Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Rights and Liberties

South Dakota's Abortion Revolt

By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org. Posted May 4, 2006.


The state's restrictive abortion ban has galvanized a major grassroots campaign by citizens determined to overturn the law come election day.
Advertisement

South Dakota touched off a national tempest with its strict new abortion ban, but the law also fomented a local grassroots movement and opened a schism in the state's dominant Republican Party.  

In a state with only one abortion clinic staffed by a doctor who visits from Minnesota, the issue now is poised to dominate this year's state elections, in which the governor's office and all 35 state Senate seats and 70 House seats are on the ballot.  

The new law--intended to set up a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling legalizing abortion--makes it a felony for anyone to help a woman end her pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest or when the woman's physical or mental health is at risk. The law only permits abortion when it is necessary to save a woman's life.   Opponents are gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to overturn the law. Republican legislators who voted for South Dakota's ban are attracting both Democratic and Republican campaign challengers. And Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, who signed the bill on March 6, has seen his support drop 20 percent, according to state polls.  

If the ballot initiative fails and the law takes effect, the tribal president of the Oglala Sioux Indian Nation in South Dakota--territory that would be immune to the state law--already has vowed to build an abortion clinic on the reservation for all women in the state.  

Planned Parenthood is poised to file suit in federal district court if the law is not overturned.  

"An overwhelming majority of South Dakotans believe that the governor and the Legislature went too far. This legislation is extreme and does not reflect the values of South Dakotans who want families to be able to make personal decisions about health care without government interference," said Jan Nicolay, former Republican lawmaker and spokesperson for the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families.

Nicolay's group, formed immediately after the law's passage by citizens, doctors, clergy and Republican politicians, launched a campaign to overturn the law with a ballot initiative. If the necessary signatures are collected by June 19, the law will be suspended pending the outcome of the November election.  

Meanwhile, in Statehouse primaries, Republican lawmakers who voted for the abortion ban are being challenged by more moderate Republicans who opposed the ban because they considered it too restrictive and an intrusion into people's private lives.  

As Republicans feud, Democrats are filing for legislative seats in record numbers, "their strongest showing in 10 years," according to Robert Burns, political scientist with South Dakota State University in Brookings.   "If it turns out to be a Democratic year nationwide, the governor's race could be closer than was anticipated prior to signing the abortion law," Burns said.  Two Democrats, former state Rep. Jack Billion and former South Dakota Farmers Union president Dennis Wiese, are campaigning against the one-term Republican incumbent.  

Although voters will be considering 11 other ballot initiatives, including a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and a controversial change to the state's cattle and hog feedlot zoning rules, the abortion law is expected to dominate, Burns said.  

The Republican-dominated Legislature approved the same abortion ban two years ago, but Rounds vetoed it because of concerns that the measure would nullify the state's other anti-abortion laws while the courts considered the case.  

Following Rounds' veto, a legislative task force of hard-line and moderate Republicans and a few Democrats attempted to hammer out a new state abortion policy everyone could agree on. But according to newspaper editorials and other published accounts, strict anti-abortionists dominated the often combative group, and their "absolutist" view prevailed, Burns said.  


Digg!

Christine Vestal is a staff writer for Stateline.org.

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


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:
What Were They Thinking?
Posted by: michaelmccaffrey on May 4, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From far away and liberal Massachusetts let me say that this abortion banning law is the best news I have had in a long time. Now I understand that Louisiana may be doing the same. This abortion madness must stop so that hundreds of years from now when people look back at slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion they will not ask "What were they thinking?" Make no mistake about it, this twisted view of a mother's rights trumping the rights of the unborn fetus is not some nutty religious slant. It is about the right to be born.

