Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 72: Noem Launches Sneak Attack on Abortion to Cover Antis’ Angst at Opposing Sonogram Bill

To make Senator Stace Nelson’s forced sonogram bill go down more easily (to the 41st day), Senate Health and Human Affairs has rushed Governor Kristi Noem’s first intrusion into women’s abortion rights, introduced just today, to a Friday morning hearing.

Senate Bill 72, requested by the Governor, smells like cheap cover for legislators and anti-abortion advocates who are committed to killing Nelson’s anti-abortion Senate Bill 6 for apparently political reasons but can’t stand the spectacle of a committee hearing where SD Right to Life does nothing but agree with Planned Parenthood. Or maybe trumping SB 6 with SB 6 is just a way to make the Handmaid’s Talers of our Legislature look moderate and reasonable as they kill one invasive anti-abortion bill while still ratcheting up the regulations that make South Dakota one of the hardest places in America for a woman to exercise her Constitutional rights.

Senate Bill 72 doesn’t say much:

To meet the requirement of subdivision 34-23A-10.1(1), a physician shall use a form prescribed by the department. The department shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 specifying the form necessary to meet the requirement of this section [Senate Bill 72, filed 2019.01.23].

That’s the whole bill. It refers to a much longer section of a much longer statute, SDCL 34-23A-10.1, a compelled-speech law that forces doctors to say the following things, including medically false statements (I’ll link the B.S. below), in writing to women seeking to end their pregnancies:

  1. The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
  2. That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
  3. That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
  4. That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
  5. A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including:
    1. Depression and related psychological distress;
    2. Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
    3. A statement setting forth an accurate rate of deaths due to abortions, including all deaths in which the abortion procedure was a substantial contributing factor;
    4. All other known medical risks to the physical health of the woman, including the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility;
  6. The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed, and a scientifically accurate statement describing the development of the unborn child at that age;
  7. The statistically significant medical risks associated with carrying her child to term compared to undergoing an induced abortion;
  8. That even after a pregnant mother takes Mifepristone it is still possible to discontinue a drug-induced abortion by not taking the prescribed Misoprostol; and
  9. That information on discontinuing a drug-induced abortion is available on the Department of Health website.

The disclosures set forth above shall be provided to the pregnant woman in writing and in person in full compliance with § 34-23A-56. The physician shall ensure that the pregnant woman signs each page of the written disclosure with the certification that she has read and understands all of the disclosures, prior to the patient signing a consent for the procedure. If the pregnant woman asks for a clarification or explanation of any particular disclosure, or asks any other question about a matter of significance to her, the explanation or answer shall be made in writing and be given to the pregnant woman before signing a consent for the procedure and shall be made part of the permanent medical record of the patient;… [SDCL 34-23A-10.1, excerpt from Section 1].

Senate Bill 72 smells a lot like Al Novstrup’s “I know better than doctors” forced-speech bill last year, which tried to punish doctors for debunking the lies the state tries forcing into the examination room. Senate Bill 72 is sneakier: Governor Noem isn’t admitting any intent up front; she’s just slipping the forced speech off to the far less publicly accountable Department of Health, whose minions she can order to write up the state’s lies in the scariest language possible, with maybe only one public rules hearing at some quietly announced date, out of the glare of two Legislative committee hearings and two full floor debates in which Republican legislators would question the integrity of South Dakota’s doctors and the intelligence of South Dakota’s women.

Senate Bill 72 says, “We’re just designing a form, no big deal, nothing to argue about, just pass it and move on.”

Horsehockey. Senate Bill 72 is a consolation prize to the fetal crusaders in Pierre, who’ve been told they have to say really uncomfortable things about an anti-abortion bill. More importantly, it is a sneak attack on women, doctors, and science, just like (aside from sneakiness) Senate Bill 6.

In an ideal world, when Senate Health and Human Services would go 0-for-2 on Friday morning at 10, Capitol Room 412, kill both of these bills, and stand for fact and women’s rights.

11 Comments

  1. mike from iowa 2019-01-23 19:14

    In iowa today a judge struck down iowa’s draconian fetal heartbeat bill as unconstitutional and if I was the judge I would slap an injunction against every wingnut everywhere from ever introducing more of these wastes of time bills.

    The injunction wouldn’t cover Northern Mississippi because Pierre is no where.

