{"id":307799,"date":"2024-02-29T07:57:37","date_gmt":"2024-02-29T13:57:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=307799"},"modified":"2024-03-01T01:30:10","modified_gmt":"2024-03-01T07:30:10","slug":"south-dakota-measure-restore-roe-isnt-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/south-dakota-measure-restore-roe-isnt-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"South Dakota measure looks to restore Roe, but abortion groups say it isn’t enough"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

One South Dakota ballot measure looking to restore Roe v. Wade<\/em> in the state is gaining traction — but it’s also garnering pushback from some of the biggest pro-abortion organizations, who say that it isn’t going far enough in its attempts to expand abortion.<\/p>\n

A group called Dakotans for Health submitted proposed language in summer 2022, and is now collecting signatures in the hopes of earning a spot on November’s ballot. But, unlike ballot measures undertaken in other states that have attempted to establish a constitutional ‘right’ to abortion, this organization does not have the support of some of the top names in abortion, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood — namely because it is not seeking unrestricted abortion access for all nine months.<\/p>\n

The proposed amendment<\/a> would make abortion a constitutional ‘right’ during the first trimester, while allowing second trimester abortions only in \u201cways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.\u201d Third trimester abortions would only be allowed if the health of the mother was at risk (though induced abortion is never medically necessary<\/a>, and a third-trimester child could quickly be delivered and given the chance to survive if his mother’s life was in danger). It’s these restrictions that have many abortion supporters balking at the measure.<\/p>\n