Connect with us

South Dakota

U.S. Senate GOP blocks bill proclaiming congressional support for abortion access • South Dakota Searchlight

Published

on

U.S. Senate GOP blocks bill proclaiming congressional support for abortion access • South Dakota Searchlight


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate gridlocked over reproductive rights on Wednesday, when Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing a measure that would have expressed support for abortion access.

The failed 49-44 procedural vote was just one in a string of votes Senate Democrats are holding this summer to highlight the differences between the two political parties on contraception, in vitro fertilization and abortion ahead of the November elections.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bill toward final passage.

“This is a plain, up-or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive health care decisions,” Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during floor debate. “It doesn’t enforce anything. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s actually just a half-page bill, simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their health care.”

Advertisement

Federal judge declines to intervene ‘at this time’ in fight over abortion ballot measure

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said that women and their doctors, not politicians, should make decisions about abortion and other reproductive health choices.

“This is our current reality, but it doesn’t have to be our future,” Klobuchar said. “This is a pivotal moment for America: Are we going to move forward and protect freedom, which has long been a hallmark of our nation, or are we going to go further backwards in history — not just to the 1950s but to the 1850s.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow urged support for the legislation, saying women should be able to make decisions about their own health care, lives and futures.

“That’s what this vote is about and we’re not going to give up until we have those freedoms fully protected,” Stabenow said.

Advertisement

No Republican senators spoke during debate on the bill ahead of the vote.

The two-page bill would not have actually changed or provided any nationwide protections for abortion access.

The legislation, if enacted, would have expressed a “sense of Congress” that abortion rights “should be supported” and that the nationwide, constitutional protections for abortion established by Roe v. Wade “should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

The Biden administration released a Statement of Administration Policy earlier in the week, backing the bill.

“Today, more than 20 states have dangerous and extreme abortion bans in effect, some without exceptions for rape or incest,” the statement said. “Women are being denied essential medical care, including during an emergency, or forced to travel thousands of miles out of state for care that would have been available if Roe were still the law of the land. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time.”

Advertisement

Trio of bills offered, blocked

The blocked procedural vote on Wednesday came just one day after Democrats went to the floor in an attempt to pass three other bills on reproductive rights through the fast-track unanimous consent process.

That involves one senator asking “unanimous consent” to pass legislation. Any one senator can then object, blocking passage of the bill. If no one objects, the bill is passed.

The maneuver is typically used to approve broadly bipartisan measures or for lawmakers to bring attention to legislation without moving it through the time-consuming cloture process that can take weeks in the Senate.

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday tried unsuccessfully to pass her bill, which would have barred the government from preventing travel “to another state to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that state.”

Forty Democratic or independent senators co-sponsored the legislation.

Advertisement

During brief floor debate, Cortez Masto said the bill “reaffirms that women have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes it crystal clear that states cannot prosecute women — or anyone who helps them — for going to another state to get the critical reproductive care that they need.”

“Elected officials in states like Tennessee and Texas and Alabama are trying to punish women for leaving their state for reproductive care, as well as anyone who helps them, including their doctors or even their employers,” Cortez Masto said. “Why? Because for these anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith objected to the unanimous consent request, saying that while members of the anti-abortion movement “most certainly do not oppose any individual’s freedom to travel across this great country,” they do have concerns the measure would hinder prosecution of crimes, like human trafficking.

Bill would ‘take us backward,’ Budd says

Republicans blocked a second bill, sponsored by Murray, that would have blocked state governments from preventing, restricting, impeding, or disadvantaging health care providers from providing “reproductive health care services lawful in the state in which the services are to be provided.”

The bill was co-sponsored by 30 Democratic or independent senators.

Advertisement

Abortion-rights activists sell bumper stickers to capitalize on Noem dog controversy

“When I talk to abortion providers in Spokane, where they see a lot of patients fleeing restrictive abortion bans from states like Idaho, they are terrified that they could face a lawsuit that will threaten their practice and their livelihood, just for doing their jobs, just for providing care their patients need — care that is, once again, completely legal in my state,” Murray said. “We are talking about people who are following the law and simply want to provide care to their patients. This should be cut-and-dried.”

North Carolina GOP Sen. Ted Budd objected to the request, arguing the bill “would make it easier for unborn life to be ended.”

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision brought renewed hope to Americans who believe in the sanctity of each and every life, including life in the womb,” Budd said. “But this bill would take us backward.”