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

» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: patvic1405
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: henderson
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: Krusty Geezer
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: hhartman
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: mirimac
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: Atrahasis
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: Fraggle
» A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON Posted by: Longdream
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: Bronx Girl
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: ssegallmd
» You're right Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: You're right Posted by: morticia
» roger--scrolled down Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: roger--scrolled down Posted by: morticia
» RE: What Were They Thinking? Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» Abortion decline Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Abortion decline Posted by: yellow
abortion is instinct
Posted by: okcamp on May 4, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what these people don't understand: not many women, except those with very limited resources or control over their lives, will continue a pregnancy knowing that it will negatively impact their lives.

Strong women will abort before they will give birth if bringing a child into the world is against their best interests or the best interests of the potential child. Simple as that. It's happening all over the world and there is no way to stop it, short of incarceration for the duration of the pregnancy.

The basic instinct to protect oneself overrides everything.

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

» RE: abortion is instinct Posted by: michaelmccaffrey
» RE: abortion is instinct Posted by: okcamp
» RE: abortion is instinct Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: abortion is instinct Posted by: erinmaurer2001@yahoo.com
When abortion is illegal....
Posted by: morticia on May 4, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...women have illegal abortions. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. Abortion was not invented in 1973. It has been with us throughout human history. When a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, she WILL look for an abortion, whether it's safe and legal or dirty and dangerous. When abortion is illegal, women die horrible deaths. Learn the facts. Read THE WORST OF TIMES by Patricia M. Miller. And check this out:

linked text

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

Two faced assh*les
Posted by: iremember on May 4, 2006 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that Republicans are so insistent that a fetus has the right to be born, but they are adamantly opposed to that same grown up fetus claiming the right to die, as the Oregon assited suicide law allows. If you have a right to life, you also have a right to death. In additional, most "conservatives" who are against abortion rights also support capital punishment. So much for their phony bullsh*t about their hypocritical right to life position.
As if that isn't enough, these jerks like Mr. McCaffery oppose all of those social programs that would help care for unwanted children who would have been aborted. As soon as that baby crawls out of the womb, these so-called pro-lifers could not care less about him/her.
You should also keep in mind that the crime rate began its historic decline in 1990, which is the year in which all those unwanted children who were never born because of Roe v Wade would have reached their mid-to late teens and started murdering and robbing people.
If the Republicans did not want abortions, then Tom Delay and friends would not be doing political favors for Saipan sweat shops that force their female employees to get abortions or lose their jobs when they become pregnant. If the R's didn't want more abortions, they would not insist on abstinence only programs that actually result in more pregnancies and abortions because of the misinformation and lies they hand out.
THE REAL GOAL OF THESE POLICIES IS TO TRY TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR HAVING SEX. AND THAT IS NONE OF THEIR FU**ING BUSINESS.

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

Just one comment...
Posted by: medstudgeek on May 4, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In South Dakota, a January 2006 state poll by Survey USA showed a nearly even split between the number of people who oppose abortion (48 percent) and those who believe in a woman's right to an abortion (47 percent). After the law was signed, a survey by state polling firm Robinson & Muenster reported 57 percent were opposed to the law, 35 percent supported it and 8 percent were undecided."

It's possible to 'oppose abortion' but still not believe it should be banned. I oppose football, but don't think it should be banned.

I bring this up because a lot of people dislike abortion but are against banning it outright. This might be a difference we can exploit.

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

» RE: Just one comment... Posted by: Rabblerouser
confused
Posted by: Jimbo on May 4, 2006 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Im confused about the S. Dakota legislation. If it is to pass, will abortion be illegal despite Roe V Wade still being in effect or does Roe V Wade have to be over turned ?

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

» RE: confused Posted by: morticia
» RE: confused Posted by: GwenG
» RE: confused Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver
» RE: confused Posted by: BlueTigress
A Solution
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 4, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, you right wingers are so CERTAIN that God demands that women bear any embryo they're saddled with whatever the price, so try this: If you're REALLY concerned about the "right too be born" of a handful of cells, put your money and your women's uteruses where your mouths are (interesting image THAT calls up...). Volunteer your women or have them volunteer to have all of these unwanted or dangerous embryos transferred to THEIR uteruses and let THEM save those lives! And pay the medical costs, and the cost of raising them when the women who would otherwise have aborted no matter how great the danger (and too often one or both die) would have been driven into povery by it. You seem to think that good Christian women don't really own their own organs anyhow; may as well put 'em to a noble use, hey?

