Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, turned in signatures for a petition aiming to restore the right to an abortion during the first trimester in South Dakota, where most abortions are banned. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) 

SIOUX FALLS — The group leading the effort to put abortion rights on South Dakota’s November ballot said Wednesday it was turning in far more petition signatures than required, while an opposition group said it will challenge the legitimacy of the petitions.

The ballot-question committee proposing the measure, Dakotans for Health, held a press conference attended by about 50 people at a Sioux Falls library before driving the petitions to the Capitol in Pierre. The deadline to submit the petitions is next Tuesday.

Meanwhile, about 20 anti-abortion activists associated with the Life Defense Fund protested outside the library. The Life Defense Fund is a ballot-question committee organized to oppose the abortion-rights measure.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, a trigger law that the South Dakota Legislature had adopted in 2005 immediately banned abortions in the state except when necessary to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.”

“As a result, we’ve been living in a state with the most restrictive abortion ban in the country,” said Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health.

He said the group collected about 55,000 signatures, well ahead of the 35,017 needed from registered voters to put the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The ballot measure would amend the state constitution to legalize all abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. It would allow regulations on abortion during the second trimester, but only in ways that are “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” In the third trimester, it would allow regulations up to a ban on abortions, with exceptions for the “life or health of the pregnant woman.”

During the press conference, Weiland referenced Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s Freedom Works Here workforce recruitment campaign and said “it really doesn’t work for women.”

“Freedom doesn’t work for a woman who has been raped, becomes pregnant, and is told it is illegal to choose an abortion,” he said. “Freedom doesn’t work when there is someone’s daughter who is a victim of incest and is forced to carry her pregnancy to term.”

Opponents allege ‘deception’

The Legislature passed a law in March allowing petition signers to withdraw their signatures after the fact, and anti-abortion activists are conducting a coordinated signature-withdrawal effort.

The Secretary of State’s Office said it does not have a count on the number of withdrawal requests received so far. The office stores the requests until a court challenge is filed against the validity of the petitions, in which case the withdrawal requests would become part of the challenge.

Leslee Unruh, Life Defense Fund co-chair, was one of the people protesting outside during the press conference. She said her volunteers have witnessed “lies and deception” from petition circulators.

“And people being told that they’re signing a food tax petition, and really, it ended up being the abortion petition,” she said. “And we have hundreds of hours’ worth of video. We can’t wait to get to court.”

In addition to the abortion-rights petitions, Dakotans for Health also circulated petitions for a measure that would repeal state sales taxes on groceries.

It’s unclear when the Life Defense Fund intends to file its legal challenge, but fellow Life Defense Fund Co-Chair and state Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, said it will happen soon.

During the press conference, Weiland called the move “a desperate charge” by anti-abortion activists.

Sioux Falls resident Tiffany Campbell has gathered thousands of signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. She shared that when she was pregnant with twins, due to complications, her pregnancy was guaranteed to end with the death of at least one of her twin boys, if not both. Aborting one of the fetuses saved the life of the other.

Today, “I would not be able to make that decision,” Campbell said.

She told South Dakota Searchlight that neither she nor any of her fellow petition circulators engaged in the “lies and deception” that the Life Defense Fund is alleging.

In addition to the potential legal challenge from the Life Defense Fund, the petitions also must clear a check by the Secretary of State’s Office to verify enough of the signatures are from registered South Dakota voters.

SD’s place in national debate

Some regional abortion-rights groups do not support the ballot measure, including Planned Parenthood North Central States and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. The groups have alleged there are problems in the language of the measure resulting from a rushed process to draft it without sufficient input from interested people and groups.

Weiland said he hopes those groups will reconsider as the ballot measure moves forward.

If the measure makes the ballot, it will not be the first time South Dakotans have voted on abortion rights. South Dakota voters rejected abortion bans in 2006 and 2008.

The 2006 ballot measure would have banned abortions except to “preserve the life of the pregnant woman,” and the 2008 ballot measure would have banned abortions with the same exception plus additional exceptions for rape and incest.

According to KFF Health News, there are efforts underway to put constitutional amendments regarding abortion on the 2024 ballot in at least 13 states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.

Since the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, six states – California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio — have voted on abortion-related constitutional amendments, and the side favoring access to abortion prevailed in each state.

The abortion measure is just one of many questions that could appear on South Dakota’s November ballot. Several other citizen-initiated petitions are circulating, including a measure to switch the state from political-party primary elections to open primaries. The Legislature has already exercised its right to place two measures on the ballot: one would replace references to male officeholders in the state constitution with neutral language, and the other would ask voters to lift a prohibition against work requirements for Medicaid expansion enrollees.