South Dakota

[Sheherezade]

So, how does everyone feel about the abortion legislation that just passed in South Dakota? I'm curious how this will play out. I've been listening to some commentary on the political strategy involved. It seems that some think a direct assault to Roe v Wade will backfire, and others think it's the right time to go for it. Frankily, I'm thinking it would be the best thing if abortion became a state issue. It's torn our country apart for some time now. Obviously, that would make things more difficult on the poor and also fractionalize the country....but we are already red/blue and the poor always suffer no matter what system we set up. Maybe it's best to just let the states agree to disagree on this issue?

Second point: How does everyone feel about the SD law criminalizing abortion for the medical providers but not for the women seeking abortion? I have heard the explanation that the pro-life movement propelling this issue in SD sees women as the "victims" in abortion not as the perpetrator of the crime. That rubs me the wrong way. I suppose because I feel that abortion is a "choice" that women have a right to make and that the consequences of that choice should fall squarely on the one choosing.

All mistakes in information presented in this post are solely the responsibility of NPR.

Clearly, I thought debating stay home/work during motherhood didn't generate enough fireworks. (Or maybe I was inspired by the civil discussion on that topic!)

[fluffhead]

I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, other than it's probably high time the court made a stand on this issue, one way or the other, either uphold it or strike it down and let the debate continue. And if we're going to uphold it, then do it strongly to silence the objectors. Same thing on the other side.

What I really wanted to say was that I thought this was going to be a debate over whether South Dakota actually existed or not. (I'm skeptical...)

[Sheherezade]

See I lured you in with the far more explosive subject line "South Dakota". "Abortion" would never get any hits.

[mommax3]

What I really wanted to say was that I thought this was going to be a debate over whether South Dakota actually existed or not. (I'm skeptical...)

You make me laugh, fluff.

I have been watching this story in SD with interest. Maybe it IS time for the states to decide......according to the things I have read, abortions are hard enough to get in many states that it might as well be illegal there.

How does everyone feel about the SD law criminalizing abortion for the medical providers but not for the women seeking abortion? I have heard the explanation that the pro-life movement propelling this issue in SD sees women as the "victims" in abortion not as the perpetrator of the crime. That rubs me the wrong way. I suppose because I feel that abortion is a "choice" that women have a right to make and that the consequences of that choice should fall squarely on the one choosing.

That's a good question, Angie, and I wasn't aware of that aspect of the legislation. I have made no secret of the fact that I am firmly in the pro-life camp, and I DO believe that abortions hurt women as well as destroy innocent lives. However, I also believe that these women have choices, at least some of them. There are so many women, though, that are oppressed, abused, and controlled by men that having abortion as a legal option means that it is something *else* they are forced into doing. As far as the providers go......I know that some of them believe they are in the trenches doing what is best for women. Obviously, I don't agree with them. What kind of physician does *surgery* (albeit minor) on a patient without planning to see them for a follow-up? What kind of physician does a D&C on a patient and then LEAVES THE STATE, leaving the patient with no recourse other than the ER if she begins to have problems after the procedure? I know from DH that the above things are happening in Indiana, which, granted, is not an abortion-friendly state......BUT I don't have much respect for those providers. They fly in in the mornings, take a limo to the abortion clinic, get paid in cash, get back in their limo at the end of the day, and head back to the airport. Not good medicine, imo. And I know the Hippocratic Oath isn't a *law*, but really, how does abortion jive with "First, do no harm?" So, at the end of the day, I have no tears to shed for the providers.

Since I am already on my soapbox, (but of course not using profanity) I want to also say that the pro-life movement should wake up and realize that if they want women to go ahead and have these babies, they need to vote for politicians who will make it easier for them to raise them! They can't have it both ways (ie limited abortions AND limited social programs) and that is where I part ways with many conservatives. I firmly, firmly believe that abortion is wrong, but I do feel for the women who are in the place of having to make a difficult choice. DH is at the crisis pregnancy center every week, counseling and doing ultrasounds for women who are on the fence about what they are going to do with their pregnancies. Their stories are heartbreaking, and they have really made us think and think again about our stance on this issue. Hardly any of them (even the sister/guardian of a mentally handicapped pregnant woman that probably wasn't even able to consent to sex) think about adoption......I can't understand that.

It will be interesting to see how the SD thing plays out.

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

I want to also say that the pro-life movement should wake up and realize that if they want women to go ahead and have these babies, they need to vote for politicians who will make it easier for them to raise them! They can't have it both ways (ie limited abortions AND limited social programs) and that is where I part ways with many conservatives. I firmly, firmly believe that abortion is wrong, but I do feel for the women who are in the place of having to make a difficult choice.

Sally, we'll snag you over to the democratic camp before you know it. :>

Abortion is a highly charged issue and it's unfortunate that it has become so powerful in politics that people vote based on this one issue.

At the end of the day, though I don't support abortion for birth control, I have come to realize that there are times when it may be necessary....I consider rape, situations where baby is severely damaged or there is a danger to mom to warrant this medical procedure. Most women that I have known who have undergone this have had a lot of grief and pain associated with it....they aren't running around wearing an "I had an abortion' t-shirt from planned parenthood.

Making this a State's issue is a bad idea in my mind. Just because we have a rich/poor democratic/republican divide in this country already doesn't mean we should deepen it. It's just like school issues...now we have states not teaching evolution, etc or teaching 'intelligent ** design in science class because we allow states to make decisions.

