South Dakota votes to preserve women's rights

Posted by Deanna Zandt and Ann Friedman at 8:33 PM on November 7, 2006.

They voted no on the abortion ban!

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
3 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Deanna:

By a 55-45 margin, South Dakotans struck down the abortion ban that left no exceptions for rape, incest or a woman's health. I'll refer to Jessica at Feministing to echo my more visceral emotions at the moment. Hurray!!

Ann:

I give the anti-choicers only a few days before they start pushing for a ban with rape and incest exceptions... which is, unfortunately, much more likely to be approved.

But for now, let's celebrate the fact that a direct challenge to Roe has been averted. This is good news.

Tagged as: feminism, abortion, women, south dakota, women's rights

Deanna Zandt is a contributing editor at AlterNet.

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 3 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad? Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.	Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It' Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama. Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.	Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel "We must take a new direction in the Middle East. Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.

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:
Hurray ( for now ) [Report this comment] Posted by: kww355 on Nov 8, 2006 5:03 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] This is wonderful ~ a repudiation of the most extreme position. However, we can't let down our guard. The army of fanatics won't quit; in fact, this may energize them. What they fail to realize is that nobody is for abortion. If these people would join together with us in demanding that reality based ( not abstinence based ) sex education be taught in schools and that all forms of contraception ( including the morning after pill ) should be freely available to those who want them, there would be reduced demand for abortions. Can't we all just get along with a compromise? It's a shame they don't realize that the harder they push their agenda, the more women will turn to abortion. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Hurray ( for now ) Posted by: willymack Just a matter of time [Report this comment] Posted by: mayangrl on Nov 9, 2006 8:33 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] She's right when she says a law with provisions for rape and incest will pass. 55-45 isn't a mandate or a message. SD will get its restrictive abortion law soon enough. In fact, I have to wonder why they tried for such a law, when it's pretty obvious a "slightly less restrictive" law would've passed without any problems. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	January 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: Hurray ( for now ) Posted by: willymack