South Dakota’s senior senator, John Thune, is one of the most powerful elected leaders at the U.S. Capitol. The tall, plain-spoken Republican is now in his fourth term in office and has held a powerful party leadership post since 2019.

So after Republicans in that chamber recently blocked a Democratic bill protecting birth control access, it was initially reassuring to hear Thune vow that another bill like it, one that his party could support, would be forthcoming.

“We will have an alternative that that will make very clear that Republicans are for contraception,“ Thune is quoted as saying in a June 9 USA Today report.

The Star Tribune Editorial Board commends Thune for that commitment and strongly urges to him to follow through. Regrettably, it’s unclear if and when Thune intends to put in his words into action.

Thune’s office failed to respond to several inquiries over the past week from an editorial writer. Among the questions that remain unanswered: the timing of such a bill, who might carry it, how soon it could reach the Senate floor and whether it could also pass the Republican-controlled U.S. House.

Also unknown: how this legislation will differ from the bill introduced by Sen. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. Markey’s legislation would have set forth “statutory protections for an individual’s right to access and a health care provider’s right to provide contraception and related information,” according to its congressional summary.

Cosponsors for the Markey bill included Minnesota’s two U.S. senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, both Democrats. There were no Republican cosponsors. The bill failed earlier this month to reach the 60 votes needed to reach the Senate floor. All but two Republican senators voted against it.

Among critics’ objections to it: that there is no threat to contraception access, with birth control available in all 50 states. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, called the bill “a joke” during a CNN appearance.

The Editorial Board didn’t understand her remark and asked Noem to explain why the bill is a “joke.” Noem’s office replied with a link to her CNN appearance, which sheds little additional light. To see the interview, go to tinyurl.com/NoemBirthControl.

It is true that birth control continues to be legal in Minnesota and elsewhere. “Because of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), most insurance plans must cover all methods of birth control at no cost to you, including the pill. However, some plans only cover certain brands of pills or generic versions,” Planned Parenthood reports.

But current legal protections offer cold comfort to those who care about reproductive health.

There were assurances for years from U.S. Supreme Court nominees that Roe v. Wade was settled law. Then, in 2022, the high court cavalierly cast aside precedent and ruled that it wasn’t. Fourteen states now have sweeping abortion bans, including North and South Dakota.

A longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, also safeguards birth control access. In a 2022 concurring opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that that high court “should reconsider” this ruling and others that protect same-sex marriage and relationships, according to Politico.

A May 21 New York Times story raises further concerns. Former President Donald Trump, who is seeking a second term, “suggested he might support allowing states to place restrictions on contraception, then said amid criticism that he didn’t support restrictions.”

Minnesota’s Sen. Smith has also sounded the alarm about a potential push to resurrect the puritanical Comstock Act to limit birth control access.

Clearly, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about birth control access and distribution. Legislative protections are necessary and urgent.

If Republicans couldn’t support Markey’s bill, Thune and other party leaders need to act, not simply talk about the party’s commitment to contraception.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, did recently introduce a bill called the “Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act.” Its focus: increasing over-the-counter birth control options, greater transparency into how government agencies are spending tax dollars to support women and families, and ensuring that “tax dollars are not being used to destroy life by funding abortions or abortion providers.”

If this is the alternative to the Markey bill that Thune has in mind, the legislation provides little confidence that it would prevent states or a future presidential administration from banning birth control.

Ernst’s bill “does nothing to improve access to contraception,“ Smith told an editorial writer Thursday. It “authorizes an FDA review of a single type of product, of which one is already on the market, without touching anything else related to accessing contraception. Democrats’ Right to Contraception Act actually makes it a right, enforceable in court, for patients to receive whatever contraception they and their doctors determine is best for them.”

Ernst’s bill could certainly be strengthened. If Thune and his party are serious about safeguarding birth control access, the work should begin now on improving the Iowa senator’s legislation or introducing another bill that would actually contain real protections. A good start: answering questions about what the party intends to do.