Following Budd’s objection to passing the bill, Murray said his actions “made clear” that GOP lawmakers “have no problem whatsoever with politicians targeting doctors in states like mine, where abortion is legal.”

Advertisement

“I think that pretty much gives the game away,” Murray added.

Grant program

Democrats also tried to pass legislation from Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin that would have established a federal grant program to bolster the number of health care providers who receive “comprehensive training in abortion care.”

That bill had seven Democratic or independent co-sponsors in the Senate.

“For our top-ranked medical schools, a post-Roe reality sowed chaos as students and their instructors wondered how future doctors in our state would have access to the full slate of training necessary to safely practice obstetrics and gynecology,” Baldwin said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, an OB-GYN, blocked the request, saying that the federal government “should not be spending taxpayer dollars to encourage medical students and clinicians to take life when their principal duty, their sacred oath, is to protect life and to do no harm from conception to natural death.”

Advertisement

Repeated attempts throughout 2024

Democrats sought to advance legislation on access to contraception and in vitro fertilization despite the 60-vote legislative filibuster earlier this year, and failed to get the necessary Republican support each time.

In early June, Democrats tried to advance legislation that would have protected “an individual’s ability to access contraceptives” and “a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.”

A week later, Democrats tried again, this time with legislation that would have provided a right for people to access IVF and for doctors to provide that health care without the state or federal government “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements.”

Collins and Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bills toward a final passage vote.

Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt attempted to pass an IVF access bill through the unanimous consent process in mid-June, but was unsuccessful.

Advertisement

That measure, which she co-sponsored with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, would have blocked a state from receiving Medicaid funding if it prevented IVF.

The legislation, which had three co-sponsors as of Wednesday, didn’t say what would happen to a state’s Medicaid funding if lawmakers or a state court defined life as starting at conception.

That’s what led IVF clinics in Alabama to temporarily shut down earlier this year after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos at IVF clinics constitute children under state law.

The Alabama state legislature has since provided civil and criminal protections for IVF clinics.

 

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

South Dakota

Nature: Prairie chickens in South Dakota

Published

on

Nature: Prairie chickens in South Dakota




Nature: Prairie chickens in South Dakota – CBS News

Advertisement














Advertisement



























Advertisement

Watch CBS News


We leave you this Sunday morning with prairie chickens and sharp tail grouse near Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. Videographer: Kevin Kjergaard.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

Democrats fail to field candidates for a majority of South Dakota legislative seats

Published

on

Democrats fail to field candidates for a majority of South Dakota legislative seats


(SOUTH DAKOTA SEARCHLIGHT) – Democrats are running for 46 of South Dakota’s 105 legislative seats — leaving 56% of seats without a Democratic candidate.

That doesn’t bode well for the party ahead of November, said Michael Card, professor emeritus of political science at the University of South Dakota.

“It doesn’t put them in a position to actually put forward their ideological policy preferences and have much of a success at getting those enacted,” Card said.

In the state Senate alone, Democrats have failed to field a candidate for 22 seats, which is nearly two-thirds of the chamber. In the House, Democrats have failed to field a candidate for 38 seats, which is 54% of the chamber.

Advertisement

There is only one Democratic legislative primary in the state: a state Senate race in District 26, which includes the Rosebud Reservation.

There are no statewide Democratic primaries, after announced candidates for governor and U.S. House dropped out or failed to gather enough petition signatures to make the ballot, leaving one Democrat in each of those races.

Statewide candidates will have less name recognition than Republican candidates ahead of the general election, since they didn’t have primaries, Card said. In the Legislature, Card said Democrats “are guaranteeing they won’t get a majority.”

In contrast, Republicans have primary races for governor, U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Five legislative districts do not have Republican primaries, but do have Republican candidates. There is a Republican candidate running for every legislative seat, except for one House seat in District 27, which includes the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Card said there are several factors leading to poor candidate turnout among Democrats, including a self-fulfilling cycle of failure.

Advertisement

“A lack of winning makes fewer people willing to take a chance on running for office,” Card said. “Why run if I think I’m going to lose?”

Democrats haven’t held a statewide office since 2015, and they haven’t held a majority of either legislative chamber since 1994.

Joe Zweifel, deputy executive director of the South Dakota Democratic Party, said the organization worked “really, really hard” to convince Democrats to run for office.

“But you can’t force people to run for office,” said Zweifel, of Sioux Falls, who’s running for a legislative seat himself in District 12.

