(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)
Constitutional Amendment G – SDWC asks, Have you ever been asked to pick the least worst of bad options? That’s what the proponents and opponents of Amendment G provide us. And frankly, neither one of them should win.
Title: An Initiated Amendment Establishing a Right to Abortion in the State Constitution.
Attorney General Explanation: This initiated amendment establishes a constitutional right to an abortion and provides a legal framework for the regulation of abortion. This framework would override existing laws and regulations concerning abortion.
The amendment establishes that during the first trimester a pregnant woman’s decision to obtain an abortion may not be regulated nor may regulations be imposed on the carrying out of an abortion.
In the second trimester, the amendment allows the regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, and the regulation of carrying out an abortion. Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.
In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman’s physician according to the physician’s medical judgment.
Judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The Legislature cannot alter the provisions of a constitutional amendment.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
A right to Abortion should not be enshrined in the State Constitution. On that I think many of us can agree. This is one of those things that belongs in state law, to evolve and progress as science progresses, reflecting public opinion.
South Dakota is a conservative, and largely pro-life state. The flipside of that is that there are problems with South Dakota’s law being too extreme. No exception for rape. No exception for incest. And there are questions regarding the exceptions for the life of the mother.
The Pro-Amendment G ballot statement argues “Politicians in Pierre have decreed that South Dakota women and girls who are raped must carry to term, thrown miscarriage care into utter confusion, and limited available treatment of extreme pregnancy complications.” Therein lies their strongest argument. With South Dakota being a conservative and limited government state, people aren’t looking for that intrusive of a government.
And, the opposition to abortion has been utterly inflexible regardless of how intrusive it is. When throwing it back to the states allowed a trigger law to take effect outlawing abortion almost entirely, they have not just stifled any discussion to find middle ground with exceptions, South Dakota Right to Life became active in the primary elections and actively shifted funds to expunge some legislators who would even consider it, despite legislator’s support of the group. Add to that an awful campaign effort by the Life Defense Fund, and you have a recipe for a campaign that’s in doubt where it’s going to go.
This inflexibility is what will ultimately drive this campaign. Polling shows that the pro-Amendment G group has the upper hand. In polling that’s much less public, there has been word that the Amendment has broad support. Maybe even stronger than the public polling hints at.
In refusing to consider exceptions such as rape and incest in recent legislative sessions, I believe the opponents may have doomed themselves, despite the basic flaws of the effort in trying to place it in the constitution.
The SDWC recommendation in this measure is to vote your conscience on Amendment G when you get to the ballot booth.
Because you’re going to do so anyway.
The problem with this narrative is that it excludes the most important person …the preborn child, who as a human being is vested with the same right to live as the rest of us. A woman is going to be pregnant regardless of if the baby arrives live or dead, but killing the baby adds a level of angst and regret. Everyone knows that the majority of abortions happen for convenience and it is disingenuous to suggest exceptions are a rule.
It was idiotic not to include the exceptions in the first place. This amendment would be DOA if there were exceptions in the current law. Now, this horrible amendment has a chance to pass because of that overreach.
I would rather have this pass and result in another amendment come along in 2026 that bans abortion, with the Trump-backed exceptions, then let the current law stay in place. That potential amendment would easily pass and let sanity reign over the issue going forward.
Exceptions are not the rule, but the rule should consider the exceptions. Because the exceptions were not considered, as was proven through past support and sd citizens voting down total bans, this is now what you get. I told our legislators from day one, if you try taking it all, you are going to get even less.
Exceptions are a foot in the door to be used, abused, and stretched beyond common sense. A mother claiming to be suicidal or in other mental distress could be an interpretation. of ” life of the mother.” Some doctor will sign off on this. Think ahead,
It is not conservative to make laws that hurt people to catch the bad apples.
The last thing that should be in the room with a doctor and the patient is the government. Use the government to push one side’s agenda, the other side will follow suit (ex. Trans issues for minors).
“The most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
“The last thing that should be in the room with a doctor and the patient is the government.”
Amen.
Medical professionals and patients should be the ones making medical decisions. The end.
Regardless of where a person stands on abortion, I do not want this in our Constitution.
Perfect example of the closed mindedness of the ‘Publican party locally and nationally Thanks for the example and keep losing the national popular vote for prez
Well it wouldn’t need to be if the legislators were in the habit of accepting and honoring the will of the people. But they haven’t been, repeatedly. So it’s going to be in the constitution.
