South Dakota Abortion Rights Clash: Federal Lawsuit Filed Amidst State Crackdown
A legal battle is escalating in South Dakota over abortion access, centering on a New York-based nonprofit, Mayday Health, and its campaign to provide facts about abortion pills.The dispute has triggered both state and federal lawsuits, raising critical questions about free speech, access to healthcare information, and the limits of state authority in a post-roe v. Wade America.
The Core of the Dispute: Information and Access
At the heart of the conflict is Mayday Health’s advertising campaign, launched in early December 2025, featuring gas-pump placards with the message: “Pregnant? Don’t wont to be?” The placards direct individuals to Mayday Health’s website, www.mayday.health, which provides information and resources regarding abortion pills – specifically mifepristone and misoprostol – and facilitates access to medication abortion care. Mayday Health emphasizes the safety and efficacy of these methods,aiming to empower individuals with informed choices.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley swiftly responded with a cease-and-desist letter and, subsequently, a request to a South Dakota judge to halt the campaign. Jackley argues that abortion pills are illegal in the state, and that Mayday Health is disseminating “incorrect and hazardous information.” He expressed concern that the ads target women, including teenagers, and promote secrecy by discouraging them from consulting with doctors or informing their families [1].
Mayday health Fights Back in Federal Court
In response to Jackley’s actions, Mayday Health filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, seeking to prevent the Attorney General from taking further legal action against the organization. The lawsuit asserts that Jackley’s efforts are unconstitutional,violating Mayday Health’s First Amendment rights to free speech. Mayday Health contends that its website and advertising materials are protected speech, providing truthful information on a matter of public concern [1].
“We’re not taking the signs down,” declared Liv Raisner, Executive Director of Mayday Health, in a December instagram post [1]. “It’s First Amendment-protected free speech, and information is not illegal.” The lawsuit further emphasizes that Jackley “may not punish Mayday for publishing truthful information on a public issue,” particularly concerning access to legal abortion services in other jurisdictions [1].
The Legal Landscape: South Dakota’s Abortion Ban and National Trends
South Dakota’s aggressive stance against abortion rights is rooted in a 2005 trigger ban that took effect in 2022 following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ban prohibits abortions in moast cases, with a narrow exception to save the life of the mother. The state also prohibits medical abortions via telemedicine, further restricting access to care [1].
Nationally, medication abortion – using pills like mifepristone and misoprostol – has become the dominant method for terminating pregnancies. In 2023, it accounted for 63% of all abortions in the United States [1]. Both mifepristone and misoprostol are listed on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines,underscoring their recognized role in healthcare [1].
The availability of medication abortion has faced ongoing legal challenges. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt to limit access to mifepristone, preserving the FDA’s prescribing guidelines for the drug [1]. However,the issue remains highly contested,with ongoing efforts to restrict access at both the state and federal levels.
what’s Next?
As of January 9, 2026, Attorney General Jackley has not yet filed a response to Mayday Health’s federal lawsuit. The outcome of this case will likely have important implications not only for abortion access in South Dakota but also for the broader debate over free speech and the regulation of healthcare information. The case highlights the growing tension between states seeking to restrict abortion and organizations attempting to provide information and access to care, particularly considering the shifting legal landscape following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