If you are raped in SD now you may have to leave the State for treatment. If you are pg with a severely deformed baby or there is a danger to your own life, you will be forced out-of-state as well. That's not right. That, in my opinion, is also oppressive to women.

kris

[mommax3]

Sally, we'll snag you over to the democratic camp before you know it.

I know......I'm frightened.....


I also can't stand Hilary.

Angie .... you with your ultra-inflamatory 'South Dakota'! You and fluff made me laugh out loud.

I have been watching / listening (NPR addict) to this very closely. Obviously the timing is b/c of Alito's appointment (duh), and they're ready to test it. I've heard both sides say that they're ready for the fight.

I don't agree that it should be left up to the states. That will just mean that people will cross the state line to get an abortion in a state that is legal. For people who don't have the money to make the trip, they'll resort to do-it-yourself abortions -- and I can't imagine anyone wants to go back there. If you're pro-life, you must be pro-life, and I would have to assume that includes the life of the woman carrying the fetus.

I am pro-choice - but I hate abortion. I would hope that it is only the last, last, last resort. I feel so badly for women in that situation, and am truly grateful to have never been there. I hope in my heart of hearts that these women can find a way to have the baby and raise it, or give it up - anything else - but the option must be there. The people who use it as a form of birth control disgust me (multiple abortions). IMO they should be sterilized. I have to add: I never felt so strongly about a woman's right to choose as when I was pregnant with my 1st (very, very wanted) child. By all measures I had an easy pregnancy - but the idea of going through even the simplest of pregnancies while dreading, resenting, being terrified of the outcome is not good for anyone. A child brought into that situation will suffer, the woman will suffer - and it helps no one.

As for criminalizing the provider and not the woman - I do not agree. If it is illegal, it takes two to tango, and to criminalize only the provider just serves as intimidation. I don't see a woman choosing to get an abortion as a victim of the medical provider. She may be a victim of other circumstances -- but not the provider.

[PrincessFiona]

I also can't stand Hilary.

She'll grow on you :>

[Auspicious]

I don't agree that it should be left up to the states. That will just mean that people will cross the state line to get an abortion in a state that is legal. For people who don't have the money to make the trip,

That was my first thought, too: that making abortion illegal in a particular state is de facto making it illegal for the poor in that state. Those with money to travel will always have access (in the next state, in the next country). This is definitely not the most beneficial way to lower the number of abortions performed.

[mommax3]

I get what you guys are saying about not leaving it up to the states, and honestly, I don't much care either way. However, it seems like I have read *plenty* about how in many states, (SD was one) abortions aren't readily available already and women have to cross state lines to get them anyway. I guess I was just thinking maybe it would be easier to call it what it is and make it "de jure" as well as "de facto".

Sally

[Sheherezade]

So the discussion in this neck of the woods (my kitchen ) is how a country divided by abortion-legal and abortion-illegal states would operate. From what I hear (again NPR on in background), in 1973 pre-R v W some states were already moving to legalize abortion....and they probably would do so if R v W is overturned. Other states already have trigger laws in place that criminalize abortion when R v W is overturned. If abortion was kicked to the states, would that work?

Sally...interesting tidbit about the providers. I'm sure some are doing this for "the cause" but I also know that some are in it for the money. That's sad, sad, sad. It's another reason that this debate needs to be settled. What is the point of having "no more back-alley abortions" if legalized abortion at clinics ends up being shoddy care by unknown providers? Legal abortion options should be safe and treated the same as other medical surgeries. Heck, I don't even like the idea of docs injecting Botox at local salons. I think medicine needs to stay....medical. (Except those strep tests! I want those in the drugstores!)

Mississippi is next in line....

[houseelf]

This was on the news again last night as the pending law weaves its way through the system. Apparently the four remaining doctors who perform abortions in SD are Minnesota practicioners who fly into Sioux Falls one day a week. The anonymous female physician interviewed struck me as believing in the cause of reproductive freedom and not in it for the bucks. There are a hell of a lot easier ways to make money for a physician than flying to a potentially violent and hostile clinic in Sioux Falls to perform abortions once a week.

Like Jesher, I hate, hate, hate abortion yet remainly staunchly pro choice. I hope that this doesn't become a poor woman/rich woman thing but it looks like it is going that way.

Kelly

[houseelf]

I thought this was an interesting use of jurisdiction.....

______________________________________________

Oglala Sioux Tribe on the South Dakota Abortion Ban
by blackeye1776 Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM
"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty." President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, says "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."

South Dakota's abortion law
Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) 3/20/2006
© 2006 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.

When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother's life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set of a maelstrom of protests within the state.

Napoli suggested that if it was a case of "simple rape," there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli's description of rape as "simple." He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by "simple rape."

The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.

"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," she said to me last week. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."

Strong words from a very strong lady. I hope Ms. Fire Thunder challenges Gov. Rounds and the state legislators on this law that is an affront to all independent women.

(Tim Giago is the president of the Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc., and the publisher of Indian Education Today Magazine. He can be reached at najournalists@rushmore.com or by writing him at 2050 W. Main St., Suite 5, Rapid City, SD. He was also the founder and publisher of the Lakota Times and Indian Country Today newspapers

Yah, really interesting that.
I wonder how it will play, because the res gets lots of state and federal funding.