He’s heard the open seats called a “failure.” But he disagrees, choosing to focus on the Democrats who did step forward.

Advertisement

“We’re running quality, good candidates in those races,” Zweifel said.

The South Dakota Democratic Party hopes to build on legislative successes, such as a new law from Rep. Kadyn Wittman, D-Sioux Falls, that commits state funding to cover the family portion of reduced-price school meals.

“That specifically is a return on investment for our donors, and it shows that Democrats are doing good things for the people of South Dakota,” Zweifel said.

Wittman’s success helped inspire Democratic District 13 House of Representatives candidate Ali Rae Horsted, of Sioux Falls, to take a second run at the Legislature. Horsted ran unsuccessfully for the Senate against Sen. Sue Peterson in 2024, garnering 42% of the vote.

Horsted plans to build on that success and the name recognition she already has in the district. She hopes she’ll have “better odds” in this election, since there are two House seats for every district.

Advertisement

Horsted said it would better serve South Dakota if the state had a more balanced Legislature. While the latest Legislature was 92% Republican, 52% of voters in South Dakota are Republican. South Dakota has the lowest percentage of Democrats, 7.6%, in the Legislature nationwide.

“I think it’s important that people have options on the ballot,” Horsted said, “and people are able to vote for candidates that represent their values and their vision for the future of South Dakota.”

Makenzie Huber is a lifelong South Dakotan who regularly reports on the intersection of politics and policy with health, education, social services and Indigenous affairs. Her work with South Dakota Searchlight earned her the title of South Dakota’s Outstanding Young Journalist in 2024, and she was a 2024 finalist for the national Livingston Awards.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Advertisement

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2026 KOTA. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

From Big Ideas to Better Places: Building Livable Communities Across South Dakota

Published

on

From Big Ideas to Better Places: Building Livable Communities Across South Dakota


From East River to West River, South Dakota communities share a common goal: creating places where people of all ages can live, work and thrive. AARP’s Domains of Livability provide a framework to help communities do just that. Through the AARP Community Challenge grant program—designed to spark quick, impactful local projects—South Dakota communities are turning big ideas into visible, people-centered improvements.

Read the South Dakota Community Challenge Grant Report, which showcases grant-funded projects across the state designed to build more livable communities.

What Are AARP’s Domains of Livability?

AARP’s approach to livable communities is rooted in eight interconnected domains that together support quality of life at every age:

  1. Outdoor Spaces and Buildings – Safe, accessible parks, streets and public buildings
  2. Transportation – Affordable, accessible options for getting around
  3. Housing – A range of choices that support independence
  4. Social Participation – Opportunities to connect, learn and have fun
  5. Respect and Social Inclusion – Communities that value people of all backgrounds and ages
  6. Civic Participation and Employment – Meaningful ways to engage and contribute
  7. Communication and Information – Clear, accessible ways to stay informed
  8. Community Support and Health Services – Access to services that support well-being

These domains work best when addressed together—something South Dakota communities are embracing.

bike lane in neighborhood being separated by wire

Advertisement

Turning Vision into Action with Community Challenge Grants

AARP Community Challenge grants fund short-term, “quick-action” projects that can ignite long-term change. Across South Dakota, these grants have helped communities pilot ideas, build momentum and demonstrate what’s possible when residents put people first.

Here’s how local projects are bringing the Domains of Livability to life:

  • Outdoor Spaces and Buildings: Communities have used grants to enhance parks, create pop-up public spaces, add benches and shade and install wayfinding signs. These improvements invite people to linger, gather, and enjoy shared spaces—supporting both physical activity and social connection.
  • Transportation: Small, thoughtful transportation projects can make a big difference. Community Challenge grants have supported safer crossings, improved walkability and bikeability around key destinations and the planning or installation of transit amenities like shelters and seating—especially important for older adults and people with mobility challenges.
  • Housing and Community Support: Some projects focus on helping residents age in place by improving access to information about home modification resources or by testing neighborhood-level solutions that connect people to services. These efforts strengthen independence and peace of mind.
  • Social Participation and Inclusion: Murals, community events and creative placemaking projects funded by AARP grants have sparked community pride and social connection. By involving residents in design and implementation, these projects foster respect, inclusion and a strong sense of belonging across generations.
  • Communication, Civic Participation and Opportunity: From hosting community conversations to creating new tools for sharing local information, South Dakota communities are using grants to engage residents in shaping their future. These efforts elevate local voices and encourage ongoing civic participation.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending