SD’s ‘Pro-Life’ Politicians Silent On Extremist Abortion Amendment

On paper, South Dakota is one of the reddest, pro-life states in the United States. The Republican politicians who reside in and are sworn to represent the Mount Rushmore State such as Gov. Kristi Noem, Senate Minority Whip John Thune, Sen. Mike Rounds, Rep. Dusty Johnson, and others, however, have been curiously quiet about the biggest threat to their constituents’ values: Amendment G.

Starting this month, voters in South Dakota can weigh in on seven different ballot initiatives. Several seek to reinvent the state’s ability to regulate elections, marijuana, and unlimited abortion. If passed, Amendment G would undermine South Dakota’s current prohibition on abortion and allow the fatal practice through birth as long as a physician deems it necessary for the women’s health, a term that is both vague and left undefined.

The proposed amendment doesn’t simply strip the state’s ability to protect women and babies from harm. As in other states, it could be easily litigated by outside activists like Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union to eliminate parental rights and conscience protections for doctors who have moral or religious objections to abortion.

Despite complaints and allegations of misconduct surrounding the signature-gathering and petition process, Amendment G slid through the state’s months-long certification process to make it on the Nov. 5 ballot.  

A majority of U.S. adults reject the abortion extremism found in the proposed amendment. Ballot measures like Amendment G, however, are carefully crafted with vague language and undefined terms to trick unsuspecting voters into supporting it. Its presence alongside a proposal to legalize marijuana for recreational use, a tactic abortion activists use to attract hesitant voters to the polls, is no coincidence.

One of the easiest ways to keep constituents from falling for euphemistic calls for “reproductive rights” that contradict their true feelings about late-term abortions is to offer clarifying commentary on the nature of radical ballot measures. Instead of using their political megaphones to fight for the lives of women and children in their state, however, South Dakota Republicans have kept their lips sealed and their social media accounts carefully curated to avoid discussing the dangers posed by Amendment G.

Under The Rug

Noem and her team assert she is the “most pro-life governor in the nation.” Her decision to jump at the opportunity to support Trump’s mixed messaging on abortion proves that she’s not against discussing abortion in the context of the 2024 election. Yet Noem hasn’t officially weighed the proposed amendment that threatens to replace her state’s pro-life protections with unlimited, on-demand abortion.

When The Federalist asked where she stands on Amendment G and if she’s made that position known to her constituents, Noem did not answer. Instead, her chief of communications and official unborn child advocate Ian Fury tried to justify Noem’s silence on Amendment G by claiming that “Governor Noem is pro-life” and “Every South Dakotan knows it.”

The phenomenon of Republicans holding their tongues on an amendment that guarantees an increase in the murder of unborn babies doesn’t simply plague the governor’s mansion and office. It reaches far beyond the state’s boundaries and to both the lower and upper chambers of Congress.

Thune, whose aspirations to replace Mitch McConnell as Senate Republicans’ top leader are no secret, boasts of a “100 percent pro-life voting record” and claims to “have consistently supported a ban on abortion” on the federal level. On the infiltration of unlimited abortion activists in his state, however, mum is the word.

In a letter obtained by The Federalist, the senior senator told a constituent concerned about his silence on Amendment G that “the issue you are addressing is primarily a state issue.” “Thus, your concerns would be better addressed by your state legislators and Governor Kristi Noem,” Thune wrote.

Thune’s two-decade history of representing South Dakota in the upper U.S. chamber indicates a vested interest in what happens back home. His office confirmed to The Federalist, however, that he believes Amendment G “is an issue at the state level.”

“But Sen. Thune has a 100 percent pro-life voting record in Congress and has always worked to defend the lives of the unborn,” a spokeswoman said.

Rounds, whose website states “we have an inherent responsibility to promote policies encouraging individuals to choose life,” similarly did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiry about this silence on the extremist amendment.

Kristen Kurtz, the communications director for Johnson, South Dakota’s only representative in the U.S. House, told The Federalist the self-proclaimed pro-life advocate will be “voting ‘no,’” and “spending substantial resources in the weeks to come informing South Dakotans about the serious flaws of amendment G,” but did not specify exactly how.

On the state level, South Dakota Republican elected officials have either come out in support of Amendment G or failed to speak up about it altogether. The state convention passed a resolution in June “urging all South Dakotans to oppose Amendment G. Yet the state’s Republican Party chairman John Wilk penned a letter to Republican officials in August specifically noting that the party’s central committee had not taken any positions on any of the 2024 ballot measures except Amendment H, which proposes open primaries.

A Losing Battle

The toothless statements and pointless grandstanding that usually plague the GOP get old. In the case of Amendment G, however, pro-life legislators like State Reps. John Mills and Brandei Schaefbauer say every comment counts.

“I don’t know anyone who thinks abortion should be legal through all 9 months, and yet that’s what Amendment G would allow. Every leader across our state, including the governor, should be speaking out against this terrible proposed change to our Constitution. South Dakota women and children need our help to stop this,” Mills said in a statement to The Federalist.

Schaefbauer expressed frustration to The Federalist that the “top politicians” in “one of the most pro-life states in the country are not saying much of anything.”

“As a state legislator, I would like to see our Governor, who claims to be the most pro-life governor in the country, speaking out and encouraging South Dakotans to vote No on radical Amendment G,” Schaefbauer said. “Our federal and state leaders should be doing everything they can to help stop this measure that allows abortions up to the moment of birth.”

Noem, Thune, Rounds, Johnson, and other South Dakota politicians might justify their silence on Amendment G as a way to protect their power. Time and time again, however, history shows that Republicans who engage voters with popular pro-life protections win big. Those elected officials who claim to be pro-life on paper but only offer a noncommital approach to abortion often lose out.

In the end, the biggest losers no matter who is in office are unborn babies, women, and voters, whose strong support for limiting abortion to the first trimester is repeatedly sidelined by Democrats and Republicans alike.

“As we enter into the largest pro-life battle we’ve had in decades, our top leaders have been largely absent,” Family Voice Director Norman Woods told The Federalist. “We elected them to lead, and if they would plant the flag for life, thousands would rally behind them. Instead, we hear excuses.”

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.