As a mother and lifelong resident of Brookings, I feel compelled to share a story that is both personal and relevant to the future of reproductive healthcare in South Dakota. My pregnancy with my son was far from simple, and today, I worry deeply about what other women might face if they go through a similar experience in a state where access to healthcare is more restricted.

When I finally became pregnant with my son, I was living in Colorado, where medical guidance and reproductive healthcare access protected both me and my baby.

Colorado’s healthcare laws allowed my doctors to provide the support I needed, without interference or delay, as I faced a series of serious complications that tested me physically and emotionally. It started with a massive hemorrhage at eight weeks—a terrifying experience after struggling to conceive for so long. Throughout the pregnancy, there were ongoing concerns about my baby's kidneys and heart. At 30 weeks, I was rushed to the emergency room when I couldn’t feel him move. My medical team immediately intervened, providing tests and reassurance, guiding me through each frightening moment. When the day came to deliver, I bled out and needed full blood transfusions to stay alive.

In those critical moments, I was able to rely on my doctors, who were free to make the best decisions for my health and the safety of my child without legal restrictions. I felt fortunate to be in Colorado, where I could count on compassionate and immediate care. I am deeply troubled knowing that South Dakota women facing similar crises may be denied the care they need due to the legal landscape here. The thought of a future pregnancy now comes with the fear: I would face the terrifying possibility that restrictive laws might lead to a very different outcome—leaving my husband and son without a wife and mother or forcing them to send me to my literal deathbed before I received care. It’s heartbreaking to look at my sweet nieces and imagine what they might someday endure. Women and girls got a 50-year glimpse of what it’s like to own our own bodies. Will my nieces ever know that freedom?

Since the Dobbs decision, I’ve seen friends, family, and community members here in Brookings struggle with the growing uncertainty around healthcare access. And this fear is not theoretical; recent studies show that restricting access to necessary reproductive healthcare directly increases risks for mothers and infants. The JAMA Pediatrics journal recently reported a 7% rise in infant mortality in the U.S. following the Dobbs decision, with babies facing congenital issues suffering the most. Medical professionals in states with restrictive laws are increasingly constrained, with 68% of OBGYNs saying that restrictions worsen pregnancy-related emergencies (Kaiser Family Foundation). South Dakota’s restrictive law (SD 22-17-5.1), which allows abortion only to preserve the life of the mother, means that many crucial options are off the table.

Amendment G is not about encouraging abortion. It’s about protecting women’s access to safe, regulated healthcare, especially in emergencies. I am grateful every day for the care I received in Colorado, but I want that same reassurance for every woman in South Dakota. Decisions about health should be in the hands of patients and doctors, not legislators. South Dakotans value compassion, safety, and personal freedom. Amendment G would bring back healthcare access that puts medical decisions back where they belong, between a patient and her doctor.

A vote for Fedora, Blake, and Amendment G is a vote for compassion and common sense. It’s a vote to protect families, ensure access to critical care, and create a future where South Dakota women and families can feel safe and supported.