Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

South Dakota's Abortion Ban Showdown

By Rebecca Clarren, Ms. Magazine. Posted October 20, 2006.


South Dakotans have come out in force against a draconian abortion ban. Can they stop it before it upends abortion rights throughout the nation?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rebecca Clarren

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Sioux Falls, SD -- College student Dena Gleason, 24, squints at the address on the blue wooden home with the two-car garage, then strolls resolutely toward the front door, armed with an open smile and a clipboard. The smell of freshly mowed grass clings to the thick evening air of midsummer, and the American flag on the porch droops in the heat.

This neighborhood, with its manicured lawns and tree-lined streets, is fit for a Norman Rockwell painting, but to Gleason, a senior at South Dakota State in Brookings, it's simply the staging ground for the most important social battle she's faced in her lifetime.

She's taken the semester off school and given up two jobs in order to gather tons of signatures and talk to hundreds of people, trying to convince them that a vote No on Referred Law 6 this November is critical for protecting women's rights. In February and March 2006, the state legislature of South Dakota passed, and Gov. Mike Rounds signed, a bill to outlaw abortion in the state.

With no exceptions for rape, incest or a woman's health--only to "prevent the death" of a pregnant woman--it is the most draconian abortion ban in the country. South Dakota is a conservative, sparsely populated place--known for its Great Plains, Black Hills and Badlands--where abortion is already so constrained that there is only one clinic for its 775,000 residents. The state's antiabortion groups thought it was a perfect place to launch a further attack, but despite the legislative victory they have an all-out battle on their hands: The ban's passage has spurred thousands of state residents such as Gleason--many of them political naifs--to action.

"I never thought this would be something I'd have to do. To go out and defend women's rights in South Dakota and, the way it looks now, in the nation," says Gleason, her voice rising to fill the quiet of the neighborhood. "We shouldn't have to fight for this."

Following the legislation's passage, a coalition of feminist, reproductive-rights and civil-liberties groups formed the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families to ask that voters repeal the ban through a referendum on the November ballot. In just nine and a half weeks, more than 1,200 volunteers gathered over 38,000 signatures--double the number needed--from every county in the state. Besides scores of citizen volunteers, the campaign has attracted a number of prominent South Dakota leaders, including such unexpected supporters as former state Republican lawmaker Jan Nicolay and Maria Bell, a Catholic obstetrician.

The ban is about more than one state's law: If the ballot measure doesn't succeed in striking it down, the law will inevitably land on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. There, with moderate Sandra Day O'Connor having been replaced by ultraconservative Samuel Alito, a decision to uphold the ban could reverse Roe v. Wade. This, no doubt, was the legislature's intent, and with a reversal of Roe, experts believe abortion might be eventually outlawed in as many as 30 states.

"The South Dakota law itself is absolutely fantastic," says Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, a group that believes the birth control pill acts as a "chemical abortion." "There are many groups that have waited for this to happen and this is a major step forward. This is the kind of law we have been fighting for since Roe v. Wade was decided."

The national implications have created a shock wave of concern. The Internet is thick with ads for bumper stickers and T-shirts emblazoned with such phrases as "South Dakota, The Wire Hanger State."

A comment by Cecelia Fire Thunder, the embattled president of South Dakota's Oglala Sioux Tribe, that she would establish an abortion clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation, where state law has little jurisdiction, made headlines around the country. Lurking beneath the legislation is an even deeper attack on women's reproductive lives. "Right-to-life" groups in South Dakota, funded in large part by federal grants provided by the Bush administration for abstinence-only education, are pushing a conservative agenda that aims to strip away not only access to abortion, but to sex education and birth control.

"This is about an ill wind that is beginning to blow in S.D. and will ultimately blow across the country unless stopped," says Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. "I view the South Dakota campaign we're currently mounting as a first step to significantly fight back against this political movement."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, pro-choice, south, dakota, ban, election06

Rebecca Clarren is an investigative journalist based in Portland, Ore.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
morning after pill
Posted by: LDavistrueblue on Oct 20, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Work to provide birth-control pills and the morning after pill. The suggestion, however, that high-school girls are too helpless to control their behavior makes me wonder why they should be permitted to drive cars. And the way teens are characterized in the article, they certainly don't have the wisdom to decide on ending the life of a developing child. Teach responsibility and you teach strength.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: morning after pill Posted by: fork
» RE: morning after pill Posted by: mysticalrae
» RE: morning after pill Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: morning after pill Posted by: Zenobia
» No, go to Rosebud! Posted by: dnaylor
» RE: morning after pill Posted by: crashgrab
Studies show
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Oct 20, 2006 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
comprehensive sex education is the most effective means to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies. The right ignores these studies. They don't believe in science, global warming, evolution, etc., after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's all about control Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Yes Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Agreed Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Yes Posted by: celticsweetgrass
» RE: Studies show Posted by: Taraerin
why
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 20, 2006 2:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know why the South Dakota legislature/governor passed such a bad anti-abortion law: they've been corrupted by all those "Badlands". Maybe all the good campaigning will nullify this bad law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a surprse
Posted by: dr_bognus on Oct 20, 2006 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anti abortionists can push this through entirely while ignoring the people who want the abortion bill stopped this is very bad for America. Not only does it show that the nation is removing the rights of its own people but also it is showing that the government is being controlled by a group of relatively small minded people who believe that women should 'stand by their man' and 'look after the children'. Next will come a ban on women from getting jobs...

