A Momentary Victory in South Dakota: Activists Speak Out, Legislature Rejects Radical Anti-Abortion Bill

By Dusty Holso, President, South Dakota NOW

On March 15, the South Dakota Senate effectively defeated what would have become the most sweeping anti-abortion state law enacted in our nation since before Roe v. Wade. Governor Mike Rounds had boasted that the bill could force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its Roe decision legalizing abortion. Thanks to the hard work of NOW members and other pro-choice advocates, South Dakota's state senators received thousands of emails and phone calls in opposition to H.B. 1191, which would outlaw abortion under almost any circumstance.

The bill, in fact, had passed both the South Dakota House and Senate and was sent to the governor in February for his signature. Gov. Rounds sent H.B. 1191 back to the state legislature with a "style and form" veto—meaning he supported the intent of the bill, but wanted technical changes which would ensure that existing state restrictions on abortion would remain in effect should the bill be challenged in court. After much wrangling and for a variety of reasons, the state senate voted 18-17 against overriding the governor's veto and against including his suggested revisions. Just one vote kept abortion legal in South Dakota when it appeared to be a lost cause.

The state legislative session is now over, the senators have gone home and the governor has announced that the bill is dead. In one sense, this was a victory for girls and women in South Dakota, especially survivors of rape and incest, whose right to abortion would have been eliminated. Under the proposed legislation, women who became pregnant from rape or incest—along with any other woman whose life or physical health was not in serious danger—would be prevented from seeking abortions. With the failure of H.B. 1191, South Dakota women retain their reproductive freedom, albeit with notification and time restrictions already in effect, and with the accessibility issues common to rural states and low-income populations.

The 18 senators who rejected the harsh and punitive proposal had at least four different reasons for doing so. An analysis of the "no" votes indicates that not all were supportive of girls' and women's reproductive health choices. A few senators were truly pro-choice and had opposed the bill from the start. Some anti-choice senators thought the bill was too restrictive because it did not provide an exemption for cases of rape and incest. Some anti-choice senators thought the bill was too weak and wanted pregnant women whose health was at serious risk also to be denied the right to abortion. Others were thinking about the economic implications—had the legislation become law, it might have cost the state up to $1 million of taxpayer money defending it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still others wanted to move more slowly, outlawing abortion in South Dakota step by step so as not to alert voters.

Despite this mixed bag of votes, the end result was a victory for women's reproductive rights. A special thanks must go to Kate Looby, director of South Dakota/Minnesota Planned Parenthood, who worked night and day on this issue in the halls of the capitol in Pierre, and to supporters outside the state of South Dakota who rallied to our defense and added their voices to our outrage.

Opponents of women's reproductive rights have vowed to return to a future legislative session with additional restrictive legislation and political maneuvers. South Dakota NOW pledges to work with the state legislative campaigns this fall to better identify each candidate's position on reproductive rights and health care for women and girls. We have learned from this experience not to take for granted the potential vote of any single legislator.

A Note from National NOW: South Dakota came frighteningly close to enacting this bill, which would have banned nearly all abortions in the state. Similarly radical legislation is on the agenda of anti-abortion forces in any number of states (Tennessee is one recent example). If you want to help protect the reproductive freedom of every woman and girl in this country, then we urge you to come to the March for Women's Lives on April 25. We must send the message to each and every state that we will not allow our rights to be taken away.