Politics in South Dakota isn't usually a rollercoaster of surprises, but 2024 felt different. People were geared up for a massive showdown over Amendment G South Dakota, a ballot initiative that promised to reshape the state's approach to reproductive rights. If you’ve been following the news, you know the vibe.
South Dakota has some of the strictest laws in the country. No exceptions for rape. No exceptions for incest. Basically, it’s a total ban unless the mother’s life is in immediate danger. For many, Amendment G was seen as the long-awaited "reset button."
But then the results came in.
And it wasn't even close.
By the time the dust settled on election night, the "No" votes had surged to a solid 58.59%, while "Yes" trailed at 41.41%. That’s a gap of over 73,000 votes in a state where every single ballot carries a lot of weight. So, why did an initiative that seemed to have so much momentum—at least on social media and in national headlines—fail so decisively in the Rushmore State?
Breaking Down the Amendment G South Dakota Trimester Framework
To understand why this failed, you have to look at what was actually on the paper. This wasn't a simple "yes or no" on abortion. It was a complex piece of legal architecture.
The organizers behind Amendment G South Dakota, primarily the group Dakotans for Health, decided to go back to the basics. They used the old trimester framework from Roe v. Wade.
Here is how they laid it out:
During the first trimester, the state would have been totally barred from regulating a woman's decision. It was meant to be a zone of total privacy.
Moving into the second trimester, the state could start stepping in. However, they could only regulate things "reasonably related to the physical health" of the pregnant person.
In the third trimester, the state would have had the power to regulate or even prohibit abortion entirely. But—and this was a big "but" for the opposition—there had to be an exception if a doctor judged it necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
💡 You might also like: JD Vance River Raised Controversy: What Really Happened in Ohio
Honestly, it sounded like a compromise. A middle ground. But the opposition, led by the Life Defense Fund, hammered home a different narrative. They called it "extreme." They argued that the "health" exception in the third trimester was a loophole so wide you could drive a truck through it. They claimed it would lead to "abortion until birth," a phrase that, while disputed by legal experts and medical professionals, really stuck with the voters.
Why the "Yes" Campaign Stumbled
There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on about why the pro-choice side lost here, especially since similar measures passed in states like Ohio and Kansas.
One major issue was the lack of unity.
Believe it or not, some of the biggest national abortion rights groups—like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU—didn't initially jump on board with Amendment G South Dakota. They were worried about the language. They thought using the 1970s trimester framework was outdated and might not provide the legal protections needed in 2024.
Imagine trying to win a fight when your own natural allies are standing on the sidelines for half the match. It creates a weird energy. It makes voters second-guess what they’re signing up for.
The Power of the "No" Machine
On the flip side, the "No" campaign was a well-oiled machine. Governor Kristi Noem was vocal. Senator John Thune and Senator Mike Rounds were on the same page. When you have the entire political establishment of a state telling people that a measure is dangerous or confusing, that’s a hard wall to climb over.
They didn't just talk about morality. They talked about legal confusion. They pointed out that the Attorney General’s explanation warned the amendment would override existing laws, which scared people who prefer the status quo or want more incremental changes.
📖 Related: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
Real Numbers from the 2024 Vote
If you look at the county-by-county map, the divide is stark. Minnehaha and Lincoln counties, which cover the Sioux Falls area, are usually the more "purple" spots. But even there, the support wasn't enough to carry the state.
- Total Yes Votes: 176,809
- Total No Votes: 250,136
- Voter Turnout: Roughly 69% of registered voters showed up.
Interestingly, Oglala Lakota County—home to the Pine Ridge Reservation—voted "Yes" by a huge margin, about 67%. It shows that the conversation around Amendment G South Dakota looked very different depending on which part of the state you were standing in.
Misconceptions and Legal Headaches
One thing that really muddied the waters was the talk about "viability."
Back in 1973, viability was around 28 weeks. Today, with modern medicine, it's closer to 23 or 24 weeks. Because the amendment used trimesters rather than "viability," opponents argued it was a sneaky way to push the limit further than people were comfortable with.
Then there was the lawsuit.
A group tried to get the whole thing kicked off the ballot before the election even happened, alleging that the petition circulators hadn't followed the rules. While a judge eventually allowed the vote to proceed, the legal drama cast a shadow of "illegitimacy" over the measure for weeks. People don't like voting for things they think might be tied up in court for the next ten years.
What Happens Now?
With the defeat of Amendment G South Dakota, the status quo remains. Abortion is still illegal in South Dakota except to save the life of the mother.
👉 See also: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
For the people who wanted change, it's a "back to the drawing board" moment. They’ve learned that the Roe framework might not be the magic bullet they thought it was. For the "pro-life" side, it's a massive win that proves South Dakota remains one of the most conservative bastions in the country.
So, what's the actual takeaway for you?
If you are a resident or just someone watching from afar, the legal landscape here is locked in for the foreseeable future. There won't be another vote on this next week or even next year. These things take time to build up.
Actionable Insights for the Future:
- Monitor Legislative Tweaks: Even though the amendment failed, keep an eye on the South Dakota legislature. There has been talk about clarifying the "life of the mother" exception because doctors are currently terrified of being prosecuted for making the wrong call during a medical emergency.
- Watch the Courts: Proponents of reproductive rights might shift their focus from ballot boxes to state courts, challenging the current ban on the grounds of "right to privacy" already existing in the state constitution.
- Voter Education: If you’re involved in advocacy, the lesson from 2024 is that language matters. Simple, clear language usually wins over complex frameworks.
The story of Amendment G South Dakota isn't just about one election. It’s about how a state defines its values when the national spotlight is glaring right at it. For now, South Dakota has made its choice.
To stay updated on these specific legal changes, you should regularly check the South Dakota Secretary of State's "Ballot Questions" page or follow the South Dakota Searchlight for local reporting that dives into the legislative sessions in Pierre. This is where the real "fine print" of the law will be debated in the coming months.