The Republican-led South Dakota Legislature is trying to block a ballot measure that would have allowed voters to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. Leaders of the initiative say the Republican effort threatens the state’s tradition of direct democracy.
Supporters need to submit about 35,000 valid signatures by May 7 to be on the November ballot. Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, said there are already more than 50,000 people.
Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly adopted a resolution opposing the initiative after criticizing Weiland during a committee hearing, arguing the language was too extreme.
NOEM takes two seats in the Legislature after state Supreme Court ruling on South Dakota governor’s conflict of interest.
South Dakota bans all abortions except those that save the mother’s life under a trigger ban that went into effect in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
If approved by voters, a three-section addition to South Dakota’s constitution would allow the state to ban first-trimester abortion restrictions and restrict second-trimester restrictions “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” “limited to methods”. ” The state could restrict or ban late-trimester abortions “unless the abortion is necessary in the medical judgment of the attending physician to protect 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 took that language and used it in the amendment,” Weiland said.
Since the Dobbs decision, abortion-related ballot measures have been taken up in seven states, and voters supported abortion rights in all states. Four of these states, California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont, enshrine the right to abortion in their constitutions.
South Dakota Republican House Majority Leader Will Mortenson (left) and Republican Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree (left) attend a press conference at the State Capitol on Thursday, February 22, 2024 in Pierre, South Dakota. right). The Legislature overwhelmingly approved a resolution formally opposing a proposed ballot initiative that would place the right to abortion in South Dakota’s constitution. (AP Photo/Jacques Duras)
The South Dakota Legislature’s resolution opposing the initiative says the measure “significantly limits the enactment of future protections for pregnant women, their children, and health care providers” and “fails to protect human life and pregnant women.” It is said that And she won’t be able to protect the child she bears. ”
Republican House Majority Leader Will Mortenson said, “We will discuss some of the unintended and perhaps intended consequences of this measure so that the public can understand what its actual effects will be.” ” and approved a resolution to support the people.
Republican Rep. John Hansen, co-chair of the Life Defense Fund, which was created to block the initiative, said the language goes too far and calls it “unreasonable and common sense that this state has been implementing for decades.” It prohibits bipartisan protections.”
“Back when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, you at least had the protection that abortions had to be done by a doctor, supervised by a doctor, and in a facility that had been tested. ” Hansen said. He said. “We can’t have these protections in the first term of this constitutional amendment. It’s outrageous. It’s too extreme.”
Weyland said the language complies with Roe v. Wade and that attempts to argue otherwise are misleading and ill-informed.
President Biden slams Alabama Supreme Court’s decision on frozen embryos as ‘outrageous and unacceptable’
Democratic House Minority Leader Oren Resmeister said voters, not lawmakers, should decide. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Reynold Neciba also supports the idea.
But the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota does not support the effort, telling supporters in a December email that the language “does not go far enough to restore access to abortion in South Dakota.” Stated.
The South Dakota House of Representatives on Tuesday passed Hansen’s bill 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 and “fraudulently induced” to sign petitions. Weiland said Hansen’s bill is an attack on direct democracy. “This is a right in the hands of the people who signed it, and they can withdraw it if they want to,” Hansen said.
South Dakota Democrats, from left, are Representative Erin Healey, House Minority Leader Oren Resmeister, and Senate Minority Leader Reynold Nesiba at the State House, Thursday, February 22, 2024, in Pierre, South Dakota. Speaking at a press conference at the Capitol. A bill was spearheaded that would allow signers of ballot initiatives to remove their signatures. (AP Photo/Jacques Duras) (AP Photo/Jacques Duras)
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday raised concerns about potential abuses and class-action lawsuits over signature removal. They said state laws already exist to ensure voting operations are conducted properly.
The Senate will soon consider the House-passed bill, with the state Department of Health, which answers to Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, in consultation with the state attorney general and legal and medical experts. State abortion laws should apply.
Republican Rep. Taylor Lehfeldt said he introduced the bill to provide clarity after health care providers had questions about when they can intervene to save a pregnant woman’s life. Its purpose is “simply to talk about women’s health, the content of the law, and the opinions of medical and legal experts regarding the content of the current law,” Lehfeldt said.
Weiland said he didn’t know what the video would contain and was skeptical.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“We hope this provides sufficient guidance for physicians to be able to make these medical decisions,” he said.