The usual response here always begins with, "Well, they should have", and continues with, "... and they should...". I know you really dislike and disdain consensus reality, but regardless, the REALITY is that many of these will be aborted naturally, many more will be aborted medically or otherwise, whatever the Hell you think should happen. If you don't step in and take up the slack, no matter how many laws you pass or how harsh the punishments are, THOSE ABORTIONS WILL HAPPEN.

So - NOW how concerned are you for those poor li'l clumps of undifferentiated cells?

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

Utero-terrorism
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 4, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you ever seen the anti-choice bumper sticker that says, "What if Mary had had an abortion?"

Well, we wouldn't be having this ridiculous turf war over who owns your body and who chooses if a pregnancy will be aborted.

How about my religion which takes a third position altogether that is both anti-choice and anti-life: forced abortions for all pregnant Christians. This may sound horrible, but it should sit fine with the born agains who already understand the validity of imposing one group's standards (mine) onto another by force of law. And it would apply to Christiand only as we don't intend to eliminate all of the human race, just the utero-terrorists.

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

Abortion is a good thing
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on May 4, 2006 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion is a good and necessary social movement. Get over it.

In 1828, New York became the first state to restrict abortion; by 1900 it had been made illegal throughout the country. Abortion in the twentieth century was often dangerous and usually expensive. Fewer poor women, therefore, had abortions. They also had less access to birth control. What they did have, accordingly, was a lot more babies.

In the late 1960s, several states began to allow abortion under extreme circumstances; rape, incest, or danger to the mother. By 1970 five states had made abortion entirely legal and broadly available; [...]. On January 22, 1973, legalized abortion was suddenly extended to the entire country with the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v: Wade. The majority opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, spoke specifically to the would-be mother's predicament: [...]

The Supreme Court gave voice to what the mothers in Romania and Scandanavia -- and elsewhere -- had long known: when a women does not want to have a child, she usually has good reason. She may be unmarried or in a bad marriage. She may consider herself too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or unhappy, or she may think that her drinking or drug use will damage the baby's health. She may believe that she is too young or hasn't yet received enough education. She may want a child badly but in a few years, not now. For any of a hundred reasons, she may feel that she cannot provide a home environment that is conducive to raising a healthy and productive child.
--Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, pg 138

Before Roe v: Wade, it was predominatly the daugthers of middle- or upper-class families who could arrange and afford a safe illegal abortion. Now, instead of an illegal procedure that might cost $500, any woman could easily obtain an abortion, often for less than $100.

What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe v: Wade? Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three. What sort of future might her child have had? One study has shown that the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortion would have been 50 percent more likely to live in poverty; he would have also been 60 percent more likely to grow up with just one parent. These two factors -- childhood poverty and a single-parent household -- are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future. Growing up in single-parent home roughly doubles a child's propensity to commit crime. So does having a teenage mother. Another study has shown that low maternal education is the single most powerful factor leading to criminality.

In other words, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives.
--Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, pg 138-139

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v: Wade was hitting his late teen years -- the years during which young men enter their criminal prime -- the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
--Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, pg 139

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

» RE: Abortion is a good thing Posted by: Longdream
Why the anti-abotion movement is a bad thing
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on May 4, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes you a free person is that you have sole authority over and responsibility for your own self. As Terry Pratchett put it in Feet of Clay: You own yourself.

When another person unilaterally accords to themself authority over and responsiblity for you, they necessarily reduce you to the status of a chattel. Property.

Now: What do you call a person who is owned by another person? Not someone who might be someone's ward, but who is someone else's personal and legal property?

