New Amendment Sparks Silence Among South Dakota Lawmakers

South Dakota’s silence from politicians on a new extremist anti-abortion amendment raises questions about their strategic interests and voter implications.

At a Glance

Amendment G allows until-birth abortions, yet state Republicans remain silent.
Prominent leaders like Gov. Kristi Noem and Sen. John Thune have not taken clear stances.
The amendment may undermine parental rights and conscience protections for doctors.
Despite allegations of misconduct, Amendment G appears on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Lack of Outspoken Leadership on Amendment G

Amendment G introduces a significant policy shift by permitting abortions until birth, ostensibly for the health of the woman, a term critics argue is vague and potentially misleading. Despite this, prominent Republican figures in South Dakota, such as Governor Kristi Noem and Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds, have remained notably silent. This silence is unusual given South Dakota’s predominantly pro-life stance and stringent abortion laws that came into instant effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

The reticence from these political leaders suggests a strategic ambiguity likely aimed at avoiding voter alienation. However, such a strategy may backfire, leading to possible erosion of their pro-life credibility among their core supporters. The amendment could have significant implications not only for abortion rights but also for parental rights and medical conscience protections—issues typically of great importance to conservative voters.

Vague Language and Misleading Information

Amendment G’s language usage could potentially mislead voters. It allows abortions through birth, if necessary for a woman’s health, but fails to define what constitutes “necessary” or “health.” This lack of clear definition raises concerns regarding potential abuses and misinterpretations. Furthermore, the amendment’s presence on the ballot alongside a marijuana legalization proposal is seen by some as a tactic to attract a wider, more liberal voter base.

“Governor Noem is pro-life” and “Every South Dakotan knows it.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson has publicly stated his opposition to the amendment, promising to inform the public about its deficiencies. However, he has yet to provide detailed plans on his efforts. Other state-level Republicans have either supported the amendment or maintained their silence, adding to the confusion and frustration among pro-life advocates.

South Dakota’s ‘Pro-Life’ Politicians Notoriously Silent On Extremist Abortion Amendment https://t.co/tnrIqpxzBu via @FDRLST

— Chris 🇺🇸 (@Chris_1791) September 12, 2024

Concerns from Pro-Life Advocates

State Representatives John Mills and Brandei Schaefbauer have voiced concerns over the lack of opposition from top Republican leaders. They argue that vocal resistance could unify opposition against the amendment. Pro-life supporters worry that this silence will undermine months of hard work and advocacy done to protect the unborn in South Dakota.

“we have an inherent responsibility to promote policies encouraging individuals to choose life,”

The silence could be a calculated move to maintain political power and avoid divisive issues that could affect future elections. However, this approach may have adverse effects by alienating core supporters and diminishing the political influence of pro-life advocates who have long held sway in South Dakota.

Implications for Future Legislation

Amendment G poses a complex challenge for South Dakota’s conservative and pro-life communities. The upcoming vote on November 5 will be a pivotal moment for determining the future trajectory of reproductive rights in the state. Ensuring that voters are well-informed, not just about the amendment but about the broader implications for conservative values, will be crucial in this high-stakes political environment.

“The decision of whether or not to have an abortion is a personal choice that should be made by South Dakotans, their families, and their health care providers – not politicians in Pierre.”

As the debate continues, keeping a close eye on South Dakota’s political landscape will be essential for understanding how conservative values and legislative actions align—or clash—in the years to come. The silence of political leaders now may very well shape the scope and direction of pro-life advocacy in the state.