South Dakota Outlaws Abortion Ads—and Speech

3.23.26

Click to skip ahead: All Eyes On Georgia; In the States: Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Arkansas, Oregon; South Dakota Outlaws Abortion Ads—and Speech; Legislation Watch: South Dakota, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho; Ballot Box: Wisconsin; What We’re Reading; Care Crisis: The Impact of Bans & Defunding

---

All Eyes On Georgia

Like many of you, we’ve been closely following the case of a Georgia woman arrested for murder after allegedly using abortion pills to end her pregnancy. The story, which we reported on earlier this month, is just now breaking into the mainstream. Coverage is only going to snowball from here, for better or worse.

That’s why we’re putting together a special edition of the newsletter that breaks down everything you need to know about the case—including a few ways you might be able to help. Look for it in your inbox tomorrow.

Until then, you can catch up on our earlier coverage below, and watch my video here on what reporters are already getting wrong.

A Georgia Hospital Turned Her In, Now She’s Charged With Murder

And remember: this case comes at the same time that pregnancy-related arrests are on the rise—and as calls for punishing abortion patients are becoming more normalized. What’s happening in Georgia impacts all of us.

In the States: Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Arkansas, Oregon

A legal challenge to Idaho’s abortion ban is headed to trial in June, the Idaho Statesman reports. Abortion, Every Day has been following this case for a while, but here’s a quick refresher:

Right now, abortion in Idaho is only allowed if a patient is at risk of dying—or in cases of rape, but only in the first trimester and only if it’s reported to police. (In other words, that exception only exists on paper.) In 2024, maternal-fetal medicine specialist Dr. Stacy Seyb filed suit, arguing the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

Seyb and his attorneys at the Lawyering Project say abortion isn’t just protected to save someone’s life—but to preserve their health. That includes cases where pregnancy worsens existing conditions, could lead to suicide, or involves fatal or severe fetal diagnoses. The suit argues that denying those patients care is both unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Notably, the goal isn’t to strike down the ban entirely, but to force the state to expand its exceptions to include patients who face serious medical harm.

A few things. First, I really appreciate that Seyb and the Lawyering Project are taking on the absolute hypocrisy of allowing life-saving abortions unless the risk to life is suicide. Stephanie Toti, executive director of The Lawyering Project, points out that even “Idaho’s own maternal mortality committee found for like five years in a row that mental illness, including suicidality and addiction, are leading underlying causes of death for pregnant people.”

Second, it’s vital to remember that Idaho has been in the spotlight more than once since the end of Roe. Attorney General Raúl Labrador fought to deny women emergency abortions all the way up to the Supreme Court, and accused doctors of lying about the threats to women’s health to make “a political statement.” The state has also lost nearly a quarter of its OB-GYNs, and maternity care deserts are rapidly expanding.

All of which is to say: this case is urgent.

Do you remember the North Dakota abortion provider “training” AED told you about earlier this month? That online lesson is now available to doctors, with state leaders claiming it will “clarify” when abortion is allowable under the state’s (very few) exceptions.

Trainings like this are part of Republicans’ broader strategy to soften their image on abortion—they want to make it appear as if they’re working hard to ensure women can get life-saving care. In reality, it’s a way to shift blame, oversimplify pregnancy complications, and—in some cases—redefine abortion itself. (Find out more about this tactic in our explainer on ‘Med Ed’ bills.)

And ICYMI, AED actually tried out North Dakota’s online abortion training and found this unique tidbit: the lesson tells providers that minors don’t need parental consent for an abortion if they’re married. Just another delightful reminder of conservatives’ plan to push young girls into early marriage and motherhood!

We reported last week that Wyoming abortion patients are already being turned away in the wake of Gov. Mark Gordon signing an unconstitutional 6-week abortion ban into law. Wellspring Health Access, the state’s lone clinic, says they’re referring people out of state. It’s no surprise that the abortion rights advocates challenging the law are urging the courts to move quickly. Fingers crossed they do just that.

Back in January, AED told you about the four Arkansas women challenging the state’s abortion ban. (Thanks to our friends at Amplify Legal for making that case happen.) Today, Ozarks at Large spoke to lead plaintiff Emily Waldorf about her experience:

Finally, just a heads up to any student activists or abortion rights advocates in Oregon: we’ve noticed an uptick of right-wing media outrage over the fact that University of Oregon will soon start providing abortion medication. These outlets tend to glom onto a particular school for a few weeks at a time—and they’re pretty nasty. So keep your eyes open, be mindful of any outlets looking for gotcha quotes, and don’t let these assholes intimidate you.

South Dakota Outlaws Abortion Ads—and Speech

In a shocking (but not surprising) attack on free speech, South Dakota just made it illegal to advertise abortion in the state. Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a slate of anti-choice bills on Friday, including legislation that makes it a felony to advertise abortion.

But it’s not just ads for abortion clinics or pills that would be illegal—even providing information about how to get them might be prosecutable.

In addition to banning the sale and distribution of abortion pills, the law makes it a crime to advertise anything “in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing an abortion.”

That broad language isn’t an accident. In fact, it reads like a direct response to the recent court battle between South Dakota’s attorney general and Mayday Health—a pro-choice organization that ran ads in the state directing people to its website, where they could learn how to obtain abortion pills.

Before the case settled, a federal court said Mayday’s website was “noncommercial speech” protected by the First Amendment. In other words, they weren’t selling abortion pills—they were giving people information.

That’s why South Dakota Republicans included that word salad in the law: they don’t just want to criminalize selling pills, but describing how to get them. If they can’t ban abortion speech outright, they’ll try to redefine that speech as part of the illegal act.

