There's one issue on which competing factions in South Dakota's abortion battle can agree: After two bitterly fought ballot initiatives over a near-complete ban, the state's residents are some of the best-informed voters anywhere on this divisive issue.

Since 2006, when the state's Legislature enacted sweeping limitations on the procedure, debate over the controversial law has dominated the state's airwaves and headlines. Groups supporting the ban and those opposing it correctly deduced that its implications reached far beyond South Dakota's borders. The law could have challenged the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. And with new justices sitting on the court, an opportunity loomed to overturn Roe vs. Wade. By one rough estimate, more than $7 million was raised by both sides in the fight over the 2006 ballot initiative, which struck down the ban, and the 2008 measure, which sought to enact a slightly less restrictive version of it.

Earlier this month, South Dakotans weighed in again after months of rallies, get-out-the-vote efforts and TV ads. Again, they decisively rejected an abortion ban, this time by a margin of 10.4 percent. The measure was likely one of the best opportunities for overturning Roe for some time, particularly now that President-elect Barack Obama's choices will shape the court going forward. The state's political experts are still analyzing this latest defeat. But it's clear that the ban's opponents ran a different and highly effective campaign -- University of South Dakota political science professor emeritus Don Dahlin called it "masterful." It not only connected with voters, but it suggests that future debates in South Dakota and elsewhere can and should move beyond absolutes and old rhetoric.

The ban's opponents united as the "South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families" coalition. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, which is based in Minneapolis, played a key leadership role in raising funds and shaping the tone of the campaign. Its down-to-earth regional leader, Sarah Stoesz, has particularly pushed to move beyond old rallying cries about reproductive rights toward acknowledging the moral ambiguity the issue presents for so many people.

The Healthy Families coalition smartly targeted the majority of people that polls routinely find are in the middle on this issue. Its welcome, nuanced message acknowledged abortion is problematic for many, but emphasized that a far-reaching ban would encroach too far into the decisionmaking best made by a family. One of the coalition's most high-profile volunteers, Tiffany Campbell, spoke out about a rare medical condition that forced her to choose between losing both twins or aborting one to save the other's life. Her compelling story provided a real-life example of the intrusiveness of a government ban.

Unfortunately, ban proponents appear to be mulling their options for yet another ballot fight. Leslee Unruh, one of the ban's most outspoken advocates, said last week that she's besieged by calls from potential volunteers and has laid down financial benchmarks for those looking to fund another initiative. "The ultimate goal is for South Dakota to be abortion free ... I think you keep coming back and you keep coming back and you keep coming back. You do all that you can possibly do," Unruh said.

The 2008 ballot measure failed by the about the same margin (10.4 percent vs. 11.2 percent) as the 2006 measure, suggesting that a future ban is unlikely to succeed. It's time to acknowledge that South Dakota voters have spoken -- twice. Their response to ban opponents' nuanced campaign should signal the need to set aside ballot measures and step up efforts to achieve what both sides want: fewer abortions. The money spent fighting for and against this ban would have gone far to prevent unplanned pregnancies and help women grappling with them. Another ballot fight in South Dakota would only divert attention and more resources away from those who truly need help.