You have a very low opinion of women's understanding of their own bodies.

But lets pretend that this law does dissuade an "impressionable young woman" who goes on to have a pregnancy and dies of complications of childbirth.

Was this law at fault? Since it failed to "inform" the young woman her chance of dying was three times higher by carrying to term than by having an abortion?

What if it isn't death, what if in carrying to term, the young woman's ability to walk, or control her bladder are destroyed.

Was this law at fault since it failed to "inform" the young woman of her much elevated chances at having permanent disability by carrying to term?

What if the young woman ends up in deep post-parnum depression - which is about as likely as getting depressed after an abortion. Is this depression the fault of the SDak Lege who failed to provide truly informed consent?

Now that asked - I want to recognize that at least you are honest enough to admit that this was an attempt by SDak to walk right up to the line of Roe and try not to cross it. But in doing so, this law opens up the very broad door of Am 13s prohibition of any compelled servitude to another person.

The problem is that the Constitution is pretty clear on the limits The Government has on being able to regulate abortion. If anyting Roe is weak precisely because it allows some regulation, which is Constitutionally dubious.

That leaves the anti-choice crowd to appeal to emotions and to try and throw up laws that pretend to be one thing (informed consent) when in reality they are anything but. In the long run abortion cannot be stuffed back into the closet. Targetted medication (ala athletic doping) is going to outpace any sort of draconian legislation that you can come up with.