A state that’s ‘pro-birth’ should also be truly ‘pro-life’

No matter where you fit on the political spectrum, the news on June 24, 2022, was staggering: The Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that guaranteed women the right to an abortion.

Polls indicate that two-thirds of the country saw this as a crippling blow to the rights of women. For anti-abortion activists, it was the answer to a prayer. Some state legislatures are still struggling to figure out what the decision means for them.

Lawmakers in North Carolina, Florida and Nebraska are working on new, stricter abortion laws. That isn’t the case in South Dakota, where the 2005 Legislature passed a trigger law on abortion, designed to go into effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned. The 2005 version of the Legislature was a strict bunch. Abortion will only be allowed in South Dakota “to preserve the life of the pregnant female.” There are no allowances here for rape or incest. Anyone who induces an abortion is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Additionally, in January, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a news release aimed at pharmacists, telling them that despite approval by the Food and Drug Administration, chemical abortion drugs can’t be dispensed at South Dakota pharmacies. They told pharmacists that dispensing those drugs could lead to a felony prosecution.

It’s clear from those and other examples that the overturning of Roe v. Wade doesn’t mark the end of debates over abortion, but rather the beginning of a new struggle. With abortion no longer an option in South Dakota under most circumstances, anti-abortion activists have a responsibility to be truly pro-life rather than just pro-birth.

Emily Leedom, executive director of the Lourdes Center in Sioux Falls, formerly known as Catholic Family Services, asked the members of her church if they were ready for the responsibility of being more than just “pro-birth.”

In an October 2020 article in the Bishop’s Bulletin, Leedom painted a bleak picture of a post-Roe world where more families would be in crisis, more single mothers would struggle, more children would be born into difficult home situations and more children would live in poverty. She asked the members of her church if, through their charitable gifts of time and treasure, they are ready to “walk with and support single parents who chose life despite its many difficulties.”

Whether she read Leedom’s article or not, Noem seems aware that a state that outlaws almost all abortions should take responsibility for helping new parents. Maybe it was happenstance or skillful marketing, but on the day Roe v. Wade was overturned, Noem rolled out Life.SD.gov.

That website brings together in one place all the resources that state government can offer to help young parents. The home page provides links to information on pregnancy, parenting, financial assistance and adoption. Another page offers help on subjects as wide-ranging as applying for Medicaid, finding child care, learning about breastfeeding and how to quit smoking.

While the website is a helpful resource for people who may not have been expecting to be parents, there’s more that could be done.

Noem’s State of the State address mentioned “family” or “families” or “strong families” no less than 30 times. Yet nowhere in that speech was any reference to the state’s abortion law. Noem could ask the Legislature to change the rules for abortion, adding allowances for rape or incest. Certainly those are two circumstances that would roil the strongest of families.

During the recent legislative session, Noem didn’t comment on House Bill 1169, an attempt to clarify “the life of the mother” exception in the trigger law governing abortion. The bill’s sponsor, who asked that it be tabled due to a lack of support, has vowed to bring the legislation back in the next session. Here’s hoping she does and that Noem, who describes herself as a champion of strong families, has something to say about how the law should be applied in this most crucial of circumstances for women with high-risk pregnancies.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade could have a devastating effect on some families. The governor should take a look at the way that law is applied and any changes that are needed if she truly wants to ensure that South Dakota families are strong.