense Fund, that sought to have the question removed even though supporters turned in more than enough valid signatures to put it on the ballot.
“They have thrown everything they could dream up to stop the people of South Dakota from voting on this matter,” Adam Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, said in a statement after the ruling. “This is another failed effort by a small group opposed to giving women the option to terminate pregnancies caused by rape and incest or to address dangerous pregnancies affecting the life and health of women.”
Republican Rep. Jon Hansen, who is a co-chair of the Life Defense Fund, and a lawyer for the group did not immediately return messages from The Associated Press on Monday.
South Dakota is one of 14 states now enforcing a ban on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, a possibility the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to in 2022, when it overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the nationwide right to abortion.
The amendment supported by Dakotans for Health would bar the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester, but it would allow second-trimester regulations “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.”
Since Roe was overturned, all seven statewide abortion-related ballot measures have gone the way abortion-rights groups wanted them to.
This year, similar questions are on the ballots in five states, plus a New York equal rights question that would ban discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes,” among other factors.
Advocates are waiting for signatures to be verified to get questions on the ballot this year in four more states, including Nebraska, where there could be competing questions on abortion rights before voters.
JUNE 18, 2024:
UNDATED (AP)- An anti-abortion group in South Dakota has sued to block an abortion rights measure from the November ballot.
In its complaint filed Thursday (June 13, 2024), Life Defense Fund alleged various wrongdoing by the measure’s supporters, as well as invalid signatures and fraud. The group seeks to disqualify or invalidate the initiative.
In May, Secretary of State Monae Johnson validated the measure by Dakotans for Health for the Nov. 5 general election ballot. The measure’s supporters had submitted about 54,000 signatures to qualify the ballot initiative. They needed about 35,000 signatures. Johnson’s office deemed about 85% of signatures as valid, based on a random sample.
Life Defense Fund alleged Dakotans for Health didn’t file a required affidavit for petition circulators’ residency, and that petitioners didn’t always provide a required circulator handout and left petition sheets unattended. Life Defense Fund also objected to numerous more signatures as invalid, and alleged petitioners misled people as to what they were signing.
“The public should scrutinize Dakotan for Health’s comments and carefully consider its credibility. In the end, the Court will determine whether such unlawful conduct may result in the measure being included on the ballot,” Life Defense Fund attorney Sara Frankenstein said in an email Monday.
Dakotans for Health called Life Defense Fund’s lawsuit “a last-ditch effort to undermine the democratic process.”
“They have thrown everything they could, and now the kitchen sink, to stop the voters from weighing in this November. We are confident that the people of South Dakota are going to be able to make this decision, not the politicians, come this November,” co-founder Rick Weiland said in a statement Friday.
The measure would bar the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester, but it would allow second-trimester regulations “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.”
The constitutional amendment would allow the state to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester, “except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
South Dakota outlaws abortion as a felony crime, except to save the life of the mother, under a trigger law that took effect in 2022 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade.
The measure drew opposition from South Dakota’s Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year. The Legislature approved a resolution officially opposing the measure, and it passed a law allowing petition signers to withdraw their signatures from initiative petitions. The latter is not expected to affect the measure going before voters.
Life Defense Fund is also seeking to ban Dakotans for Health and its workers from sponsoring or circulating petitions or doing ballot initiative committee work for four years.
South Dakota is one of four states – along with Colorado, Florida and Maryland – where measures to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution will come before voters in November. There are petition drives to add similar questions in seven more states.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the nationwide right to abortion two years ago, there have been seven statewide abortion-related ballot measures, and abortion rights advocates have prevailed on all of them.
MAY 17, 2024:
UNDATED (AP)- South Dakota voters will decide on abortion rights this fall, getting a chance at direct democracy on the contentious issue in a conservative state where a trigger law banning nearly all abortions went into effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The state’s top election official announced Thursday (May 16, 2024) that about 85% of the more than 55,000 signatures submitted in support of the ballot initiative are valid, exceeding the required 35,017 signatures.
Voters will vote up or down on prohibiting the state from regulating abortion before the end of the first trimester and allowing the state to regulate abortion after the second trimester, except when necessary to preserve the life or physical or emotional health of a pregnant woman.
Dakotans for Health, which sponsored the amendment, said in a statement Thursday that the signatures’ validation “certified that the people of South Dakota, not the politicians in Pierre, will be the ones to decide whether to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of South Dakota.”
Abortion rights are also on the ballot in Florida and Maryland, and advocates are still working toward that goal in states including Arizona, Montana and Nebraska in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe.
