I'd like to have a dollar for every woman who was too scared to understand the consciousness raising women's movement of the 60s and 70s and those who didn't buy the book they "really ought to read someday" about women's suffrage or Anthony or Pankhurst.
Yeah, let me have a dollar for every woman who said "I'm not a Feminist, but..."

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

Molly, I love 'ya but PLEASE do not put California and South Dakota in the same sentence!!! I have been screaming my head off for several hours now. Well here we go; say "bye-bye" to Roe v.Wade as this "settled law" will soon become extinct. I've put in my time with the "women's movement", and still do- WAKE UP YOUNG LADIES, it is time to read something else besides Victoria's Secret catalogs.

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

These gross abuses of individual freedom will continue in America as long as the braindead educate themselves with soap operas and reality T.V.
Anyone remember the Oprah show ( before the election )where Cameron Diaz stated that her vote was going to the party which would let her choose? The confusing looks on many of the women in the audience suggested that they didnt know which political party she was referring too.
As I said before , Americans are braindead fools. The majority voted for a conman , you are reaping the rewards.
In Australia we are not much better, but at least John Howard knows it would be political suicide to ban abortion and he wont be drawn into a discussion on the matter.
( the High Court , just last week, took away the Catholic Health Ministers right to legislate on the new Abortion Pill)

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

At precinct caucuses tonight we endorsed a resolution supporting OTC plan b availability.....

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

South Dakota pols and the Bushies are a matched set of brainwashed fools who are trying to brainwash all the rest of us to agree to treat women and peacelovers as among the groups who will all be put in jail when the constitution has been burned by neanderthal maniacs like them.

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

This is much bigger than Roe. The wolf is in the middle of the sheep taking them down one by one. And the sheep don't seem to have a clue as to why there is blood everywhere and that soon they will be mutton.

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

Isn't it odd that we fought the Taliban who also believe women are chattal and must be told what to do, even in matters of life and death? If South Dakota would like to take up the boorka next, that could guarantee that the only people with the right to look on women as sex objects are those who own them. Is this still the United States of America?

Instead of bringing democracy to the world, South Dakota has caught the virus of repression from the Taliban and the Serbs! Why not just herd women together in rape camps, as the Serbs did to Bosnian women? That would guarantee that women would have no control over their bodies.

Perhaps we need a new underground railroad to help women escape from their sexual slavery in South Dakota?

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

As our right wing is prone to do, they have created another emotional issue for us to snatch on to while we attempt to deliver ourselves from the evil that they perpetrate on us. It occured to me after reading the Molly Ivans article that perhaps this is a decoy bill. Bear me out for a second.

Because this bill does not include rape and incest, could it be that it will not survive a Supreme Court decision? It doesn't mean that we will have to fight less hard, we will, we've been cornered. Perhaps they don't want this law to survive but only keep us in the emotional turmoil that assists them in retaining seats in the government and establishing themselves as the party of morals. This battle could go on for years. It's also in SD where the poplulation is small compared to other states (not to dimimish SD lefties) so the true/real impact is not as great as it could be. Other states, however, are picking up on this trend, I know, the question is will they pass so easily??

I would very much like to hear other opinion on this. I think that we have caught ourselves up in the emotions, we need to step back and look logically at what has been done, craft a strategy and then execute it so that we retain the civil liberties that we've had in the past few decades because this is surely not about abortion, this is surely and completely about women's rights.

PS, our caucus passed a resolution last nite too. I was very proud of the woman who was in her 80's to step up where others did not to request the resolution. It passed unanimously.

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

C'mon folks, wake up. YOU allowed these morons to take control. YOU gave up your rights. YOU sat back and let fringe religioius lunatic extremists take control of YOUR future. When will YOU take back YOUR control over YOUR own destiny?

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

Molly, I love your writing and I have never disagreed with your logic, explication or humor until now. Like you, I believe that Mr. Napoli is something of a dunce, and also that our government is corrupt, invasive, dangerous and in the propcess of violating our civil rights.

