UPDATE MARCH 3, 2022:
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — The South Dakota Legislature has passed a proposal from Gov. Kristi Noem that aims to make the state one of the hardest places in the U.S. to get abortion pills. But it won’t actually be enacted unless the state prevails in a federal court battle. The bill requires women seeking an abortion to make three separate trips to a doctor in order to take abortion pills. However, the bill contains language that stipulates most of it won’t take effect unless the state convinces a federal judge to lift a preliminary injunction against a similar rule Noem attempted to enact last year.
Meanwhile,
Jett Jonelis, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager says, “It’s clear that some of our lawmakers aren’t concerned about the rights and well-being of pregnant people. If they were, they would expand access to quality reproductive health care instead of restricting it. Medication abortion is safe, common and essential health care. South Dakotans deserve the right to make their own personal decisions about their lives and futures without politicians getting in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship.”
The ACLU says abortion restrictions disproportionately hurt those who already have the hardest time accessing quality health care — people with low-income, Black, Latino and Indigenous communities, people in rural communities, and patients suffering from intimate partner violence. An additional visit, on top of the already laborious two visits required by South Dakota law, would delay care and potentially prevent some patients from receiving the care they need altogether.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Health’s rule in January 2022. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction and blocked the enforcement of that rule.
In the ruling, the federal district court found that the Department of Health’s requirements are medically unnecessary, impose unnecessary medical risks and amount to a substantial obstacle for patients seeking medication abortion. The court also rejected the State’s argument that the regulation’s overarching purpose was patient health, noting that the FDA, an entity the State cited as authoritative on the subject, states that there is no medical reason for the challenged requirements under the regulation.
UPDATE FEBRUARY 24, 2022:
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A federal judge has temporarily halted a South Dakota rule from taking effect that would have made the state one of the hardest places in the U.S. to get abortion pills. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier late Wednesday (Feb. 23, 2022) granted a request from Planned Parenthood for a restraining order on a state Department of Health rule that was set to go into effect Thursday. Gov. Kristi Noem initiated the rule change through an executive order. It would have required abortion-seekers to return to a doctor to receive the second of two drugs used for a medication abortion.
FEBRUARY 22, 2022:
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s proposal to make the state one of the hardest places in the country to get abortion pills is gaining support from Republican House lawmakers. But a federal judge has halted a similar state rule from taking effect, finding that it likely violated women’s constitutional right to seek an abortion. Every Republican on the House Health and Human Services committee voted (Feb. 22, 2022) to advance the bill for a vote in the full chamber this week. It would require women seeking an abortion to make three separate trips to a doctor in order to take abortion pills.
Meanwhile,
The ACLU of South Dakota opposes House Bill 1318– a bill that would codify a South Dakota Department of Health rule created at Gov. Kristi Noem’s request that would create medically unnecessarily restrictions on medication abortion in South Dakota.
“Medication abortion is safe and should remain accessible to all South Dakotans without undue burdens imposed by politicians,” said Jett Jonelis, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager. “House Bill 1318 represents dangerous political interference and violates patients’ rights to liberty, privacy and equal protection as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by imposing significant burdens on abortion access without proof of a valid medical justification. We will continue to challenge efforts contrary to our right to make our own medical care decisions.”
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of South Dakota filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Health’s rule in January 2022. Earlier this month, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction and blocked the enforcement of that rule.
In the ruling, the federal district court found that the Department of Health’s requirements are medically unnecessary, impose unnecessary medical risks and amount to a substantial obstacle for patients seeking medication abortion. The court also rejected the State’s argument that the regulation’s overarching purpose was patient health, noting that the FDA, an entity the State cited as authoritative on the subject, states that there is no medical reason for the challenged requirements under the regulation.
Comments