PIERRE, SD — According to the ACLU of South Dakota, A bill claiming to simply clarify the “medical emergency” exception to South Dakota’s near-total abortion ban may in truth have wide-ranging consequences that go far beyond abortion care.
“By using specific language to define an ‘unborn child’ as an individual organism from fertilization until live birth, House Bill 1257 could create a legal domino effect that triggers broader restrictions on hormonal contraception, emergency contraception and in vitro fertilization,” said the ACLU in a statement to the media today. The ACLU has stated its opposition in light of HB 1257 on these grounds.
“‘Medical emergency’ exceptions to abortion laws are often narrow, vague and insufficient to protect pregnant people in life-threatening situations. House Bill 1257 is no different,” said Samantha Chapman, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager. “But by codifying language into state law that dictates that a fertilized embryo from the moment of conception is a person with full legal rights, House Bill 1257 throws into question the future of hormonal birth control and IVF treatments. This effort is about controlling women and returning us all back to a time when women could not make decisions about their bodies, futures and destinies.”
Additionally, the ACLU wishes to emphasize that legislative policy must remain neutral toward competing religious perspectives on life’s origin to ensure that pregnancy does not result in the forfeiture of equal protection under the law.
“There is a difference between personal beliefs about when life begins and laws that should apply to all of us,” Chapman said. “The call to clarify the exception 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”.
