Guest Column: HB 1169 needed to clarify law and to hold the line against proposed constitutional amendment 

@SoDakCampaigns

HB 1169 needed to clarify law and to hold the line against proposed constitutional amendment 
by State Senator Erin Tobin
District 21

I am in my 3rd year as a State Senator and I have learned many valuable things along the way. I have learned things about people, my constituents, and constituents outside of my district. I have learned a lot about my colleagues and how to negotiate. I have learned about politics, sometimes things that frustrate me, and how to work through disagreements and varying opinion.

This leads me into my discussion of the overturning of Roe V Wade and the decision of abortion going back to the States. This is both a huge accomplishment for America and a huge responsibility for State legislatures. We need to have the difficult conversations and we need to be advocates for life, everyone’s life, from birth to natural death.

The situation Republicans are in now is different than we have ever been in, as we have been on the defense for so long and have been defending life against the Supreme Court’s previous decision. Now we are on the offense. We, Republicans, have the ball in hand. The situation we are in could be compared to leading a football game by one point with a few minutes left, having the ball, and not making any bad decisions that could lead to a turnover. We need to keep our pro-life team educated, aware, and on task. There is so much more to lose than a football game. If we lose the ball, it is the end game, the final countdown, and everything is at stake.

HB 1169 provided clarification to protect the life of the mother and keep pro-life Republican women protected in our legislative efforts. I and my colleagues, Representative Rehfeldt and Senator Davis, worked diligently on this task. We had discussions with our Governor, with SD Right to Life, Senate and House leadership, the Senate Republican caucus, healthcare, legislators from other states, National Right to Life, Susan B Anthony, constituents; no ground was left uncovered. We had a plan, and we were moving forward as a team, but at the 11th hour some backed out. Some went back on their word and began to spread rumors that this bill was not Pro-life. This is very upsetting for the bill’s sponsors, Republicans, and all women.

I encourage everyone to reach out to their legislators. Talk to them about personal pregnancy issues and ask if our current law is clear enough to protect them if something goes wrong. We need to hold the line against the proposed constitutional amendment in 2024. We need to promote families and help women feel safe as they bring children into this world. We need to protect women because if they die, we lose mothers, babies, and families. This is too important to ignore.

We will be bringing back HB 1169 next session. The time is now.

Senator Erin Tobin
District 21
Chair, Senate Health and Human Services

42 thoughts on “Guest Column: HB 1169 needed to clarify law and to hold the line against proposed constitutional amendment ”

  1. You all wanted a total ban and now you have it, women be dammed. Played with fire (SDRTL) and got burned.

      1. No one is going to support that even though you pro-birthers immediately jump to that extreme. The current law is far too restrictive. Women who have a miscarriage should not be forced to carry a rotting fetus until they are septic and no longer able to bear children before they can have an abortion. Even if abortion is allowed again, it will likely only be for up to 16 weeks or so and that is about all most South Dakotans will support.

        1. The pro-choice-to-kill crowd ALWAYS conflates the issue, as you’ve done here. “Abortion” by definition is the “termination of a pregnancy”

          In the red herring of an argument you presented, you failed to note that in the tragic situation you described, the pregnancy has spontaneously terminated. Hence, the procedure would be dilation and evacuation. Nothing terminated. No live child being severed limb-from-limb. Just a medical procedure to ensure the life of the woman is preserved.

            1. Anonymous at 9:11, did you read the article?
              She wasn’t “forced” to carry a dead fetus around for two weeks. Her doctor said she would have to schedule a second ultrasound to confirm the diagnosis. (This is sort of like the brain death laws that require two doctors to confirm a diagnosis of brain death and one of them has to be a neurologist. Yes there really are state laws like that.)
              So instead of scheduling a second ultrasound, she spent two weeks looking for a doctor who would perform the surgery without one.

            2. my sister had a similar experience many years ago; the first ultrasound was bad news. A D&C was scheduled, but because she had concerns they might be wrong, she asked for, and received, a second ultrasound to confirm the diagnosis of fetal demise. For her, it was a comfort to have it confirmed prior to the D&C.

              A story about a woman who carried a dead fetus for two weeks simply because she refused to have a second ultrasound is asinine.

  3. I have never heard anything about the Governor supporting this or being willing to sign it into law. I thought she was trying to make Disantis more pro life?

  4. Thanks to Sen. Tobin for this post, her efforts on HB1169, and for what I know was surely her good faith negotiation with various groups in this process. I know Sen. Tobin and Rep. Rehfeldt personally and would trust their version of events.

