SD Republicans Revealing What The Media Won’t On Amendment G
by Kelsey Pritchard
South Dakota is one of ten states that will have abortion on the ballot this November. Serial ballot backer Rick Weiland, Nancy Turbak and their abortion lobby pals would like South Dakotans to believe that Amendment G is about limiting government interference and protecting women’s health care. Their liberal spin couldn’t be further from the truth. Aided by their allies in the left-leaning media, too many voters are unaware of how this measure would enshrine all-trimester abortion, eviscerate parental rights, allow for zero regulations on the abortion industry, and force taxpayers to fund abortion.
At any point in pregnancy – even in the final months – women can have elective abortions under Amendment G. It allows unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, says abortion cannot be restricted in the second trimester unless it’s for a health reason for the mother (note there’s no mention of the baby who feels pain at 15 weeks and is viable around 21 weeks), and allows for abortion under an undefined “health” exception in the third trimester.
The Supreme Court has said the definition of health includes physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age. Abortion can be okayed not just because of depression and anxiety, but if the woman is young, old, or doesn’t have the ideal family situation – whether it’s that the father is out of the picture or the woman already has a child to take care of. Who gets to decide if the woman meets this broad health exception? The abortionist. The person profiting off the abortion is the sole decision maker under Amendment G.
If that weren’t bad enough, girls who aren’t old enough to get their ears pierced on their own could get an abortion without mom or dad ever knowing. We fill out all sorts of paperwork so our daughters can have Tylenol at school. Imagine our state becoming a place where an abuser could take our daughters into a Planned Parenthood for a late-term abortion with no questions asked and without notifying parents. This is now the reality in Montana where the abortion lobby sued to wipe the state’s parental consent laws off the books. It happened there and the ACLU will make it happen here too.
Amendment G would also put women’s health in danger and increase government intrusion by forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s abortions. This is what is happening in Ohio and Michigan where similar amendments have passed and they’re suing to allow non-doctors to perform abortions and require Medicaid to cover elective abortion.
Thankfully our GOP leaders are revealing that Amendment G is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
- Dusty Johnson
Dusty has long opposed Amendment G and been aware of its radical implications. He was the featured speaker at an event in Minnehaha County just last night for NoGforSD.
Dusty is not only voicing his opposition to G but investing to oppose it. Dusty’s PAC is running a radio ad where Dusty says: “You’ve heard Amendment G is too extreme for South Dakota and I agree with that. It fails to protect mothers and it fails to protect children. It allows the termination of pregnancy all the way until birth. South Dakota, we can do better. Please join me in voting no on Amendment G.”
Dusty is also sending thousands of mailers to let South Dakotans know the abortion measure is way too radical.
- Mike Rounds
In September, Rounds made his stance clear on X saying: “First and foremost, I believe that life begins at conception and our obligation is to save lives. That includes both the mother and child. Amendment G goes too far by including legal abortions through the third trimester.” Like Dusty, he’s clearly stating this is about abortion at any point and not letting the media get away with running cover for the Democrats on the deceptive trimester language.
Also yesterday he told Keloland, “Personally, I will vote no and I would simply with all due respect to the citizens of this state ask them to also vote no and not put this in the constitution.”
- Kristi Noem
Noem released a public video for the SD Right To Life Convention saying she opposes Amendment G: “Of course I’m going to be voting ‘no’ on the extreme Amendment G and I will be encouraging others to do the same.”
- John Thune
Last month, the Dakota Scout reported that Thune opposes the amendment as well.
There are a number of South Dakotans who would like our life at conception law to be altered to include rape and incest exceptions. This amendment, however, is not an exceptions amendment. Weiland could have created an amendment to specifically address rape and incest but instead they wrote something that is so sweeping that it will allow for abortion of babies who are viable. When the Democrats bring up rape and incest in light of this amendment, don’t be fooled. That is a debate South Dakotans can encourage their legislators to have. If we put this in our constitution, there will be no debate and we’ll become like Colorado where Kermit Gosnell-style abortionists are setting up shop. This amendment will cost lives, the health and safety of women and girls, and our fundamental freedoms.
—
Kelsey Pritchard is a Spearfish mother of three who worked for 7 years in the Daugaard Administration. She is now the state public affairs director for SBA Pro-Life America.
Pro abortion proponents never consider the life of the pre-born. As Governor Northrop explained, even a baby that survives an abortion is not safe.
i just see four people safely hanging back inside their echo chamber, not getting out ahead of donald trump as he tries advocate both for and against “reproductive health” on the campaign trail to create a magic pill for everyone to forget the roe v wade situation that is driving a lot of election time voter energy. knowing how referendums have killed past abortion bans pre-ruling, it will be interesting to see how voters come down on this.
Yes it will. The South Dakota Handmaiden’s Tale continues. Our elected politicians will do everything they can dream up to prevent the actual citizens of South Dakota from deciding the law of the land. Sad!
If G fails, will you promise to accept the will of the people and NEVER support another abortion on demand bill?
Only if the legislature acknowledges that we’ve already voted twice to keep abortion legal here. You forget about 2006 and 2008 proposed bans?
How much money is Serial Ballot Backer Rick Weiland making on the proposed amendment?
She can make up all this nonsense she wants, but repeating it ad naseum still won’t make it true.
The tons of bovine excrement being shoveled to the weak-minded is astounding. It will be interesting to see how Republicans will try to submarine the will of the voters when this passes. Since it’s a constitutional amendment, the theory is that it will be more difficult, to nix it, but if there is one rule at the South Dakota legislature, it’s this: “If you have the votes in the legislature, it doesn’t really matter if the voters demanded it.”
Today I ask heaven and earth to be witnesses. I am offering you life or death, blessings or curses. Now, choose life! Then you and your children may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
If Amendment G passes, the legislature should have the procedures covered by Medicaid.
Because Medicaid currently doesn’t cover abortion, the providers can charge anything they want, taking advantage of poor, desperate women.
Medicaid reimbursement is in the toilet, healthcare providers lose money on Medicaid patients and are not allowed to bill the patients for the difference. Every healthcare provider in the state is acutely aware of this.
Young women are on Medicaid, & 42% of all births are now paid for by Medicaid: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/quality-improvement-initiatives/maternal-infant-health-care-quality/index.html#:~:text=Related%20Resources&text=Nearly%20two%20out%20of%20every,births%20in%20the%20United%20States.
It is probably safe to assume that an even higher percentage of women seeking abortions are on Medicaid.
If they lose money on 42% of your customers, they won’t be in business long. So just screw ’em