I think some tried to do so….
This is easy: vote no on all the Constitutional Amendments. Leave the Constitution alone.
Even the woke shit gender one promoting incorrect grammar needs to be defeated.
We don’t need incorrect grammar anywhere, and that goes for you nitwits claiming the right to live for “preborn” children. Children who have already been born (preborn) are already protected.. It’s the ones who haven’t been born yet (pre-natal) who need to be protected.
So how does having grammar corrected to include the female gender make the constitution grammatically incorrect? That math don’t math was they say.
Anon 3:15 clearly doesn’t understand singular “they” and adheres to an anachronistic 18th century view on the English language and a misplaced belief that language is static.
A singular “they” predates the style guides promoting a singular, gender-neutral “he” by four centuries. If one believes language should be static, the original singular “they” is more correct than a historical historically revisionist manuscript.
Should things like this end up in the state constitution? In a perfect world, no.
The issue is the state legislature has, in the past, decided that the clear intent of the voters should be ignored in favor of what they think is best.
Now you can make your own judgements as to if this should or shouldn’t be within the powers of the legislature, but the Pro-Amendment G people knew that if they passed this simply as an initiated measure that the state legislature would overturn it in the next legislative session.
As PP pointed out – IF the legislature had put forward realistic allowances for rape, incest, and the health of the mother – with guidance that would give doctors and perspective mothers a good understanding that a woman who is in one of these positions that she has these options – this would not pass.
But enough aspects of the “Right to Life” movement decided that absolutist positions were the way to go, and they are quite likely going to lose this vote.
It’s almost as though convicing these folks for the past two decades that god was on their side has some consequences for reasonable allowances on anything.
The overgodders have cooked their own goose on this one and may well loose the entire war for all by foisting a single battle on some.
‘Publicanis coud have added exceptions but chose to remain mindless MAGAs or maga sheep
The legislature has not exercised common sense on this important issue. Maybe it is because SD Right to Life holds a gun to their head. Eventually, even if G doesn’t pass, exceptions will be passed by one method or another.
If you have to explain what an ectopic pregnancy is to someone, maybe they shouldn’t be making decisions about life and death issues.
The medical stories will be told, and empathy will win the day. A 12 yo who has been molested by family her whole life and was never parented, now pregnant herself and her “mother” who didn’t protect her from abuse is now going to “raise her baby for her”. That 12 yo has lice and has missed all but one prenatal appointment (her mother didn’t care enough to make sure she attended these appointments). That poor child will be abused and molested too. The State of SD, or legislators who don’t even know what an ectopic pregnancy is, should not have a say in that situation.
These are the stories that will come to light. And anyone with an ounce of empathy will vote to allow the child and family decide what is best for the child.
If Amendment G doesn’t pass I wouldn’t hold my breath on exceptions passing the clown car we are assuredly sending to Pierre this year.
This is on the legislature and the governor. If they had respected any of the initiated measures that they disagreed with and recognized the will of the people, along with reasonable accommodations for rape and incest, we wouldn’t be here. G will pass, and let it be ash in the mouth of everyone who thought themselves better than the people.
Sanity
I might not like anything to do with the strategy for defeating G. I might wonder where Noem, Thune and Dusty are in this battle but no matter how many things I think are wrong with this amendment and the strategy I don’t want Amendment G in the constitution.
Easy to vote No.
What strategy? The John Hansen gets paid by life defense fund and introduced at every Lincoln day dinner (where he can be propped up for a statewide race) strategy? Pffft.
Two women are already dead in Georgia, where they have pretty much the same laws here on abortion. How long until we start buying women here for the same reason?
https://www.rawstory.com/georgia-abortion-law/
The “conservative Republican ” position on Abortion is just terrible politics. It seems rooted in the absolutist notion that women must be punished. The father of the child is never mentioned, he walks free. It’s a very complicated human issue as old as the Bible. There is no discretion, no humanity, no humility in their position.It presents the voter with cruel choices only.
I’m voting Yes because I don’t like John Hansen or the Unruhs’.
More idiocy.
Equating a bad Constitutional Amendment that can’t be changed by the Legislative process with a bad law that can be changed by the legislative process is idiocy.