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........

© The Federalist