Should you vote yes or no on Amendment G?
South Dakota’s ballot will contain seven statewide measures this Nov. 5. Among them is Constitutional Amendment G, which addresses abortion.
The amendment addresses abortion in each trimester of pregnancy. It proposes legal first trimester abortion without regulation, semi-legal second trimester abortion with regulations that are “reasonably related to the physical health” of the pregnant individual and illegal third trimester abortion except in cases that require the procedure in order to maintain the life and health of the pregnant individual.
Below, two student organization leaders – the vice president of Augustana Democrats and president of Vikings For Life – make arguments for and against the amendment’s implementation, respectively.
Yes, the current laws harm women
Lilly Roberts
It wasn’t until the late 1800s when abortion became illegal in the United States. A tangled mess of the Catholic Church, male doctors eager to exclude women from medicine and slave owners intent on controlling the reproductive rights of enslaved Black women led to sweeping abortion bans throughout the nation.
Fortunately, over time, legislation slowly passed that reinforced the right for women to have safe abortions. In 1973, Roe v. Wade enshrined that right within our legal framework; however, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization came down 50 years later, causing many states to roll back protections and revert to archaic laws that severely restrict abortion access in most cases.
This is where South Dakota stands now, with a law that bans abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother – with no exceptions for rape or incest. The law, which was written in 2005, is now in effect even though South Dakota voters and its judicial system rejected abortion bans in 2006 and again in 2008.
This is extremely troubling. In 2001, South Dakota had the second-highest rate of rape in the nation – not including cases on tribal land or college campuses – and consistently ranks among the top five worst states for instances of rape.
Many of these rapes result in unwanted pregnancies. Since Dobbs was passed, there have been 1,300 reported rape-related pregnancies in South Dakota – many of which are the results of incest – and none of these women have been allowed to have an abortion in their home state. Not only does the current law undermine women’s ability to choose how to heal from trauma, but it also has far-reaching consequences for the overall state of women’s healthcare.
Strict abortion bans create fear among medical professionals, who are torn between providing the care their patients need and potentially breaking the law. Under the current ban, a fetus with no chance of survival after birth must still be carried to term — an outcome that reasonable healthcare practitioners strongly oppose. This not only disregards medical expertise but also subjects women to unnecessary physical and emotional hardship.
The fear of lawsuits while striving to provide quality care has led many healthcare providers specializing in women’s health to leave South Dakota, creating a healthcare desert in the state. In 2021, 56.1% of South Dakota counties were considered maternity care deserts.
This problem is exacerbated for rural and tribal women, who currently have to drive hours to see a gynecologist or obstetrician for any related issues – let alone for abortions – putting them at a higher risk for late detections of cancer, untreated infections, pregnancy complications and mental health concerns.
While Amendment G would help alleviate these issues by bringing back the trimester framework of Roe, it has been heavily criticized for being “too extreme.”
This is not the case. Would women be getting casual abortions in the ninth month of their pregnancies? No. Would minors be getting abortions without parental consent? No. Would women be forced into having abortions, or would doctors be forced into performing them? Also no. The amendment would simply entrust doctors, women and their families to make reasonable choices that best suit their individual needs and circumstances.
Voting “yes” on Amendment G is a powerful affirmation of the value of life. It empowers women to make choices about their bodies and supports medical practitioners in making informed decisions for their patients. This amendment promotes the growth and sustainability of women’s healthcare in South Dakota, ensuring that families have the freedom to pursue what is best for them. By voting “yes” on Amendment G, you are voting for the life of all South Dakotans.
No, Amendment G is poorly worded
Adisyn Gray
Election season means we see and hear politics every time we turn our heads. This year, South Dakota’s ballot is full of many important amendments. I hope you will consider my thoughts on Amendment G: the amendment that deserves the most contemplation, as it regards a serious ethical issue, and will make abortion a norm in South Dakota if passed.
The first issue with Amendment G is that it’s a broadly written proposal and provides no clear definitions of its terms. By using the broad term “effectuation” in the first paragraph, which corresponds to the first trimester of pregnancy, Amendment G will override all of the common-sense laws that South Dakota had under Roe v. Wade.
For example, under Amendment G, the required notice to a parent or guardian for a minor receiving an abortion will be stripped, as will protections for women being forced to have an abortion. If all of these bipartisan common-sense laws are overturned, there will be absolutely no regulations on abortions, which will allow for unborn lives to be taken on-demand daily in South Dakota.
Furthermore, in paragraphs two and three, Amendment G explicitly denies the current laws in South Dakota’s legislation that allow an abortion to save the life of the mother.
Under current law, an abortion may be performed in the case of a life-endangering condition. Amendment G uses deceptive language as a means to reformulate what the health of the mother means – which, again, will allow for abortion on demand every day in South Dakota.
Many proponents argue that doctors are confused as to when the health-of-the-mother exemption applies. This is a misrepresentation and exaggeration of the truth. Competent medical doctors base their decisions on biological evidence and use their clinical judgment in life-threatening emergencies. Amendment G will expand the parameters on health-of-the-mother so abortions can be established as the norm.
The second issue is that, if Amendment G passes, it stands as a testament that South Dakota has failed women. If a woman feels like she can’t bring a unique, precious new life into this world due to her circumstances – whether that be poverty, career, how the baby was conceived, etc. – we ought not first to turn to a new life as the problem.
Rather, we need to view the actual underlying problem as the issue our society needs to address. We need to establish more support for pregnant and parenting women.
Why can’t we fight for supporting and loving mothers and babies as much as we fight for abortions? Let the woman not have another grief or regret placed upon her by terminating the life of her child. Why respond to hardship with harm?
Amendment G does not value the sanctity of life. It simply allows for on-demand abortions through the 26th week of pregnancy and grants great discretion for abortions in the final stages of pregnancy. Please don’t be conned by this poorly written amendment and the zeal of proponents to make South Dakota a pro-abortion state.
Let’s choose life. Please vote no on Amendment G.
