Clarification on South Dakota’s abortion law as it relates to the life/health of the mother coming back in 2024

@SoDakCampaigns

Clarifying language as it relates to South Dakota’s abortion law for the life/health of the mother will be coming back in 2024, according to sponsors of a measure that was withdrawn in 2023, after opposition from representatives of South Dakota Right to Life – the same group which is campaigning to prevent a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the constitution from being placed on the ballot.

In an article in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader today…

House Assistant Majority Leader Taylor Rehfeldt introduced a bill during the 2023 legislative session that would have redefined when physicians can intervene to end a pregnancy, hoping to clarify the issue for physicians. But she requested a committee table it because she didn’t believe there was enough support to pass the bill — mostly due to opposition from the anti-abortion group South Dakota Right to Life.

A second, last-minute attempt to clarify the definition by Sen. Erin Tobin, R-Winner, was also halted later in the session. She asked the group’s executive director, Dale Bartscher, during a committee hearing about clarifying the health of the mother exception in the future.

“Right to Life definitely will continue to collaborate with anyone on issues of protection of the mother and the baby in the mother’s womb,” Bartscher said.

“Wonderful,” Tobin responded. “It seems like it’s a very high priority in this statement. I’ll be expecting further work on that.”

Rehfeldt has vowed to bring the bill back to the Legislature in 2024 — which will likely be months before South Dakotans vote on whether to amend the state constitution to allow abortions in the first trimester.

Read the entire story here.

 

41 thoughts on “Clarification on South Dakota’s abortion law as it relates to the life/health of the mother coming back in 2024”

  1. All of the medical experts, except those whose political agenda to defend abortions trumps their commitment to science, agree that there are NO medical conditions that require the killing of a baby in the womb. There are conditions that require removing the baby in order to save the mother’s life, but none of them require the baby to be killed in the process and with medical advances being what they are, the success of saving babies outside of the womb is increasing. The argument that we need exceptions for the life or health of the mother is a lie!

    2. Since you have your degree, and you know everything, why don’t you let us all know where you received your medical degree and where you’re licensed to practice.

    3. This is a straight up lie. Telling you backed such an obviously made up claim with ZERO sources.

      1. Tobin and Rehfeldt can blame right to life all they want but they know full well the governor would have vetoed it.

          1. LOL. I’m sure it was pro-abortion since RTL was on board with it until the very last minute and wrote some of the language. Maybe read the bill.

    4. This is the author of the original post. I laughed when I read the responses, which were personal attacks without any evidence to prove me wrong. I cannot prove a negative, i.e. that the medical conditions that require an abortion to save the life of a mother do not exist. The burden of proof is on the people who claim that those conditions do exist, but that proof was not provided because it does not exist.

      1. The most important situation and easiest example, is an estrogen dependent breast cancer diagnosis. If a woman finds out she is 4 weeks pregnant and has been recently diagnosed with this type of breast cancer. Every month that that woman goes without chemo, radiation, mastectomy her mortality increases by almost 15-20%. That means that by the time she has carried that child to viability even (24 weeks) she then has increased her risk death by 60+%. There is no medical emergency just the chance that she will die a slow death of metastatic breast cancer.

        We currently live in a state where legislators have decided that that a woman and her family have no say whether that woman can live her life or die. That’s the problem that needs to be fixed. This isn’t American.

        1. Might not be a medical emergency, but I think even a layperson would understand most any type of cancer is life threatening. The law doesn’t say it has to be a medical emergency.

      2. That which is claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Several examples have been provided throughout the comments. We anxiously await your learned replies, which will never come.

  2. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95960702

    There are many reasons why women need an abortion to save their life or the life of a twin/triplet, etc. A pregnant woman diagnosed with certain cancers can not start cancer treatment while pregnant, delaying care till they give birth gives the cancer time to spread and thus putting their lives in jeopardy. These decisions should be made between the patient and doctor only.

    1. Thank you for posting this link. People are misinformed at all levels and some of these decisions, if left up to government, will kill women AND babies.

    2. Don’t forget though, that preterm babies can be delivered without killing them first, and it is actually a common practice for certain dangerous situations such as pre-eclampsia. Even if there is a narrow chance of survival for the infant, you don’t have to kill it in the womb and cut it out piece by piece to save the mother. Babies younger than the age of viability survive all the time.

