I would take this article a lot more seriously if there was a single link anywhere in it to the actual info of what’s being proposed. When I don’t see that and it’s a heavily worded as personal opinion such as this one it heavily detracts from my interest in and the importance of the issue.
Abortion is a necessary part of health care for women. In Idaho, where morons like you have restricted abortion and criminalized it, they have lost 25% of ob/gyns. Physicians know that the complete health care for women includes abortion when needed and wanted.
Ya I went and searched it but most ppl don’t and when there are multiple articles saying different things most people tend to just side with whoever is closer to their thoughts. This is a real issue and how misinformation gets pushed out and a big issue with news/journalism now days
A shocking collection of falsehoods and lies. The GOP is in denial: US voters want abortion access. The GOP, which has a strong component of forced-birth fascists, is in denial.
The referendum will pass 53-55% in favor. That's because South Dakota voters do not want Big Fascism to push them around.
If the GOP would agree upon a reasonable compromise the radical open proposal would not be necessary. But this one will pass.
For me the issue is simple. Trust women to make decisions about their health care. Rep. Taylor obviously doesn't trust women. She worries that women would go to their hair stylist or their neighbor for an abortion and would choose to have an abortion in a garage instead of a health care facility. The women I know aren't that stupid. She asks us to imagine a victim of rape being coerced by their rapist into having an abortion as if that's the most horrific thing imaginable? I believe it's more horrific that a rapist would be free to coerce their victim instead of being behind bars where they belong--of course the rapist might be a father or uncle or brother or some other family member that makes arresting and prosecuting them more difficult because, once again, we don't trust women when they report rape. Or imagine a woman with an ectopic pregnancy denied an abortion when such a pregnancy cannot result in a viable pregnancy and the risk to the woman, of for example a burst fallopian tube, can result in death. Again, if it's against your particular religious or personal beliefs, don't have an abortion, but the bottom line is I trust women to make this decision for themselves. It's not government's job to dictate healthcare decisions.
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 conceming 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.
After searching out and reading the actual language used I am even more of the opinion that this is pretty much a full opinion piece. She super stretched the wording used to try to scare tactic everyone into thinking this is way worse than it is.
Here is some of the actual wording.
The ballot initiative would provide a trimester framework for regulating abortion in the South Dakota Constitution:[1]
During the first trimester of pregnancy, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion.
During the second trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman."
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."
Thank you, Rep. Rehfeldt, for your courageous commitment to life in our state, and your willingness to share the truth in response to the lies being spread by Dakotans for Health.
Taylor Rehfeldt has shown her true colors in this Opinion Piece. She is a Right Wing Extremist. The SD Modern GOP says it is for Freedom, it is NOT. It is For Taking Freedom Away from People Time after Time. Stop allowing these Right Wing Extremist to Peddle these Lies.
In the second trimester, ... 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.
It seems clear given this language that "regulating" in the 2nd trimester can only include allowing abortion at the woman's behest, not preventing abortion. Substantively then and as a practical matter, there is no difference whatsoever between the unfettered freedom to have an abortion in the first trimester and the right to have an abortion in the second trimester. Trying to be creative, could the legislature enact a law that prohibits all abortions during the 2nd trimester when the "physical health of the pregnant woman" is sound and she is not in danger. It would seem that the amendment might well allow for that.
If Rep. Rehfeldt or anyone else promoting similar disinformation would bother to read Roe v. Wade, they would quickly see that the proposed SD amendment precisely adopts Roe v. Wade's framework. There is no reason to believe that restoring the Roe v. Wade approach of allowing a sliding scale of regulation based on progression from first to third trimester would result in any more abortions in SD than there were before the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. There is a huge body of caselaw interpreting the Roe v Wade framework, and none of it supports any of the fearmongering practiced by this author or similar opponents. When someone erects a straw man to knock down, it makes me think they aren't very confident about their reasons for opposing the real thing.
I would take this article a lot more seriously if there was a single link anywhere in it to the actual info of what’s being proposed. When I don’t see that and it’s a heavily worded as personal opinion such as this one it heavily detracts from my interest in and the importance of the issue.
If a SD voter, please vote in favor of abortion access.
And then move to MN
Yay death!!
