Opinion: Learn the truth on Amendment G

Opposition making many false statements about the abortion measure.


We’re seeing many false statements circulating about the Freedom Amendment, also called “Yes on G.” It is disingenuous to proffer any discussion of this complex and challenging topic from only the perspective of a fetus or certain religions. The truth is that “Yes on G” supports some limited abortion options for women in response to South Dakota’s radical abortion ban.  Most importantly, “Yes on G” will hopefully reverse the critical loss of medical providers from South Dakota (similarly experienced by other radical abortion ban states), thus making our state safer for women.

Melissa Neville is an attorney from Aberdeen. (Courtsey Photo)

Any reasoned discussion of abortion must consider both the fetus and the mother – a balancing of rights.  A recent Georgia Supreme Court decision described this balancing act, noting “a fetus cannot enjoy any legislatively bestowed right to life independent of the woman carrying it.”  Even in its case overturning Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that states cannot not legally ban abortions before fetal viability.  The Georgia court explained, “(w)hile the State’s interest in protecting ‘unborn’ life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the state – and not solely by the woman compelled . . . to do the State’s work – the balance of rights favors the woman.” The Georgia court analogized forced birth to treating the woman like an incubator, a human tissue bank, and even an indentured servant or slave.

South Dakota women deserve better.

Some have opposed “Yes on G” simply because a constitutional amendment would be “carved in stone”, incorrectly implying a change to our constitution could never be altered by the will of the people. But “Yes on G” came about because of the will of the people, as have all other constitutional amendments.  If it passes, anyone is free in the next election cycle to rally enough signatures, and then enough votes, to carve something else in stone.

Some claim the “culture” of South Dakota is supportive of the current radical abortion ban, but the majority of South Dakotans disagree.  Not only do they want to roll back the existing ban, support for this change has grown since November 2023, when only 46 percent of voters said they would vote “yes” on G, compared to the more recent May 2024 poll by the Chiesman Center for Democracy showing that now 53.4 percent favor a “yes” on G, while only 35.4 percent are opposed. Every party affiliation group supports amendment G, including a plurality of Republicans, with 45.5 percent saying they will vote “yes” compared to only 40.7 percent saying they will vote “no.”

Moreover, South Dakotans clearly want the other things “Yes on G” opponents often fail to mention – freedom, privacy, bodily autonomy, big government butting out of our medical choices and family decisions, and access to critical medical care from doctors who aren’t forced to decide when a woman is in enough danger for the doctor to provide a life-saving abortion.

Despite false claims to the contrary, “Yes on G” does not eliminate laws related to general public health for medical procedures, including abortions. The proposed language would not prevent the legislature from requiring physicians to obtain state medical licensure.  Nor would it undermine existing laws requiring unemancipated minors to obtain parental consent before receiving medical care. And partial-birth abortions are already subject to U.S. Supreme Court limitations, which aligns with “Yes on G.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best: “A woman’s right to choose an abortion is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity . . . .  And when government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Guest columnist Melissa Neville is an Aberdeen resident and attorney. She’s a South Dakota National Guard veteran and graduate of the University of South Dakota School of Law. Her opinions do not represent the law firm for which she works.