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.
When I moved back to my hometown in South Dakota after leaving my job in Chicago, I knew I was taking a risk—a risk that I would lose access to a queer community. What I didn’t expect was that my own state government would start to push to decide that I am not a person worth protecting, that I am not deserving of dignity.
Will Senate Democrats respond to calls to block the nomination of Michael Boggs to the federal bench?
Two South Dakota bills that would have imposed severe restrictions on abortion procedures
as well as penalties on abortion providers, including possible life in prison, will not move forward in the legislature.
The state has spent $170,000 in taxpayer money since 2011 defending a single anti-choice law, according to new figures from the state attorney general obtained by RH Reality Check.
From Michael Dunn’s acquittal in the murder of Jordan Davis to a pending nominee to the federal bench, now more than ever our courts matter.
RH Reality Check spoke with reproductive health-care professionals, including abortion providers, about their concerns regarding the vague language in the bill and how it could affect access to reproductive health care in the state.