It’s unclear whether this law will withstand a legal challenge; I certainly hope not. Until that challenge comes, Students for Life—who presumably crafted the bill—is doing a victory lap in one of their trademark unreadable press releases. (Seriously, what comms genius told SFL that using three different font sizes would keep people interested? If the goal is to give people a headache, well done! 😵‍💫)

Legislation Watch: South Dakota, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho

Let’s stick with South Dakota for a moment, and talk about the other two pieces of anti-abortion legislation signed by Gov. Rhoden. (Who, I’m sorry, looks like a yassified thumb in a cowboy hat.)

Rhoden also signed ‘Baby Olivia’ legislation and a law “clarifying” what constitutes an abortion. We’ve seen that latter legislation before—like in Kentucky, for example. Essentially, Republicans want to codify that it’s not really abortion to treat a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Why? Because the end goal is to claim that abortion is never necessary to save someone’s life. Divorcing abortion from healthcare is how they get there.

So whenever you see “clarifying” legislation, please know that it is not there to help you. In fact, it’s part of a very dangerous long-term strategy.

We could say the same about South Dakota’s new ‘Baby Olivia’ law, which mandates that schoolchildren sit through an anti-abortion propaganda video produced by the extremist group, Live Action. Understanding that young Americans are the most pro-choice demographic in the country, conservatives hope to catch those kids early and fill their heads with anti-abortion nonsense.

When asked by the South Dakota Searchlight whether the video amounts to indoctrination (good question!), the governor answered: “If you believe a life is a life, and I do, it’s not indoctrination to let others know that.”

Baby Olivia also made an appearance this week in Louisiana, where HCR 26 would require the board for elementary and secondary education to incorporate the video into science or health classrooms.

Here’s what Michelle Erenberg, executive director of Lift Louisiana, told AED:

“Just this year, we have bills to hang advertisements for unlicensed pregnancy centers, to tell kids they need to get married before having children, and now we’re asking our public schools to show students propaganda from the nation’s leading anti-abortion group. We need to be providing evidence-based, comprehensive sex education—not pushing a Christian ideological agenda in our public schools.”

Let’s move on to Kansas, where voters’ clear support for abortion rights hasn’t stopped Republicans from introducing torrents of anti-abortion legislation. Consider the two bills passed by the state Senate just last week:

• HB 2729 would mandate standardized consent forms for abortion patients that outline state-crafted misinformation—like false claims about abortion ‘reversal’, scare tactics and lies about breast cancer risks, and shaming language that says abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

• HB 2727 would make it easier for abortion patients to sue providers who supposedly violate their right to ‘informed consent’ by not comprehensively passing along that bullshit propaganda.

The point of bills like this—which have popped up in several other states—is to erode trust between doctors and patients, and to intimidate doctors. Democratic state Sen. Cindy Holscher said, “I just ask this body to, at some point, respect the will of the people that have spoken on this issue.”

And don’t forget: Kansas Republicans are also pushing to get an abortion ban on the ballot in front of voters—but are disguising it as an “equal rights amendment.” Class acts, all around.

Finally, in Idaho, a bill that would have allowed churches to donate to anti-abortion political campaigns without revealing their donors is now dead. Cue the world’s tiniest violin. 🎻

Ballot Box: Wisconsin

A lot is happening in Wisconsin right now, but one thing is clear: abortion is on the ballot. Again.

For the third time since the end of Roe, voters will fill a seat on the state Supreme Court—a race that has effectively become a referendum on abortion rights. In the two previous elections, abortion was front and center—and pro-choice candidates won both.

Now, voters are choosing between Judge Chris Taylor, who is pro-choice, and Judge Maria Lazar—who is trying very hard to sound like she might be.

As we’ve reported previously, Lazar is running from her anti-abortion history. She’s been endorsed by both Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel got ahold of leaked audio where Lazar called for a near-total abortion ban.

That’s why she was careful and moderating in this recent PBS interview: she said people need to “lower the temperature on this issue,” and that the issue was “resolved.” (Gee, where have we heard that before??)

Taylor was a whole lot more honest and blunt: “My opponent would have voted to implement an 1849 abortion ban that was passed when I couldn’t vote and many people couldn’t vote.”

Whew!

PBS also spoke to Wisconsin’s leading gubernatorial candidates on abortion rights, including state Sen. Kelda Roys—who introduced a first-of-its-kind pregnancy decriminalization bill in December.

Watch all of their remarks below:

What We’re Reading

• KFF has a super helpful piece breaking down all the current abortion rights ballot measures (pro- and anti).

• The Marshall Project digs into “How Hospitals Helped Erode Reproductive Rights.”

• Ms. magazine spoke to veterans about the devastating impact of abortion bans.

• And I’m just about to check out this New York Times book review of “Reproductive Wrongs: A Short History of Bad Ideas About Women.” (Great title.)

Care Crisis: The Impact of Bans & Defunding

Every day, we learn more about the devastating impact of ‘pro-life’ policies: a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health shows that Black women living in states with abortion bans are more likely to have premature babies.

Stateline reports that researchers looked at a dozen states with total bans, and found that the rate of preterm births for Black women was 2.1% higher than what would be expected without a ban.

And while defunding Planned Parenthood has already devastated this nation’s health care infrastructure, new data shines a light on just how bad the impact has been. Nearly two dozen (23) Planned Parenthood centers have closed nationwide since the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ took effect in July. Since then:

• Breast exam visits declined by 25% in December 2025 compared to the prior year;

• IUD insertions dropped nearly 40% in the same period;

• Visits for birth control pills in November 2025 dropped by 20% compared with the previous year;

• Testing for STIs declined by 11% in November 2025 compared with 2024.

This isn’t because people need less care—it’s because Republicans are stopping them from accessing it. Without Medicaid funds to cover these crucial health services, patients aren’t getting care. And this is happening at the same time that the U.S. is afflicted with a broad affordability crisis.