“Well, you do what you do and you pay for your sins
And there’s no such thing as what might have been
That’s a waste of time, drive you out of your mind”
“Red Rag Top” — Jason White

One of the best songwriting in a long, long time was this gem from Jason White written in 1997 and released on his independent album in 2001. The song exploded into national consciousness in 2002 when Tim McGraw covered the song on his “Tim McGraw and the Dancehall Doctors” album. McGraw’s version reached as high as No. 5 on the charts.

“Red Rag Top” immediately stirred up controversy, as the song walks the listener through a passionate young relationship in the first stanza. In the second stanza, the young couple discovers that the female is pregnant.

After considering their ability to support a child, they made the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

The chorus line of that stanza finds the girl begging the writer to keep loving her even after the procedure. As the song continues, he reveals that they were a couple for another year, but weren’t meant to be together, and a recent encounter with a young woman in a similar car to what his former lover drove brought back this memory.

Simply mentioning an abortion within the lyrics of a song is a good way to doom a song, and there were some stations that refused to play the song. Interestingly, if you were listening to country music media at the time, you’d have assumed it was dozens of stations across the country.

According to a survey of the reporting stations for Billboard’s country music charts, seven reporting stations declined to play the song. Just seven.

In fact, in an article that Billboard did about the song in 2002, multiple stations reported that they received overwhelming response to play the song after initially not playing it, citing many people who were touched by the song and could relate to the story in its lyrics.

If you haven’t figured it out already, this week’s exploration as we prepare for the Nov. 5 election day and review proposed ballot measures is Amendment G, commonly known as the “abortion amendment” among this year’s seven proposed ballot measures.

Abortion is a very, very touchy topic in modern politics, so we’re going to do as much as we can to examine this from a purely procedural aspect rather than digging significantly into the politics of abortion in general.

First, the basics of what Amendment G does and does not do.

A vote “yes” will enter the right to an abortion into South Dakota’s constitution. According to the proposed amendment, during the first trimester, the state would not be able to regulate the right to an abortion. In the second trimester, the state may regulate in ways that are related to the expectant mother’s health. Finally, in the third trimester, the only thing the state cannot restrict as far as abortion is concerned is a procedure to “preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.”

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, abortion laws on the books in individual states, often more than a century old, became the law. That has led to multiple states already codifying abortion rights into law, and 11 abortion measures are on state ballots across the country in 2024.

Thus far, every state, regardless of the majority party in the state, has voted - usually overwhelmingly - in favor of abortion rights at some level. Before this year, seven ballot measures in other states have been voted upon, with three of the measures to block abortion from being protected in the state, and four of them to protect abortion rights. The four to protect were approved, and the three to block were rejected.

One thing to note, three of the measures were constitutional amendments, two of which were of the “block” variety. That comes into play with South Dakota’s measure.

Of the 11 measures on the ballot this year across the country, six are amendments to their state’s constitutions. Nebraska will actually be voting on two abortion measures, one a constitutional amendment to block abortions after the first trimester and another an amendment to grant the right to abortion up to fetal viability.

South Dakota News Watch has conducted two polls on this topic and found that last November, 45.6% of respondents supported a constitutional amendment to support abortion and a poll taken in May found that support had grown to 53.4%.
Roughly the same number (right around 11%) stated that they were undecided on the issue.

Many have heard that there are legal issues with the proposed amendment, and those are based on how signatures were gathered, as well as accusations of illegal activity by signature-gatherers on behalf of the amendment.

That court case arising from those issues will not be decided before the election, so voters could be voting for an amendment that will not be allowed to stand after the court proceedings are done. However, it has been cleared by the state and will be on this year’s ballot.

In polling across the state, a significant majority of South Dakotans agree with the statement that abortion should be available in the first trimester. They also say that it should also be a rare procedure, even when available in the first trimester.
Where language gets to be an issue is beginning in the second trimester.

There is no such thing as post-birth abortions, despite what many alarmists on the issue would attempt to use as a scare tactic. Conversely, the current law in place in the state does allow for a provision regarding the health of the mother, though it doesn’t allow for a legal abortion at any point of the pregnancy. The language of the current law on the books in the state is likely to face legal challenges for clarity purposes.

More than anything, the whole topic of abortion is akin to stopping down-river flooding by building a dam - without considering the effects on the land on the backside of that dam.

All too often, both sides of the abortion debate focus on the issue of abortion and not on the backside, i.e. the results for actions taken.

Abortions will still happen. More abortions took place nationally in 2023 after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, than in 2021, when it was still nationally legal.

Unfortunately, we only know those abortions that are reported.

The scary part of strict anti-abortion laws is unsafe practices to have an abortion, not to mention extreme cases that leave a pregnant mother, who did want her child, at risk due to bureaucracy around having a procedure to remove a deceased fetus that can remain in a woman’s body and potentially become quite toxic to her health before red tape is cleared up to have a procedure to have it removed.

Not taking into account the protection of mothers is only part of the “upstream” of pure anti-abortion laws. When pregnant women are forced to give birth, many are ill-equipped to be mothers - part of why they were looking to make the choice of abortion in the first place. Unfortunately, many of those women are not presented with the option of adoption as a realistic one during pregnancy and it isn’t until the child ends up removed from the parent and put into the foster care system that a loving home can be found. That doesn’t happen until the child involved has to go through significant trauma; trauma that can have long-term and life-long effects on the child involved.

Yet, there is a direct correlation between the lack of per capita funding for foster and adoptive care by a state in its budget and strict adoption laws in that state, according to work done by Politico.

On the flip side, complete allowance for abortion can lead to the procedure being viewed along the lines of birth control for those not responsible enough to utilize protection unless trying for a child.

Expanding abortion rights certainly should not be done in lieu of proper education about sexual safety, though sex education is a completely different discussion that could warrant its own column.

What does all that have to do with how to evaluate Amendment G?

In reality, the majority of the population is considerably closer together on this issue than groups operating with a political motive like to make it seem.

There should be plenty of room for a logical bill that expands abortion rights in the first trimester to pass in Pierre - though it would require members of the majority party to go against a strict party line, and that’s tough to do.

With the likelihood of something to serve the majority of the state coming out of Pierre very slim, putting the issue on the ballot is a must in South Dakota. The issue at hand is how this particular Amendment is worded and what it would mean.

As has been discussed multiple times already in this series, amending the Constitution should be something that is done with serious consideration for the long-term ramifications.

Any change to a Constitutional Amendment must be done through a further amendment, meaning that any disputes or questions on the interpretation of the Amendment would end up where this issue should not be resolved - the courts.

More than anything, abortion decisions need to primarily be between a woman and her doctor, and this Amendment - even if it is passed and survives the hearing in December - would likely require interpretation at the State Supreme Court level on multiple lines within the Amendment that are at least open for interpretation.

With the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, both organizations who strongly support abortion rights in general, coming out against the Amendment due to the vague-ness of the language involved, voters should have a good indication of how to proceed with this measure.

White eloquently stated in the song, “There is no such thing as what might have been.”

We cannot change the past, but we can be wise about the decisions we make that affect the future, and the potential future legal fallout from this Amendment could remove any potential protection of abortion rights that it would give.

It’s not because we are against protecting a level of abortion rights, but because as a state, when something is done, we need to make sure it’s done correctly.

This is part of a series examining the seven proposed ballot measures on the November 5 ballot. For previous articles, check below:
Amendment E
Amendment F
Amendment G
Amendment H
Initiated Measure 28
Initiated Measure 29
Referred Law 21