Abortion is a necessary part of health care for women. In Idaho, where morons like you have restricted abortion and criminalized it, they have lost 25% of ob/gyns. Physicians know that the complete health care for women includes abortion when needed and wanted.
Read it for yourself.
https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Right_to_Abortion_Amendment_(2024)
Ya I went and searched it but most ppl don’t and when there are multiple articles saying different things most people tend to just side with whoever is closer to their thoughts. This is a real issue and how misinformation gets pushed out and a big issue with news/journalism now days
A shocking collection of falsehoods and lies. The GOP is in denial: US voters want abortion access. The GOP, which has a strong component of forced-birth fascists, is in denial.
The referendum will pass 53-55% in favor. That's because South Dakota voters do not want Big Fascism to push them around.
If the GOP would agree upon a reasonable compromise the radical open proposal would not be necessary. But this one will pass.
For me the issue is simple. Trust women to make decisions about their health care. Rep. Taylor obviously doesn't trust women. She worries that women would go to their hair stylist or their neighbor for an abortion and would choose to have an abortion in a garage instead of a health care facility. The women I know aren't that stupid. She asks us to imagine a victim of rape being coerced by their rapist into having an abortion as if that's the most horrific thing imaginable? I believe it's more horrific that a rapist would be free to coerce their victim instead of being behind bars where they belong--of course the rapist might be a father or uncle or brother or some other family member that makes arresting and prosecuting them more difficult because, once again, we don't trust women when they report rape. Or imagine a woman with an ectopic pregnancy denied an abortion when such a pregnancy cannot result in a viable pregnancy and the risk to the woman, of for example a burst fallopian tube, can result in death. Again, if it's against your particular religious or personal beliefs, don't have an abortion, but the bottom line is I trust women to make this decision for themselves. It's not government's job to dictate healthcare decisions.
N. Dean Nasser, Jr.
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 conceming 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.
After searching out and reading the actual language used I am even more of the opinion that this is pretty much a full opinion piece. She super stretched the wording used to try to scare tactic everyone into thinking this is way worse than it is.
Here is some of the actual wording.
The ballot initiative would provide a trimester framework for regulating abortion in the South Dakota Constitution:[1]
During the first trimester of pregnancy, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion.
During the second trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman."
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."
It is none of the government’s business.
And if the government required abortion we would all agree it is none of the government’s business.
We would go from a state that respects life to an abortion-on-demand state in one fell swoop. Only a radical would support this referendum. Vote NO!!
I'm a registered Republican, and a conservative. I am pro-abortion.
You do you. Killing babies is not a conservative position.
Thank you, Rep. Rehfeldt, for your courageous commitment to life in our state, and your willingness to share the truth in response to the lies being spread by Dakotans for Health.
Taylor Rehfeldt has shown her true colors in this Opinion Piece. She is a Right Wing Extremist. The SD Modern GOP says it is for Freedom, it is NOT. It is For Taking Freedom Away from People Time after Time. Stop allowing these Right Wing Extremist to Peddle these Lies.
In the second trimester, ... 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.
It seems clear given this language that "regulating" in the 2nd trimester can only include allowing abortion at the woman's behest, not preventing abortion. Substantively then and as a practical matter, there is no difference whatsoever between the unfettered freedom to have an abortion in the first trimester and the right to have an abortion in the second trimester. Trying to be creative, could the legislature enact a law that prohibits all abortions during the 2nd trimester when the "physical health of the pregnant woman" is sound and she is not in danger. It would seem that the amendment might well allow for that.
I think there is some serious ambiguity here.
If Rep. Rehfeldt or anyone else promoting similar disinformation would bother to read Roe v. Wade, they would quickly see that the proposed SD amendment precisely adopts Roe v. Wade's framework. There is no reason to believe that restoring the Roe v. Wade approach of allowing a sliding scale of regulation based on progression from first to third trimester would result in any more abortions in SD than there were before the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. There is a huge body of caselaw interpreting the Roe v Wade framework, and none of it supports any of the fearmongering practiced by this author or similar opponents. When someone erects a straw man to knock down, it makes me think they aren't very confident about their reasons for opposing the real thing.
I don’t believe the majority wants our state constitution to allow abortion through ALL 9 months. Decline to Sign the petition being circulated.
Good thing that’s not what it says then.
Oh it certainly does. DO NOT SIGN!
Is this a joke?