  2. Porter Lansing 2019-01-23 19:28

    South Dakota is one of the hardest places in America for a woman to exercise her Constitutional rights. To any South Dakotan who is or knows a woman or girl who chooses to exercise her legal and God given rights regarding her personal health and childbirth decisions, go to the Mayo Clinic. It’s safer, cleaner, very helpful and friendly. Go where you’re loved. Here’s how to make an appointment, the details of what to expect and how to prepare.
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687

  3. Rorschach 2019-01-23 19:46

    I see how it will work. There is no deadline for the department to design a form and promulgate a rule. The rules promulgation process takes place only when the legislature is not in session, and the process itself takes a minimum of 3-4 months when done in normal order (as opposed to emergency rules which are quicker). And of course the Rules Review committee could reject that proposed rule and send it back to be re-worked. Maybe there would actually be a form and a rule in 2019. Maybe not.

    So if the department drags its feet designing a form and promulgating a rule – no abortions can take place in South Dakota without a physician violating this law (if Noem’s bill passes as-is). It’s a back door complete ban of abortion between the date the law takes effect and the date the department gets around to maybe, sometime, promulgating a rule.

  4. Porter Lansing 2019-01-23 20:06

    Every Catholic is just as guilty when a woman or girl who lives in South Dakota terminates her pregnancy, no matter where she has it terminated. It matters that she’s a South Dakotan not that she had an abortion within South Dakota borders. Sorry, Catholics. Your guilt is not absolved because you make it harder. If it happens, it’s still your fault for not stopping it. Period!! You can not petition God with meaningless attempts at feigned righteousness. You’re still a sinner and will be judged according to your sins.

  5. Debbo 2019-01-23 21:21

    Can someone who’s better at finding things online help me out? There’s a form I’m certain the SDGOP voted into law a long time ago. You know the one I mean about the thing doctors have to read to males before they can have sex with an eagerly consenting woman . . . . .

    1. That the inseminator’s act of unprotected sex could produce a whole, separate, unique, living human being;

    2. That the inseminating male will have an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;

    3. That only by death of himself or of that whole, separate, unique, living human being, will his existing relationship and his existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;

    4. A description of all known medical risks of the inseminating act and statistically significant risk factors to which the inseminator would be subjected, including:

    A. Depression and related psychological distress;

    B. Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;

    5. A statement setting forth an accurate rate of deaths due to insemination, including all deaths in which the inseminating act was a substantial contributing factor;

    6. All other known medical risks to the physical health of the male, including the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent inseminations, and infertility;

    7. Negative effects on the inseminator’s financial status;

    8. Significant exposure to legal issues;

    9. Extreme reduction in inseminator’s recreational activities;

    10. Ad infinitum.

    I’m pretty sure there’s more but like I said, I can’t find it in SD’s codified laws. Maybe some of you who do find it can complete this for me.

    Thanks. 😁😁😁

  6. John 2019-01-23 21:31

    Where is the SD ACLU or First Amendment advocates in efforts to over-turn the compelled speech of SDCL 34-23A-10.1? That is as offensive as the legislator compelling speech between and attorney and her client, or between spouses.

  7. Cory Allen Heidelberger 2019-01-24 19:12

    Ror! That’s a frightening pospect. SB 72 could be a worse sneak attack than I thought! I wonder if someone will bring that up in committee tomorrow….

  8. Cory Allen Heidelberger 2019-01-24 19:14

    …but if the state fails to provide a form that it mandates doctors to use, and if doctors proceed to do their medical duty as best they can in the absence of that legally prescribed form, the state can’t reqally prosecute them, can they? I mean, wouldn’t that be like my signing a bill requiring that every concealed weapons permit bear my signature as Governor in 2023 and then refusing to sign any concealed weapon’s permit?

  9. Rorschach 2019-01-25 05:54

    The state would have a hard time successfully prosecuting a doctor for not using a form that doesn’t exist. But wouldn’t the prospect of violating a law on the books and being put through the ringer and possibly having Noem’s board take action against your medical license put a chill in the air and cause a doctor to question whether they want to take that risk? Let’s see what happens in committee today.

  10. Debbo 2019-01-26 13:51

    Good grief indeed! SD Democrats keep behaving as if they’re SDGOP Lite and it keeps failing. Lesson not learned, over and over again.

Comments are closed.