Source: http://www.overruleroe.com/States/South%20Dakota.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:41:09+00:00

Document:
1 S.D. Codified Laws § 22-17-1 (1967).
2 Id. § 22-17-2. No prosecutions were reported under this statute.
3 206 N.W.2d 434 (S.D. 1973). In its original decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the statute. See State v. Munson, 201 N.W.2d 123 (S.D. 1972), vacated and remanded, 410 U.S. 950 (1973).
4 1973 S.D. Laws 206, 209, ch. 146, §§ 15, 16; 1976 S.D. Laws 227, 257, ch. 158, §§ 17-1, 17-2; 1977 S.D. Laws 258, 282, ch. 189, § 126.
5 Because of its undefined health exception, South Dakota’ statute prohibiting abortions after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, see S.D. Codified Laws § 34-23A-5 (Michie 1994), would not effectively prohibit abortions at that stage of pregnancy. In interpreting the undefined health exception in the pre-Roe District of Columbia abortion statute, the Supreme Court held that “the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health’ . . . includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 72 (1971). See also Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973) (in determining whether an abortion is medically necessary, “all factors– physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well-being of the patient” may be considered). There would be few, if any, abortions that could not be justified on psychological or emotional grounds.
6 House Bill 1249 §§ 6, 7, as amended by House Bill 1266, § 1.

References: § 22
 § 22
 v. 
 § 126
 § 34
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1