If the evangelists want no sex before marriage so badly and to preserve the sanctity of sex itself why dont they sort thir own problems out first such as paedophile priests who use the church as a veil to get close to children? why dont they try and support victims of rape in stead of forcing them to carry a baby which, more than likely will be hated in stead of pursuing their agenda within the entire community. I thought the US was supposed to separate religion and government...

When this world sorts itself out will be a good day for everyone and America would be a good starting place for this change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a surprse Posted by: Colin
Jill
Posted by: jillstanek on Oct 20, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clarren neglected to mention in her article that Cecilia Fire Thunder was fired by her tribe for saying she would open an abortion mill on tribe land if the SD abortion ban sticks.

Clarren stated, "On the Rosebud and other reservations in the state, 80 percent of female high school seniors report that they've been raped.... Nichole Witt of the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society Inc.,... [stated]... 'We have children, young girls, being molested and raped by their family members....'"

If that statistic is true, one would expect women's "rights" groups to devote their time focusing on preventing these skyrocketing rapes rather than covering them up.

The ban would ensure rapists are brought to justice, while the status quo ensures sexual criminals get away with past crimes while carrying on undetected.

But the status quo also ensures feminist groups' funding.

Clarren's focus on the Rosebud reservation and Native Americans also substantiates the abortion industry's obsession with minority genocide, which is why 94% of abortion mills are located in urban, minority, poor areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jill Posted by: fork
» RE: Jill Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Jill Posted by: morticia
» RE: Jill and the Mill Posted by: goatini
Myself a SD resident, here's the REAL problem and why Dems will LOSE here !
Posted by: SDres11 on Oct 20, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of running against the ban, the Democrats would be better off running against the perpetrators of abortions, preferably involuntary ones, such as industrial polluters, labor abuse, unemployment, war, lowering wages on both sexes of the lower/middle class, rapists not being held accountable, etc ... From there, they could then make the case that a ban on abortion won't even cut corners but instead force MORE ILLEGAL abortions.

Instead, the state is stuck with too many "moderate pro-business centrists" taking a LOSING DLC strategy of focusing on the symptoms all the while letting the perpetrators and their causes go unchecked !

P.S.: I almost slammed a door on a nice young lady who worked for a Democrat after asking me about the issue of abortion. Since she looked beautiful, herself Native American, I let her in and after helping her reframe the issues, she burst into tears and wished Democrats would do the same and only then would us South Dakotans not stay divided and conquered. My wife also helped her out. And she can never forget the dreaded 9/11 the DEA did in Lakota against a hemp farm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just curious... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Just curious... Posted by: SDres11
» RE: Just curious... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Just curious... Posted by: SDres11
» RE: Just curious... Posted by: kittynboi
All Christians act alike????
Posted by: llyon0815 on Oct 20, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article refers to a Catholic, Episcopal and Evangelical presence on the Rosebud Reservation and implies that these religious groups are supporting restrictions on access to abortion. The Episcopal Church has affirmed a woman's right to choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the boys???
Posted by: nise52 on Oct 20, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the abortion issue comes up, all you ever hear about is the pregnant girls. They're whores, or they're irresponsible, depending upon which side you're listening to. But what about the boys who think having sex with a girl is just another "notch" on their belt. What about a society that fosters the idea that women are objects to be used for the sexual pleasure of any/all men? Everything from TV commercials to music videos emphasizes that idea. I hear nothing about the males that rape or perform sex with (even agreed upon sex) and the damage they do to the women and ultimately the children that result. Where is the condemnation of them and their lack of responsibility? Why aren't they called sluts? Condoms are cheap and widely available in stores. Oh, right, this world loves men who can "tap" lots of women! And then there's the TV shows where they test DNA and loudly proclaim to the audience "you are NOT the father". Sick society....and a disgusting one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about the boys??? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: What about the boys??? Posted by: morticia
This is the end, not the beginning
Posted by: fork on Oct 20, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""This is about an ill wind that is beginning to blow in S.D. and will ultimately blow across the country unless stopped," says Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota. "I view the South Dakota campaign we're currently mounting as a first step to significantly fight back against this political movement." "

This ill wind has been blowing since Roe v Wade, effectively stripping American women of their abortion rights. And Planned Parenthood is only now taking "first step(s)" to fight back? Practically, the US does not have accessibility to abortion; only the theoretical right, the shell, remains. The war is almost lost, and viewing the final battle as the beginning is a disturbing perspective.

""A win in this state will advance our movement for reproductive rights to the next level, and change the current politics of the country."

