This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A state judge in South Dakota has scheduled a trial for later this month on charges that abortion industry promoters cheated to get the signatures they used to put a pro-abortion scheme on this November's ballot in the state.

Promoters of the lucrative abortion industry had hoped that Minnehaha County District Judge John Pekas would dismiss the complaint brought by Life Defense Fund, a prolife group that includes Dell Rapids Republican Rep. Jon Hansen.

The lawsuit accuses abortion activists of violating multiple state laws in their methods of assembling signatures for the ballot initiative.

Pekas had tossed the lawsuit months ago, but it was reinstated by the state Supreme Court which noted there was no record developed at any point, so the lower court's decision could not stand.

A report in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader explained because of the short time before the election, and the fact that either side could go to the state Supreme Court again, the issue will be on the November ballot, but it's uncertain now whether any of those votes will be counted.

Abortion promoters had argued that there should be no arguments over their alleged misbehavior because it was too close, and discussing those issues would be "election interference."

Life Defense Fund said the abortion initiative supporters now will have to turn over all documents related to their petition circulation efforts of the abortion-up-to-birth constitutional ballot measure.

The court also pointed out it has the authority to determine whether the abortion promoters' repeated violations of petition law can disqualify them from circulation efforts in the future.

Sara Frankenstein, lawyer for Life Defense, said, "We are grateful to the court for its decision today as we move toward trial. We are anxious to finally receive the discovery in this case. LDF has disclosed its trial exhibits and witnesses and yet we have received no discovery from D4H."

The seven-day trial now is to begin Sept. 23.

It was Rapid City lawyer James Leach, arguing against any review of his clients' possible illegal activities, who said a trial amounts to election interference.

He claimed a review could damage voter confidence when citizens already believe the system is corrupt. He claimed courts "should not contribute to that perception" by allowing the ordinary course of the legal process to take place.

Life Defense Fund, in fact, cited multiple disputes over ballot questions that have not been decided until the last minute before an election, or even after.

Frankenstein noted that in South Dakota, its state Supreme Court ruled in 2021, after the 2020 election, that a marijuana-promoting measure was invalid, even though residents already had cast their votes, because it ran counter to a requirement limiting such plans to a single issue.

She explained that Dakotans for Health simply were trying to run out the clock and obtain their goal.

She noted courts have a responsibility to step in when laws are violated to get an amendment on the ballot.

Pekas pointed out that the state Supreme Court had returned the case to him with instructions to create a record, following his earlier dismissal which did not even consider the merits.

WND previously reported on documentation of problems in the ballot issue dispute.

The state fight in South Dakota is just one of many across the nation, after the UI.S. Supreme Court overturned the fatally flawed Roe v. Wade ruling, which created a "right" to abortion, in 1973.

The change didn't ban abortion, but it did turn over regulation of the lucrative industry to states, creating what is now the battleground as abortion business operators seek to assure their financial future.

Among the states, about half have now imposed major roadblocks to the commercial-level killing of the unborn, including some that have outright bans; but about half have not.

The fight in South Dakota will be seen as a precedent for more attacks on other pro-life standards around the nation.

"A Kamala (Harris) presidency means more health risks to women and more babies aborted," Caroline Woods, a spokeswoman for the Life Defense Fund, which is fighting to protect the lives of the unborn, told WND.

"When undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives cavalierly talking about selling baby parts in California, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris viciously went after those who exposed Planned Parenthood's illegal actions. She will act no different as president, and she has made it her goal to legalize abortions across the nation."

In fact, there have been accusations that Harris schemed to send state agents to undercover reporter David Daleiden's home, to confiscate his videos and equipment, as he was releasing a series of reports on those agendas among abortionists to sell unborn baby body parts for higher and higher amounts.

One abortionist explained the need for that: "I want a Lamborghini."

Woods' organization sued the "Dakotans for Health" which is pushing for the plan that would unleash literally unrestricted abortions by eliminating more than 100 requirements the state already has. The fight also is significant because if pro-abortions radicals can succeed in South Dakota, in the heart of America and with food production, tourism and finance as major industries – nothing like Hollywood or New York – they would feel confident of taking their campaign anywhere.