Voters of seven other states have already approved abortion access in ballot measures, including four that wrote abortion rights into their constitution.
South Dakota outlaws all abortions, except to save the life of the mother.
Despite securing language on the ballot, abortion rights advocates in South Dakota face an uphill battle to success in November. Republican lawmakers strongly oppose the measure, and a major abortion rights advocate has said it doesn’t support it.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota warned when the signatures were submitted that the language as written doesn’t convey the strongest legal standard for courts to evaluate abortion laws and could risk being symbolic only.
Life Defense Fund, a group organized against the initiative, said they will continue to research the signatures.
Opponents still have 30 days — until June 17 — to file a challenge with the secretary of state’s office.
“We are grateful to the many dedicated volunteers who have put in countless hours, and we are resolute in our mission to defend unborn babies,” co-chairs Leslee Unruh and state Rep. Jon Hansen said in a statement.
MAY 2, 2024:
UNDATED (AP)- Supporters of a South Dakota abortion rights initiative submitted far more signatures than required Wednesday (May 1, 2024) to make the ballot this fall. But its outcome is unclear in the conservative state, where Republican lawmakers strongly oppose the measure and a major abortion rights advocate doesn’t support it.
The effort echoes similar actions in seven other states where voters have approved abortion rights measures, including four — California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont — that put abortion rights in their constitution. Abortion rights measures also might appear on several other state ballots this year.
The signatures were submitted on the same day the Arizona Legislature approved a repeal of a long-dormant ban on nearly all abortions, and as a ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant, went into effect in Florida.
Dakotans for Health co-founder Rick Weiland said backers of the ballot initiative gathered more than 55,000 signatures to submit to Secretary of State Monae Johnson, easily exceeding the 35,017 valid signatures needed to make the November general election. Johnson’s office has until Aug. 13 to validate the constitutional initiative. A group opposing the measure said it’s already planning a legal challenge to the petition alleging the signatures weren’t gathered correctly.
South Dakota outlaws all abortions, except to save the life of the mother, under a trigger law that took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
“The abortion law in South Dakota right now is the most restrictive law in the land. It’s practically identical to the 1864 abortion ban in Arizona,” said Weiland, referring to the law Arizona legislators voted to repeal Wednesday. “Women that get raped, victims of incest, women carrying nonviable or problem pregnancies have zero options.”
Weiland said the ballot measure is based on Roe v. Wade, which had established a nationwide right to abortion. It would bar the state from regulating “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester, but allow second-trimester regulations “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” such as licensing requirements for providers and facility requirements for safety and hygiene.
The initiative would allow the state to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester, “except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
“Our Roe framework allows for abortion in the first two trimesters,” Weiland said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota doesn’t support the measure.
“In particular, it does not have the strongest legal standard by which a court must evaluate restrictions on abortion, and thereby runs the risk of establishing a right to abortion in name only which could impede future efforts to ensure every South Dakotan has meaningful access to abortion without medically unnecessary restrictions,” executive director Libby Skarin said in a written statement.
Planned Parenthood North Central States, the former sole abortion provider in South Dakota, hasn’t said whether the organization would support the measure. In a joint statement with the ACLU of South Dakota, the two said groups said, “We are heartened by the enthusiasm South Dakotans have shown for securing abortion rights in our state.”
Weiland said he’s hopeful once the measure is on the ballot, “another conversation will occur with some of these organizations.” He cited his group’s hard work to get the measure this far, and said measure backers are “optimistic that we’re going to have the resources we need to be able to get the message out.”
Republican opponents, meanwhile, are promising to fight the initiative. Earlier this year, the GOP-led Legislature passed a resolution formally opposing it, along with a bill for a petition signature withdrawal process. The backer of the latter bill was Republican state Rep. Jon Hansen, a co-chair of Life Defense Fund, the group promising to challenge the ballot initiative.
Hansen called the measure extreme during a forum last month.
“If the proponents of this abortion amendment wanted to just legalize rape and incest exceptions, they could have done that, but they didn’t do that,” Hansen said at the time. “Instead, what they wrote is an amendment that legalizes abortion past the point of viability, past the point where the baby could just be born outside the womb and up until the point of birth.”
Hansen also asserted that the measure would not allow “basic health and safety standards for mothers” in the first trimester.
Weiland has repeatedly disputed Hansen’s claims, and called Life Defense Fund’s planned court challenge “just a desperate charge on their part.”
