Pro-choice groups take a pass on ballot measure to codify Roe v. Wade because they want more

Abortion rights advocates have long insisted that they want to “codify Roe,” a claim being put to the test in South Dakota with Amendment G.

Pro-choice groups are taking a pass on the proposed ballot measure, which would add to the state constitution a three-trimester abortion framework based on the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

Planned Parenthood North Central States and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota are staying out of the fight.

The problem? Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, the group behind Amendment G, said pro-choice leaders told him at the start of the campaign that the Roe configuration “didn’t go far enough.”

“We had conversations with them,” he told The Washington Times. “They told us they didn’t think it went far enough. They wanted something more like the Michigan bill.”

Michigan’s Proposal 3, which passed in 2022 with 57% of the vote, added “reproductive rights” to the state constitution, which includes “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management and infertility.”

Mr. Weiland, whose group has been running ballot campaigns since 2014, said the Michigan plan wouldn’t work in South Dakota.

“I had to explain that we have a single-subject rule [in South Dakota], and you really have to keep it very clean and focused,” he said. “You can’t start adding all kinds of stuff. It is disappointing, to say the least.”

The proposal may not go far enough for Planned Parenthood, but pro-life advocates say Amendment G goes much too far for South Dakota.

“Amendment G doesn’t codify Roe like the pro-aborts claim,” said Caroline Woods, a spokesperson for the Life Defense Fund, which heads the “No on G” campaign. “It goes way further by allowing abortion through all nine months for nearly any reason.”

Amendment G would eliminate restrictions on abortion in the first trimester, allow abortions in the second trimester that are “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman” and permit third-trimester abortions to “preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

South Dakota prohibits abortion except when “necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.”

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, the state allowed abortions up to 22 weeks of gestation. Amendment G would allow “abortion through all 40 weeks, even up to birth,” Ms. Woods said.

“The deceptive Roe-like framework has misled people to believing this measure is ‘moderate’ and ‘reasonable,’ but that’s simply not true,” she said.

More than 220 Christian faith leaders issued a statement last week urging voters to reject the measure. They said it would undermine parental rights and eliminate health and safety standards, which proponents deny.

“As a pastor, my heart is for post-abortive women and their struggles with guilt, shame, anxiety, depression, and even their risk of suicide,” said Janine Rew-Werling, pastor of the Hosanna Lutheran Church in Watertown. “I have witnessed the reality of post-abortion trauma, and Amendment G is too extreme, putting women in danger.”

“Of course I’m going to be voting NO on the extreme Amendment G, and I will be encouraging others to do the same.” -Governor Kristi Noem pic.twitter.com/bJFlZbnFfo

— Life Defense Fund (@LifeDefenseFund) September 22, 2024

Voters in 10 states have abortion rights constitutional amendments on the November ballot, but the absence of national pro-choice groups in South Dakota offers a rare case in which the two sides are on equal financial footing.

Dakotans for Health has raised $349,272. The Life Defense Fund, which is running the “No on G” campaign, has collected $366,739, according to Ballotpedia.

Elsewhere, the pro-life campaigns are vastly outspent. Supporters of the Right to Abortion amendment in Colorado have raised $8.8 million, compared with the opposition’s $236,381. In New York, the pro-con spending disparity on the Equal Protection of Law amendment is $5.1 million to $369,178.

Planned Parenthood has said little this year about sitting out the Amendment G fight, but the local affiliate raised concerns last year about how the measure was drafted.

“Constitutional amendments are serious and expensive undertakings that must be initiated after due diligence and input from those who would be impacted the most,” Tim Stanley, Planned Parenthood North Central States vice president of public affairs, said in a December statement.

“As the sole abortion provider in South Dakota for more than 30 years, Planned Parenthood is acutely aware of the impact policy language can have on patients’ lives,” he said. “We stand with our partners at ACLU of South Dakota and do not support the amendment as drafted because we don’t believe it will adequately reinstate the right to abortion in South Dakota.”

Samantha Chapman, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager, told South Dakota Searchlight that the organization is neutral.

“We are not telling people to donate or volunteer,” she said. “We are staying out of it. We’re not telling people to vote no or yes.”

Ms. Woods said the measure’s language is “so vague and poorly written that even Planned Parenthood and the ACLU aren’t supporting this radical abortion measure.”

Pro-choice advocates said Dakotans for Health was moving too quickly. Supporters of Amendment G didn’t waste any time.

“We actually collected our first signature on the first day we could, Nov. 5, 2022, the day after the election,” Mr. Weiland said. “We had a big kickoff in 2022.”

He noted that President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other leading Democrats have also called to codify Roe.

“I find it kind of ironic when even Biden kicked off the Biden-Harris campaign — their whole framework was Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Weiland said. “Harris still talks that way. I tried to enlighten some of these national organizations, but I think we were ahead of the curve because we started so early.”

Despite the lack of national support, he said, the amendment reflects “where most people are in South Dakota on this issue.”

“You’ve got people on both the left and the right, the extreme fringes of both who want either no abortions or completely no regulations,” Mr. Weiland said. “I don’t think the country is there, and I know my fellow South Dakotans aren’t there.”