In 2006, Rounds signed into law one of the most sweeping anti-choice laws in the country, which banned all abortions unless a pregnant woman’s life was in jeopardy.
Voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota will decide ballot measures, also known as initiatives or issues, on Election Day to increase those states’ minimum wage.
Republicans in Washington have begun pulling money budgeted for the U.S. Senate candidate in South Dakota—an apparent sign of confidence—while national Democrats continue pumping money into the contest.
Tyler Brandt being forced to wear a nametag with a homophobic, ableist slur is but one example of the problems that face LGBT people every day in the workforce, despite President Obama’s attempts to address workplace discrimination of LGBT people on a federal level.
A new law in South Dakota bans the practice of so-called sex-selection abortion, while in Indiana two new laws went into effect, banning private insurance coverage of abortion care and mandating that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The report shines a light on the harmful racial stereotypes driving one of the right’s latest anti-abortion efforts.
For every odious anti-choice bill that passes into law, there are about a dozen others that fail, or never see the light of day. Here’s a list of some major bullets dodged so far this year in the state legislatures.
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill Wednesday to punish any physician in the state who is found to perform sex-selective abortions, or an abortion that’s chosen based on the gender of the fetus—a practice that reproductive rights advocates say is not a concern in the state.
South Dakota could soon become the eighth state in the country to pass a sex-selective abortion ban. Yet these bills have yet to merit a larger conversation, either within the national reproductive rights and feminist movements or in the news more generally.
HB 1180 would mandate that CPCs that wish to be registered as “pregnancy help centers” in the state cannot “place children for adoption,” either directly or indirectly, such as by referring women to outside agencies that handle adoptions.