Now that the Trump Court has allowed South Dakota to ban pretty much all abortions, the abortion lobby has had a pretty dull 2026 Legislative Session. They tried to send women to prison for having abortion with House Bill 1212, but that measure died in committee (though Representatives Andera, Baxter, Garcia, and Schaefbauer voted for charging their fellow women with capital murder).
Radical right-wing Representative Bethany Soye (R-9/Sioux Falls) floated House Bill 1257 to expand the definition of abortion to include “administering, prescribing, providing, selling, or using any drug, medicine, or other substance, or providing, selling, or using any device or instrument, with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child….”
Selling—so that’s kind of like saying murder includes selling the gun that a kid uses to shoot up a school, right?
Representative Leslie Heinemann (R-25/Flandreau), who took over as prime sponsor from Soye, asked House State Affairs to reel that definition back to its current simple line—”the intentional termination of the life of a human being in the uterus”—and instead simply clarify what the term abortion does not include:
(a) Medical treatment that is provided to a pregnant female and results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child;
(b) Treatment to resolve a miscarriage;
(c) The treatment or removal of an ectopic pregnancy;
(d) The removal from the uterus of a deceased unborn child; or
(e) Any medical procedure performed for the purpose of saving the life or preserving the health of the unborn child;… [2026 House Bill 1257, excerpt from Section 2, as amended by House State Affairs, 2026.02.23].
Note that these proposed exemptions do not include the vast array of conditions in which terminating a pregnancy is medically necessary. The exceptions do not indicate concern for mothers’ health. HB 1257 leaves in place the language in South Dakota’s abortion ban, SDCL 22-12-5.1, that says the only condition under which abortion is not a felony is when “there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.”
The American Civil Liberties Union smells the big-government misogyny:
When urgent care is delayed in obstetrics, hemorrhage worsens. Infection spreads. Organs fail. No patient should have to wait for their provider to parse through legalese during a medical emergency.
This is not health care. This is putting people’s lives at risk in service of a political agenda. And that’s why House Bill 1257, legislation that claims to clarify the “medical emergency” exception to South Dakota’s near-total abortion ban, is so dangerous and must be stopped.
Deeply private, personal and unique decisions about abortion should not be made by politicians but be made by pregnant people in consultation with their doctors – who should be able to treat their patients according to their best medical judgement. Inserting unclear and non-medical terminology into law will cause uncertainty for providers and will inevitably cause delays in care.
Abortion shouldn’t be a political issue. It’s a health care issue that has been deeply politicized to the detriment of so many people across South Dakota.
The call to clarify the exceptions to South Dakota’s extreme abortion ban just proves that one-size-fits-all laws don’t work. In order for our laws to address all the possible circumstances that someone who is pregnant might face, we need to repeal the total abortion ban and make access to medical care the rule, not the exception [ACLU of South Dakota, “‘Medical Emergency’ Exceptions Put Lives at Risk,” action alert, 2026.03.02].
HB 1257 does nothing to restore women’s choice or medical safety in pregnancy; enact HB 1257, and pregnant South Dakota women will still be forced to carry any viable pregnancy to term. The anti-abortion fanatics aren’t proposing to make life much worse for South Dakota women… because in terms of reproductive freedom, things are about as bad as they can get.
Good luck South Dakota women. My wife was an educational director for Planned Parenthood for over 20 years. I’ve been in the trenches on this issue for decades. Its tough.
On a lighter note. My wife ordered me two CDs and the book Evil from the Handsome Family about 20 years ago. She had it sent to herself at Planned Parenthood so she could surprise me. Rennie Sparks used to package and send it out herself. It was packaged so poorly and loose writing on it when it arrived they called the cops because they thought it was a bomb or something. My wife had them stop and I got my present.
Don’t stop fighting for freedom.
Female legislators who support such archaic measures should be ashamed of themselves when it comes to women’s health, especially an ectopic pregnancy. I wouldn’t wish that on any of them or my worst enemy. My sister nearly died, had it not been for a free 24-hour emergency clinic in Redlands Ca., less than one mile from where she lived. Run by a superfluity of nuns, they had no problem performing an abortion to save her life. She was bleeding to death at the age of 23.
As for the male legislators, they bear some responsibility for women’s pregnancies, it takes two. Medical advice is not in the job description for a politician. I have a B.A. in poly sci and I never had to study medical situations, like women’s health. Do you want women telling you what you can’t do?
I wonder if any reps in Pierre would actually force their daughters or granddaughters to give birth to a child from rape or incest. Really? How many would allow them to die when a fertilized egg does not get to the uterus? Are they so stupid that they don’t realize they are chasing young girls from the state for places where they can practice their right to choose for themselves.