I don't know if it's intentional or not, but opponents of the South Dakota abortion ban seem to be either missing, ignoring, or glossing over an important aspect of this bill. The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, glossed over the issue of when life began and ultimately came up with an argument that didn't depend on deciding this issue. Subsequent decisions have pretty much left this issue aside.
What makes this bill different is that it bases the ban on a finding that life does, in fact, begin at conception. If nothing else, this will force the court to address the issue and might cause it to reach a different result. Further, this bill has been carefully crafted. It may not work, but it is a different approach and those behind it think they've done pretty well.
This story touches on that. I'd pull some quotes but for some reason I can't. Don't know what that's about.