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

Have we learnt nothing?
Posted by: debpark on May 4, 2006 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and through her work as a nurse with poor women on the lower East Side of New York she became aware of the health, social and emotional effects of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. If we look around the world today we see the devastating consequences of forced pregnancies especially in countries where women are still viewed as chattel, the property of men or fathers, second class citizens and not worthy of access to education and self determination. These are also the countries which consistently deny women any control over their own fertility; don’t provide education about sexuality or access to birth control.

Today South Dakota displays the mindset of a third world country and we should all be deeply, deeply ashamed. A fundamental human right, the right to decide whether or not to bear children, is being taken away by the predominantly male legislature in a country that claims to be part of the free world and claims to believe in equal rights for women.

Fact: Birth control is not 100% safe and effective, nor is it available for all women
Fact: A women is raped every 5 minutes in the US, 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused
Fact: Pharmacists in some states can refuse to fill a birth control prescription if it troubles their conscience
Fact: Some groups that worked on the anti-abortion bill in South Dakota believe that contraception should be outlawed
Fact: Poor, uneducated women, without the means to travel out of South Dakota will die in backstreet abortions

As Margaret Sanger argued in 1918 “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother”. Have we learnt nothing in the last 100 years?

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

Check out this quote from the Old Testament
Posted by: Ratskii on May 4, 2006 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exodus 21:22-25.

Basically it says when men rumble and a pregnent woman is struck so the a miscarrage results that the husband may file suit against the men before judges; however if the woman is harmed in any other way then the law of Moses: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, applies.

In other words an assault resulting in an induced abortion is a civil misdemenor and an assault resulting in the death of the woman is capital murder.

Check it out.

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

Saddam's mom
Posted by: debpark on May 4, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many violent criminals are the result of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies? How many tyrants were born to women who were not choosing to be mothers and who were unable to provide a loving, nurturing environment where normal attachment relationships could flourish? Saddam Hussein’s mother tried to abort him and rejected him at birth. If she had been able to terminate her unwanted pregnancy safely in the first trimester could this have saved the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, victims of his regime and now victims of this devastating war? Perhaps if every child were a wanted child and every mother a willing mother, our prison population would be dramatically reduced, the lives of people already born would be offered greater protection from violent criminals and it would be a giant step towards world peace.

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

» RE: Saddam's mom Posted by: yellow
» Bush's mom.... Posted by: morticia
luzmejor
Posted by: luzmejor on May 5, 2006 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no right to be born, never has been and never will be.

If anti-abortion fanatics actually wrote legislation claiming such a right, they would finally be honest, at least, about their real intentions.

The abortion issue is simply this: People already born and able to reason are afraid to die. They have confused the state of never having been developed into a human being with their own extinction.

It is a primal fear, but it is also irrational.
Nobody living owes it to us to save our lives. Nobody living owes it to us to give us birth. Nobody living owes a fertilized egg any duty whatsoever.

Some people will recklessly endanger their lives to save an already developed and born human being, but those occasions are always voluntary.

At no other time has a human being been sacrificed for another's life against his will, except on notable occasions like when Germany used captured children for transfusions for their soldiers during WWII. Some of them died because they were bled too often.

This fact remains. There is nothing in our laws that changes a woman's rights as a person while she is pregnant or because she is pregnant.

Just try to go after laws that blatant. I would love to see that fight in the courts! If successful, we would all be subject to mandatory organ, tissue and blood donations on demand from any and all.

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

Related conquests . . .
Posted by: Panthere Noir on May 5, 2006 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To add a bid of interesting - for me, at least - historical perspective as well as a possibly reason why people of certain political and religious persuasions are so eager to dismantle the right to abortions, I would like to point out that for a very long part of - directly or indirectly - Catholic Church ruled Europe's history, abortion never was an issue, but a service that midwives performed the same way they provided help with births.

