A few weeks ago, Mayday Health and Watertown attorney Nancy Turbak Berry filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley following the passage of House Bill 1274. South Dakota being the pro-life state that it is, has been taking increased measures to protect unborn life within state lines. The bill specifically intended to prevent the advertising of abortion access, and was passed by state lawmakers in 2026. Unless the courts rule otherwise, the bill will take effect July 1, and was what prompted the third lawsuit between South Dakota and New York-based Mayday Health.
Two lawsuits have been federal, and one has been of the state. First, the state, via Attorney General Marty Jackley, filed a state circuit court lawsuit against Mayday Health over their gas station advertisements which guided women to obtain an abortion by receiving the abortion pill by-mail. In response, a second lawsuit, called a countersuit, was started by Mayday Health in a New York federal court. Both competing cases were settled in March 2026, with Mayday agreeing to remove the gas station advertisements.
We’ve now been challenged again in a third lawsuit, a second federal suit, filed by Mayday Health against Governor Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley. This now challenges the constitutionality of House Bill 1274, as Mayday Health believes the law prohibits free speech.
Abortion is already illegal in South Dakota except to preserve the life of the woman. The new law says no person may knowingly dispense, distribute, sell or advertise an article or thing designed, adapted or intended to produce an abortion. Violations are felonies punishable by up to two years in prison and a $4,000 fine.
Who’s Behind the Case
Nancy Turbak Berry, chair of an abortion coalition that pushed for constitutional abortion Amendment G in 2024, and Mayday Health filed a lawsuit against South Dakota, citing free speech issues. According to the lawsuit, Mayday Health v. South Dakota, her free speech is deterred by the new law.
Representing Mayday Health and Turbak Berry is Rapid City-based attorney Jim Leach. Leach recently represented another First Amendment case against the South Dakota Board of Regents and University of South Dakota after a USD professor received administrative leave for his vile social media post about the death of Charlie Kirk.
Governor Rhoden responded to the lawsuit and is up for the challenge. He posted on X, saying “If Mayday Health and the abortion lobby want to sue us for defending unborn life, bring it on.”
Attorney General Marty Jackley concurred as he wrote, “The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that states have the right to protect life. As with Mayday’s previous unsuccessful lawsuit, I will defend innocent life.”
South Dakota’s History with Mayday Health
House Bill 1274 stems from a major instance of abortion advertising happening in December of last year. Abortion advocacy group “Mayday Health” of New York, placed advertisements across South Dakota at gas station pumps. The ads read, “Pregnant? Don’t Want to Be?” And directed people to a website where women could obtain an abortion pill by mail.
Governor Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley promptly worked to halt the advertising, citing that it was advertising a product or service that is illegal in South Dakota. This prompted the first federal lawsuit from Mayday Health against South Dakota over free speech protections. A federal judge declined to intervene, saying she could not interfere with the concurrent action at the state level in South Dakota.
As of March 2026, Mayday Health was forced to remove its gas station signage and stop its campaign in South Dakota.
Case Outlook
The outcome of Mayday Health v. South Dakota has a decent chance at drawing national attention, especially following South Dakota’s immense rejection of enshrining abortion Amendment G into its constitution in 2024, making it only one of three states that kept abortion provisions out of its constitution that election cycle.
Mayday Health will likely argue that a state generally cannot suppress information about an activity. However, South Dakota could argue that modern abortion-pill advertising is different because it is facilitating the shipment of pills into South Dakota.
Once states restrict abortion, they become large targets for pro-abortion groups to try to expand abortion access. Because South Dakota recognizes the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, this won’t be the last fight the state sees against Big Abortion groups. SD Family Voice is grateful and supportive of the Governor and Attorney General’s actions to ensure that South Dakota remains a state where all life is treated with its God-given value.
We continue to pray that our state leaders will protect life in its most vulnerable place–the womb.