"A vote for Amendment G is a vote for the Kamala Harris' radical agenda for America. In South Dakota, we reject her extreme abortion plans that endangers women and children," Woods said.

She warned, "South Dakota can be an example to the rest of the nation by once again showing that we are pro-woman and pro-children. Amendment G is the most radical abortion measure we've seen in our country, and we will fight to make sure children aren't aborted up to birth and women are protected from unsafe, unclean medical practices."

"We want South Dakota to blaze a path for a pro-life victory and show the rest of the nation how we can beat the abortion lobby."

She said the court case revolves around allegations of unethical, even illegal, behavior by the petition collectors.

"They say 'Let the people vote,' but what they're really saying is, 'Let us cheat.' In the same way Olympic teams are banned from performing if they cheat, this abortion amendment should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot since Dakotans for Health broke South Dakota election law, cheated, and lied directly to South Dakotans to advance their radical agenda."

Reports confirm there are allegations petition circulators left petition sheets unattended, a violation. They misled signers, a violation. The tried to bait-and-switch voters, a violation.

They apparently included nonresidents, a violation.

The pro-abortion faction went to federal court, trying to get the state case killed, and the judge has refused.

Woods described the proposal as "one of the most extreme abortion laws in the nation."

It would "legalize painful, late-term abortion, all the way to the point of birth." And it would kill a multitude of existing state abortion policies that have been created over time on a bipartisan basis.

For example, a provision for parents to know when a minor daughter is being pressured into abortion would be killed.

Killed would be protections for a mother from being forced to have an abortion against her will.

Killed would be conscience protections so that doctors and nurses cannot be forced to participate in performing abortions against their will.

Killed would even be basic health and safety requirements for abortionists to follow, including requirements that abortions be done by a physician and an inspected and clean facility.

Among the allegations the abortion industry promoters are facing:

Bait and switch. A couple told pro-lifers during a Farmers Market in 2023, where abortion promoters were gathering signatures, they were telling people the petitions were regarding a tax proposal.

The couple, not named, said the signature collector even checked, when they asked for the tax petition, and said, "This is the one you want," handing them the abortion plan.

Also, abortion promoters were collecting signatures but failing to provide a required statement from the attorney general.

There also were incorrect claims that the new petition supported exactly the same thing that Roe did back in 1973. The promoter explains, "This is exactly what the Supreme Court did in '73. In the first three months, it's a woman's choice. Then there are stipulations and exceptions. … They say it's up to nine months and that's not true…"

Here is Tiffany Campbell, a petition coordinator, explaining just how extreme is the amendment.

She boasts, "The legislature can't mess with it." And "It's gonna wipe off 113 abortion regulations that we have now."

Cited are the 24-hour waiting period, parental notification, 22-week ban … "Everything goes away."

Signing the petitions twice? No problem, the extra signature is just "crossed off."

And leaving petitions unattended:

Giving incorrect information, where a signature collector accuses someone of lying if they say abortions would be allowed through nine months, which they would be.

Other videos suggest verbal abuse by petition collectors and worse.

Woods already has written in National Review that abortion activists are "doing anything they can to get their way, including deceiving voters."

She continued, "Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many conservative states like my home state of South Dakota activated trigger laws on abortion. These laws were passed while Roe was still operative and were designed to be implemented the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned. They typically outlawed abortion unless the doctor believed it was needed to save the life of the mother. Since then, the abortion lobby has aggressively centered its efforts around gathering petition signatures and putting abortion measures on the ballot in states like South Dakota, among many others."

She noted polling reveals three-quarters of Americans support abortion bans after 15 weeks.

And she said Amendment G allows non-doctors to do abortions, too.

Woods explained her organization has "over 100 hours of video capturing pro-choice petition circulators, much of which showed them breaking South Dakota law."

Such evidence already has prompted the state's attorney general to reprimand the abortion promoters.