Said midwives became "witches" and abortions illegal only after Pope Urban II - inciter of the 1st "Crusade to liberate the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem from the infidels" (loosely quoted, but accurate in content) - and his supporters and then all their later followers found themselves in need of soldiers for their little religious adventure . . . that just ever so accidentally also had the side effect to add tremendeously to the wealth of the Crusaders . . .

Just a bit of history . . .

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

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
Posted by: Fraggle on May 5, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For anyone who wants to see just how..."dedicated" anti-choice movement really is to their political stance, check out "The only moral abortion is my abortion." It's not remotely surprising, but definitely infuriating.

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

What Were They Thinking? - What about the health of the babies and mothers?
Posted by: Aimee on May 5, 2006 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding "What were they thinking?"

Why is there no talk of pre-natal and post natel health care? Why isn't there health care for both parents and their babies?

Another thing - what about family planning? What if a woman wants to have more than one baby but wants to wait awhile before having another baby?

Abortion and family planning are important issues for everyone. Even men! It takes planning to have a family. Jobs, money, shelter, education, health care and more. Wake up!

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

Women of Courage
Posted by: vespasian01 on May 5, 2006 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"[Without known exception, the early American feminists condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms. In Susan B. Anthony's newsletter, The Revolution, abortion was described as "child murder," "infanticide" and "foeticide." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."]"

-thanks to feministsforlife.org

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

» RE: Women of Courage Posted by: yellow
Tricky questions come with tricky answers
Posted by: Anouch on May 6, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call me a feminist, a liberal crazy feminist, but I will say what I believe while I still can: abortion is a tricky issue because it deals with the potential for life, and the right or not to prevent life from blooming. True. But abortion is a much more tricky issue in our Western, still patriarchal societies, because it involves women who are fighting to preserve their right to choose and to plan their lives as they feel will work best for them and their family in the long run.
I join all the people who commented on the schizophrenia of politicians who condemn abortion but promote the death penalty. If the abortion issue is about acting in God's place, and who decides when life starts and ends, then what are people doing killing other people for supposedly moral reasons? It defies me from a purely logical perspective.
Why can dialogue not be opened? Why are pro-choice and pro-life people so fervently opposed and at war when they could try, at least try, to listen to each other and try to go forward with the debate. Abortion deals with some of the very foundations of our societies and adressing the issues at heart, the ethical, political and human rights issues at heart of the problem, might help us understand where different people stand, and build helpful legal compromises for the future.

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

A States Decision
Posted by: MysteriousWhispers on May 9, 2006 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think its time Each State of the Union started making their own laws. Someone has to do Something besides wait on Congress, the Senate, or the President.

I think it is time Cities took control as well. There are all kinds of laws set on the books, that you don't see Big Politicans enforcing cause it might step on a big lobbyist toes.

I am proud of cities and States that take a stand. At least they are doing Something~Standing for something! Whether in be a State thing or a city thing take action.

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

» RE: A States Decision Posted by: BlueTigress
Abortion is a SMOKESCREEN
Posted by: igmuska on May 11, 2006 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was there at the SD State Capitol the day the law was passed. I seen the pro and con camps giving the legislators cookies and coffee, passing out pamphlets and buttons. I didn't see anyone screaming murder or even see any sort of dissent whatsoever.
On the day the State Legislature passed this anti-abortion law, they also passed laws allowing unregulating energy development in the state; that is laws that can't be enforced only if some extreme environmental disaster happened, meaning that the State allows oil drilling and mining but has no mechanism to determine if these companies are violating the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act. As long as everyone is arguing about abortion, the legislature has effectively allowed through legislation the right to pollute this state.

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

» RE: Abortion is a SMOKESCREEN Posted by: BlueTigress
A Woman's Right
Posted by: Maya on May 11, 2006 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't agree with abortion?

Then don't have one.

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

ALL WORK, NO PLAY - MAKES HUMANITY A DULL BOY
Posted by: Roverton on May 18, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can we have tomorrow's underpaid industrial workers if nobody's out there producing them?

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