What will it take to shock Americans out of their complacency and make them realize what they've lost over the last few decades, not only with regard to abortion rights but women's rights in general? A federal ban on abortion? I'm not so sure. Reports of women dying from botched abortions? Not sure about that either, especially since the anti-abortion crowd were OK with it before Roe v Wade. What will it take?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dummies on the march
Posted by: willymack on Oct 20, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a source of never ending amazement to me, how morons and degenerates are allowed to assume positions of power and influence. Are you guys in South Dakota so afraid of your women that you have to treat them like children? Or is it that you've twisted your "religion" to match that of medieval times? This is the US of A, where EVERYBODY is equal, or should be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contact the author of South Dakota's Law
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 20, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, be polite and do not harass this person, but here is his contact info:

Bill Napoli

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are Men on this issue
Posted by: makeadifference on Oct 20, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are the men on this issue? Do women get pregnant by themselves? Last I heard, unless you're the Virgin Mary, it takes a male to impregnate a female. So, where are the men out there defending their daughters, sisters, girlfriends and wives rights? Advertisements are all over TV promoting men's ability to penetrate... but what do you think they are supposed to be penetrating? If men want to continue their recreation, they should be protecting their partner... unless they choose to penetrate a male, but that is another topic.

If men got pregnant it wouldn't be an issue in the church or anywhere!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where are Men on this issue Posted by: makeadifference
» RE: Where are Men on this issue Posted by: makeadifference
Why don't we take care of the children we already have?
Posted by: crashgrab on Oct 20, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that fundamentalist conservatives insist that a zygote is more important than a living breathing human being? When they've adopted every child in foster care, stop arguing about paying taxes to fund education, and fight for universal healthcare, then MAYBE I'll take anything they say seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I was just hearing yesterday... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Anti-choice groups don't really want this law to pass
Posted by: Callibrarian on Oct 20, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It means we'll quickly remember why we made abortion legal again in the first place. Women died of illegal abortions. They became sterile. Couples were forced to get married, and others were forced apart. Pregnant women dropped out of the work force, out of school, out of sight. They were treated like crap. An old neighbor was pregnant for 10 months because the doctors said removing the dead fetus would be an abortion. That was in the 1960s, yet on the news I have recently seen women who've had incomplete miscarriages turned away from their Catholic HMO and told they could have "abortions" when infection set in. Today a pregnant female can go to school---unless it's a religious school, where they can kick her out even on the college level for getting pregnant. Men who are upset about their girlfriends' abortions claim they would have taken care of the child, but were they sincere in saying they would have taken care of the child, or did they mean they would pick it up once a week after it was fed and clean and take it over to their mother's house? Plus how many abortions happen because they guy is a complete psycho you don't want to be connected to for fear he will kill you in your sleep? Then there are the married couples who can't afford another child. Groups push for adoptions, but they don't mean it for married couples. Yet if a couple became impoverished due to the financial strain, no one would come rushing to their aid. And when they talk about giving birth to a sick child "because they deserve a life, too," these folks don't rush over to help you change a 10 year olds diaper. These groups do a lot of talk but that's all it is---talk. It's easy to talk. It's easy to talk about what you would do if xyz happened. But if this law passes and causes a chain reaction one way, it will soon start a reaction the other because no one has talked about the elephant in the room---if liberals give their kids proper sex education and conservatives tell their kids condoms don't work, it's "conservatives" who will need abortion rights more than liberals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent Point
Posted by: Sledge28 on Oct 20, 2006 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And indeed, I believe there are statistics to support your assertation. Based on what the blog said, the chart data was compiled by the CDC report listed below. I guess the only thing I would still be curious about is a statistical picture of pregnancies versus live births, which would give us a better picture of how many people get pregnant, versus say have abortions. I say this because it wouldn't be suprising to hear an anti-choice stance that the states that have less births are just evil lands of abortion mills and baby killing but I digress. Check out the chart. (disclaimer, I do not know anything about the blog this comes from, I just searched for the data...)

http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/images/teenpreg.png
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_10.pdf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did we read the same article?
Posted by: veganjohn on Oct 20, 2006 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And the way teens are characterized in the article, they certainly don't have the wisdom to decide on ending the life of a developing child"

I just read that a lot of these preganacies are caused by girls being raped, by 'friends' or family members. This doesn't sound like these people asked or made a decision to become pregnant. Why do you blame the victim?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hope it doesn't hold up
Posted by: TWilliams on Oct 21, 2006 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to have more abortions. Especially for the poor and those that live in the inner cities. Crime would go down and we would have fewer people sucking of of the hardworking middle class if we didn't have to tolerate all of the cimre and poverty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contradiction
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net on Oct 21, 2006 11:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anti abortion people really were only opposed to abortion, they would be pro birth control and sex education. Their agends is to control women...period. They don't differ much from the people who veil and lock up the women in their society. Abortion is not a good choice, but sometimes it is better than the alternative. The best answer is not to get pregnant in the first place and that means birth control options .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Contradiction Posted by: crashgrab
mom
Posted by: marjorie on Oct 21, 2006 11:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only people who care about whether you've had an abortion or not are well, people who should go to the Genesis Museum in Florence, Kentucky. Yee Haaa!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]