        1. That also unfortunately happens all the time. The key is doing all one can to give the baby a chance to live.

          1. Like providing free health care, parental leave, daycare assistance? Or not like that?

            1. Plenty of people survive, even thrive, without the “free” services you mention. Since that is your stance, when do you suggest we should start euthanizing against their will, those who suffer in poverty, from mental illness, or darn it, just too much stress?

    3. You did not proof me incorrect. The baby could be removed from the whom and potentially saved in order to allow the mother to receive the cancer treatments. Killing the baby is not required.

        1. What argument were you expecting from someone who clearly has no medical experience but wants to domineer others decisions?

  3. If national voting trends stay true here in 2024, then the Right to Life only have themselves and their other holy rollers to blame when voters approve of first trimester abortions for any reason. They could’ve expanded on exceptions for health, rape and incest that would placate most voters but small minded tyrants will never be reasonable.

  4. Why are Tobin and Rehfeldt so invested in propping up the abortion industry? Health exceptions are always loosely crafted to allow for abortion on demand for any reason. “Health” has even been construed to mean financial well-being.

    1. I believe, as both are nurses who also both treat patients at Catholic hospitals, their mission may be more about propping up the LIFE and HEALTH of mothers and babies. As mothers themselves it may be more about supporting families and the longevity of grandmothers, mothers, and daughters. It also may be about grandfathers, fathers, and sons of who want to have healthy wives and daughters who can continue to support them. I dunno…just another perspective.

      2. Yes, I believe that’s plausible… Just like Joe Biden’s Catholic faith is present in all the pro-abortion stances he takes.

  6. It could be plausible that since the Governor wanted to call a special session to make this right and right to life and the legislators involved in RTL and female Republican legislators all sat down and held meetings on how to make this right…..

    Plus RTL carried on conversations and offered some of the language surrounding some of the bill…

    well it could be plausible that SD has some legislators that will do what it takes to take a very hard stand for the people of SD. But then again…sometimes the people just have to be left with one choice at the ballot box. And that is what will happen and has happened at the ballot box in 6 other states.

    So politically you can throw stones all day. But until you have the huevos to stand up for what is right and protect against what is coming…

    1. The story is that RTL approved the language, gave their blessing and support of the bill, then stabbed Rehfeldt in the back. She took the high road and didn’t drag everyone down with her.

      RTL will be their own worst enemy and get abortion legalized through the ballot measure because of their stubborn attitudes. Or is that what they want? If the ballot measure passes then they have all the fundraising power and they can go on lobbying for the next 50 years. Coincidence?

  7. 9:12, Planned Parenthood has been dining at the trough of taxpayer funds for over half a century. Many of the pro-lifers I’ve known live meager lives. Abortion is big business supported by tax dollars and politicians and big healthcare systems. They’re the ones with the profit motives. Killing babies has been very lucrative for many. Saving babies? Not so much.

    1. This might be the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Big business? By what standards? Do you think the medical industry involving a single procedure outweighs the industry of serving that child throughout life? Abortion is peanuts when it comes to any measurable scale.

      1. Good point. The government should quit subsidizing them then. It’s mere peanuts.

        1. So you want them to not subsidize an abortion but subsidize them for the next 18 years of care and probably then some?

  8. 5/18/2019

    Tweet from Donald J. Trump & @realDonaldTrump-

    “As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions – Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother – the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new….”.

    Noem was at the table and will be back at the table to figure this out too.

    Everyone needs to calm down – this isn’t a democrat or Republican issue. Life/health of the mother is a family issue that should never be debated in any Capitol. It should be between man/woman/God in their personal conversations/prayers and then add in their Doctor to make a decision. Anyone who thinks legislatures have the duty to make laws moving this private conversation elsewhere…you need to reflect on what Freedom and Liberty mean.

    1. What god would create a child and then tell somebody praying to him to kill that which he created?

      1. Someone has to die. Mom or baby or both.

        Both are God created.

        So – do you think the SD legislature (man) should decide if the mother or baby is more important in Gods eyes?

        Maybe we just leave that up to those who have the burden to carry (families).

        Or…maybe we let the idiots elected decide for us.

        This isn’t going well for those who are fighting this tiny little battle of “Woman carry that baby until no more”.

        This turns into “legal abortion across all trimesters” because people won’t have their wives, daughters, and mothers die by the hands of Fred Deutch, Al Norvstrup, and John Hansen.

  9. I agree with the above comment. The Government has no business to stick its’ nose into this personal decision.

Comments are closed.