SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – South Dakota voters will have a lot of decisions to make come November 5th, including seven statewide ballot issues. One of the main issues people will be voting on is abortion rights.
Amendment G, sponsored by abortion rights group Dakotans for Health, would provide a state constitutional right to an abortion based on a trimester framework for regulation.
South Dakota healthcare providers from both sides sat down with KELOLAND’s Lauren Soulek for this week’s Inside KELOLAND to discuss the amendment. The full episode airs at 9:30 a.m. Saturday and will air again at 10:30 p.m. Sunday. You can watch the segments in the video above.
Dr. Amy Kelley, representing Dakotans for Health, has been a practicing OB-GYN in Sioux Falls for 12 years. Dr. Patty Giebink, representing Life Defense Fund, delivered babies for 30 years and formerly performed abortion at Planned Parenthood.
Under current South Dakota law, abortion is banned and considered a Class 6 felony punishable by up to two years in prison and up to a $4,000 fine. The only exception to the law is if there is “appropriate and reasonable medical judgment” that an abortion would save the mother’s life. There is no exception for rape or incest.
Why support or oppose Amendment G?
Kelley said she supports the amendment because the current law is vague and puts doctors in a difficult position for fear of losing their jobs or breaking the law.
“We’re all kind of scared that we will make that decision in a way that the prosecutors of the county think is too soon and that we could be charged with a felony for doing our jobs,” Kelley said. “Certainly it’s not ethical as a physician for us to wait until something is life threatening when we know that that’s where something is headed.”
Be informed on the seven 2024 ballot measures
Giebink opposed Amendment G because of the trimester framework and what she says are a lack of regulations.
“It really doesn’t prohibit anything. I think this amendment is too extreme. I think that South Dakota can do better. If we want to make exceptions, we can do that through the legislature,” Giebink said. “The problem with a constitutional amendment is that it cannot be changed. I’m concerned that this doesn’t protect South Dakota women from different kinds of abuses that I believe will happen.”
Why does the current law need to change?
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned two years ago and the 2006 South Dakota trigger law went into effect, Kelley said she has had to choose between ethical obligations to her patients and the law.
“It has been really, really hard and very terrifying for a lot of my colleagues. Basically, there are pregnancy complications, there are medical complications that really the best thing we can do for a patient is end their pregnancy,” Kelley said. “Right now, we’re sitting waiting for patients to get sicker.”
Kelley noted that practicing under the current law in the state isn’t sustainable, adding that South Dakota is struggling to find doctors who want to work here under the new regulations.
“We can’t get a new IVF doctor here because no one wants to work in a state with an abortion ban,” she said. “This unfortunately doesn’t just affect women who are pregnant now. It affects women who want to be pregnant. It affects all women. Because if this continues and we lose our doctors, who’s going to deliver babies? Who’s going to provide gynecologic care for the citizens of our state?”
Giebink agreed with Kelley that doctors shouldn’t be forced to choose between ethics and practicing medicine. However, she wanted to stress that elective, or voluntary, abortions are different from ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages.
“It says in the law of South Dakota that an elective abortion is the intentional ending of the life of a separate, unique human being, so the intent is to kill the baby,” Giebink said. “Now, I compare that with practicing OB, where my intent is a healthy mom and a healthy baby. So there’s a distinction between an elective abortion and caring for a pregnant woman.”
As for Kelley’s concerns with limited doctors who want to perform care under the current law, Giebink mentioned a University of Minnesota study saying there had been a decline in obstetrical care before the 2022 ban.
During this segment of the interview, Kelley claimed that Giebink did not have a medical license and was not board certified. Giebink clarified during the interview that she does have a medical license, but is not board certified.
Kelley reached out to KELOLAND News after the interview to stress that Giebink hasn’t been practicing medical care under the current abortion laws, despite holding a medical license.
What are the next steps if Amendment G becomes law?
If Amendment G passes, Kelley said there is room for the courts to get involved and clarify the laws within South Dakota’s current system. She did say that even if the amendment passes, abortions will not become legal right away and more clarification is needed.
“This ballot initiative definitely leaves the door open to have some regulation in it, so it’s probably not gonna be the end of the road for sure,” Kelley said. “I don’t expect that immediately, we will be completely free from the fear of prosecution.”
Giebink said if the amendment passes, it will open South Dakota up to medical negligence and abuse. She questioned what types of regulations will be put on clinics and those prescribing and performing chemical or surgical abortions
“So things like parental notification, a waiting period, informed consent screening for coercion, standards for clinics and physicians, all those would be gone and it can’t be changed without another constitutional amendment,” Giebink said.
Final thoughts
Kelley thinks people should vote yes on Amendment G because “only women should be making medical decisions about their health.” She also countered Giebrink’s point that there would be no regulations if the amendment passed
“We had 60 pages of abortion restrictions and laws prior to Dobbs,” Kelley said. “This is literally Roe v. Wade in our constitution; that’s what we had before. To say that there’s suddenly gonna be the Wild West is just not true.”
Giebink ended the interview by mentioning coerced abortions and how lawmakers, doctors and voters should take that into consideration when making laws on abortion regulation.
“The abortion industry assumes that women who show up for abortions are there of their own free will, which isn’t true,” she said. “When I worked at Planned Parenthood, people were pressured to have abortions. There were women who showed up for abortions that really were looking for answers and had questions and unfortunately they didn’t get their questions answered.”
