Attorney General releases explanation for proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution on Abortions

@SoDakCampaigns

 ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASES EXPLANATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION ON ABORTIONS 

PIERRE, S.D. — South Dakota Attorney General Mark Vargo has released the following Attorney General’s explanation for the November 2024 general election. 

The amendment is entitled: A Constitutional Amendment Concerning the Regulation of Abortion. 

Ltr.barnett Ballot Explenation Abortion 8.24.2022 by Pat Powers on Scribd

The Attorney General’s explanation was drafted after a thorough review of the comments received during the amendment’s 10-day comment period. 

State law requires the Attorney General to draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. See SDCL 12-13-9 & 12-13-25.1. 

For more information regarding ballot measures, please visit the Secretary of State’s website. 

-30- 

13 thoughts on “Attorney General releases explanation for proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution on Abortions”

  1. Sadly, the people who want to kill children are lying about all sorts of things, saying if abortion is banned, contraception will be too, women who are hemorrhaging with miscarriages will be left to bleed out, women with ectopic pregnancies will have to die, etc.

    Unless the pro-life faction goes on the offensive and calls the baby killers out for the liars they are, the voters will believe this stuff.
    A positive advertising campaign isn’t going to work here..The pro-lifers need to go negative, attacking the proponents of this measure. Start with the woman who will no doubt reprise her fake story about having an abortion which saved the life of one of her twins. She didn’t have an abortion; she had a procedure with a 50-50 chance of saving both twins, and one of them didn’t make it. But that’s not the story she tells, and nobody seems willing to call her out on it. Take the gloves off.

    1. Well the judge who helped overturn roe vs wade came right out and said he thinks we should reassess the access to contraceptives. Women are being forced to carry miscarriages that don’t naturally abort until they become septic because only then is their life in danger. By this time, their uterus is destroyed and they can no longer have kids. An abortion would allow them to remove the dead fetus and continue trying to have kids in the future.

      “she had a procedure”

      That procedure is defined medically as an abortion. You guys are going to lose at the ballot box just like you did in 2006 and 2008. Just like they did in Kansas. Just like they will in every state that allows people to vote on it because the public understands this is what modern countries allow because they understand science and aren’t willing to concede to any sort of religious law.

      1. The procedure to save twins suffering from twin to twin transfusion has had a success rate of 50% in saving both twins. Another 25% saves only one of them, and the remaining 25% lose both children. (Those are old statistics so hopefully it is better now.)
        Calling that procedure an abortion is disingenuous because the pregnancy is not terminated in 3 out of 4 cases and the objective is to save as many lives as possible.
        When a surgical procedure is performed with the intention of saving a life, we don’t call it physician-assisted suicide when the patient doesn’t survive that, either.

    2. Calling people “baby killers” was always an effective way to win over pro-choice and undecided voters. Yeah. I recall that now.

      And Leslee Unruh and Fred Deutsch are the top choices to be the face of this effort. Who else could possibly reach those moderate to liberal folks?

      And don’t forget about demonstrating your religious zeal. Those target voters want to see you publicly display your religious views like you are a serious about converting them. They notice stuff like that.

      (Sure. Why not try a little reverse psychology. They have never listened before.)

      1. it is a religious belief that life begins with the first breath and leaves with the last.
        There is no scientific evidence to support this ancient Egyptian belief and all 50 states now have brain death laws establishing the end of life as the cessation of electrical activity in the central nervous system, regardless of development or damage. If the electricity is on, the person is still alive, even if in a coma or persistent vegetative state. That is the law, following the science.
        Ergo, it follows that life begins with the onset of electrical activity in the central nervous system.
        You can adhere to an archaic Egyptian religious idea of the Ka, or soul, entering or leaving the body with respiration, and you can even mummify your dead cats, but your religion has no place informing public policy.
        Life begins when the electricity turns on. That is the science. Deal with it.

        2. “your religion has no place informing public policy”

          Louder for the people in the back! People like Fred and Kristi.

  2. Republican politicians drive their anti-woman crusade to raise campaign dollars so ending reproductive rights in red states is Balkanizing women’s health care.

    1. Everybody knows pregnancy interferes with yoga classes, childbirth messes up your hair, and the whole process is very icky-poo.
      If the wimps who can’t tolerate pregnancy want to remove themselves from the gene pool, our species will be better off for it.

  3. I’m going to laugh so hard (at Fred mostly) when both abortion and weed are legalized by a vote of the people in November.

    1. Well shoot. Looks like we have to wait until 2024 for Fred to find out the majority of SD voters want to keep abortion legal.

Comments are closed.