    I have worked in healthcare administration. I have worked at a Catholic hospital governed by Ethical and Religious Directives (about as pro-life as you can get). 20% of our nation’s healthcare is provided by Catholic health systems. I know that hospitals, doctors, and patients can be safe and operate under a pro-life legal/policy framework. I’ve seen it. I’m confident that all the interested parties could refine definitions as needed to create a pro-life model for the country if they are interested in negotiating in good faith. As various parties jockey for position in a post-Roe world, the “negotiating in good faith” may be the missing element, but I’ll withhold judgment until I learn more.

    The end goal now, in a Post-Roe legal regime, should be building a culture of life. That will require some engagement with the culture including clarifications to assuage some misgivings and concerns from the median voter. The alternative is to be the indirect architect of a constitutional amendment campaign that would enshrine in our state law injustices against the unborn as bad or worse than the Roe era. True characters will be revealed in the next year or two that will show who the next generation of leaders should be to lead the strategic vision of a culture of life.

  8. https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Vote/76854

    Sometimes a sponsor asks for a bill to be tabled. No way of knowing that unless you listen to the bills hearing and subsequent testimony or the sponsor has a tabling motion worked out beforehand. This bill was tabled 13-0 which leads me to think so here just not ready for prime time.

    1. The sponsor was forced to table because major players changed their position in the 11th hour after helping make the bill. The bill is ready.

        1. Do you want a public Republican war about women and if their lives matter? That’s what would have happened. It would have been perfect ammunition for the left. We should all be thanking Rep Rehfeldt and feel lucky that she has leadership, integrity, and maturity. She obviously thought beyond herself considering her own circumstances and a current high risk pregnancy.

      2. It sounds like they never had firm committments from any stakeholders (including the governor).

  9. South Dakotans have to decide if the mother’s life is as important as the baby’s life. If it is, this law needs to be passed regardless of what pro life groups want or are afraid to do. Pro life means pro mother’s life, too. If they are opposed to protecting the life of the mother, the groups now fighting this bill, that helped write the bill, should publicly say that.

  10. Read the bill. It expands access to abortion. That’s not a pro-life bill.

    The sponsor asked for her bill to be tabled. She didn’t have to do that, but she did.

      1. When you are strong armed by the powerful lobby in the 11th hour, you do what you think is right to protect your fellow reps. I wish she didn’t table it. I wish she waited until comments were over so they could come out and say that the life of the mother is less important than the baby.

      2. 1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
        1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
        0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
        0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
        3.50% for all the hard cases combined.
        96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

        https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

      3. https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

        1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
        1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
        0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
        0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
        3.50% for all the hard cases combined.
        96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.

  12. Or as the brilliant Bill Napoli explained;

    “A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

  13. Noem could have come out in favor of it rather than saying nothing. She could come out now and have it resurrected. She could bring every group together and both chambers.

    What does the governor even think on this issue?

  14. Months before Dobbs, Planned Parenthood announced the end of is abortion side of their business in SD. The life-saving restrictions SD had placed on abortion led to PP’s abortuary failing, but they still hand out contraceptives like they’re tootsie rolls at a parade. Dobbs changed next-to-nothing in SD, so the triumverate can rest assured that their bill wasn’t needed, except that providing a broad health exception would once again make the abortion side of PP’s business viable. They can take another shot next year, but this bill was neither necessary nor pro-life. The senator’s expressed contempt for the pro-life community in the article is concerning.

    1. If you want to prevent abortions, why are you trashing them handing out contraceptives? The level of cognitive dissonance….

    2. Tobin’s tone towards the pro life community in this letter tells me those opposing the bill were wise to question her bill and be cautious of changes to the law.

      1. How dare that woman Senator talk so condescendingly to that almost all male, old men, pro-life group. The nerve.

  15. The Senator’s language is very disappointing and depicts nothing more than sour grapes regarding the fact that people saw that this weakens our abortion law and spoke up. What pregnancy doesn’t place a woman at “risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of one or more major bodily functions”? Something as common as post-partum bladder leakage would fit in this description.

  16. Exactly 10% of comments coming from Men with the Huevos to admit who they are….

    Where are the fish biting ?

    1. Because it’s men who are the most concerned with keeping women as sex slaves and not having to deal with the consequences. They are afraid if abortion is outlawed nobody will be willing to have sex with them, which is likely, as they tend to be losers.
      Real men don’t want women to kill their children.

Comments are closed.