In Cathart II Kennedy cites Casey for the proposition that "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State … may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose" The S.D. Act seems to pass muster on this ground[at least, I think it would in Kennedy's opinion]

Kennedy defers to the legislature on the "stated purposes" of the /ban in question there, and I see an even easier sale here since the provision in question here doesn't actually ban any proceduer. Further, the Act includes exceptions in case exigencies.

On the factual questions, Kennedy buys the "medical uncertainty" argument, notwithstanding that the professional group representing the overwhelming majority of OB/Gyns asserted its medical judgement that the procedure in question is necessary. He even goes so far as to opine that "the Attorney General’s contention that the Act should be upheld based on the congressional findings alone fails because some of the Act’s recitations are factually incorrect," yet he still upheld that act.

I think the best hope for the S.D. Acts opponents is to offer the best science has to offer in refutation of the legislative findings, then persuade Kennedy that not only is the legislature in error but that this error is forcing doctors to recite medically certain untruths... I'm not sure how easy that would be since the legislature hid its true intent behind some questionable statutory definitions...