But I dont agree that abortion is a civil right. We are talking about human life; and one person (the mother) should not own another and dispense with that life because it is not yet manifest in a wide-eyed, endearing child. (The heartbeat starts at- what is it- 21 days?) Birth control should be available to all; but when it fails there is always another choice: Adoption.

Kathleen Williams

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

My body is NOT a container.

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

My decisions about my body are nobody's business but mine and if the government doesn't like it, that's just plain tough. South Dakota's decision is a disgrace and an outrage. There is no excuse for it. The issue here is NOT about life. That's the window-dressing excuse. The issue here is absolutist control by sociopathic control freaks and bullies. How dare people scream about rights then blatantly take them away whenever they feel like it. Well, I don't like control freaks and people who tell me what to do. I don't and won't put up with that.

Don't expect most of us, including me, to follow these "laws" if this ban is passed. It's my body and my choice. Period. I refuse to be a baby machine for any man or for any government. What's next? Putting women in camps for the sole purpose of making sure they birth babies for the Bush Government? How about laws against forced pregnancy, forced childbirth and enabling rapists? Backing banning of women’s rights is backing fascism, not supporting freedom or life and most of us aren’t going to put up with being controlled by hypocrites.

It amazes me to no end that this government claims to care about life, but obviously doesn't give a d*mn about the living.

Mr. Rounds attitude only supports sexual predators and his own obsession to control others. It makes me wonder if he himself is a predator. Who else would come up with such a SICK proposition. Unless this country has turned into the Fourth Reich Under Bush overnight, people need to mind their own business about other women. If these men want babies popping out like candy, they can give birth to them. As a quote I have seen a handful of times says, if men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament. Whether or not anyone agrees with someone else's decision DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to force their beliefs on others. Women are not the government's property. If people don't like abortion, then don't ever have one. It's MY life and I decide what is right for me. That is my God-given right.

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

Who gets to choose? The "law" (group/community/"majority rules"legislature) or the "individual" who is not totally in isolation either but bears the ultimate burden in terms of her body/mind/spirit and should be the final arbiter. Some people say adoption should be the option but that's not an easy choice either and we need even more creative ideas. If we had a culture of caring we could realistically say to the mom that after adoption she could have her child back at any time to help participate in their upbringing. There are plenty of people out there who would be willing to help raise infants and toddlers "for a while" and wouldn't need to "own" them for life. Especially if the culture supported them to do so. We could have more genuine and heartfelt options for women besides abortion. But do we? Hell no. It's a "spare the rod/ spoil the child" type of "you made you're bed now lie in it" mean-spirited culture and everything is upside down. The underground railway idea is not so far-fetched and perhaps not just for women seeking safe abortions either. The myopic men (and not a few women) of South Dakota and elsewhere are chomping at the bit to take away even more of our freedoms. Is is 2008 yet?

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

I watched this interview with Napoli on the PBS News Hour. Scary...the way his eyes gleamed when he pruriently imagined the details of a Really Brutal rape that would invoke the "save the life" exception to a ban on abortions. My thought was, sure, because most rapes, they are so gentle and respectful of the woman's dignity and physical integrity--why should she object to carrying such a father's child to fruition? I think there is a better way. Why don't we go to the source and enact ejaculation legislation and regulation?! Ejaculation only for procreation ! Any man found ejaculating without this lofty ideal in mind, well, Off With His, er, HeaD! And it's a subject so many male legislators know more about, while none of them to date have managed to carry a child inside themselves and have the slightest clue about its profound effect.

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

It is so telling that Napoli, et.al., love to speak so forcefully the words "savaged, brutalized, raped, sodomized, etc...." It speaks volumes about their psyches. During the anti-gay rights debates in Colorado years ago, the talk shows always featured Christians who just loved to speak aloud the litany of homosexual "perversions." It was obviously exciting to them. This is worrisome. Also, please do not be fooled by adoption as an answer to no abortions. There is rarely any meaningful support given to adoptive families, and in most counties the average baby takes from one to two years to place, which obviously misses the window for bonding opportunities between parent and baby. Molly, I love you, and can only imagine you choking on your cheerios this morning after hearing DeLay won with 62% of the vote.

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

I became a pro-choice activist in 1988 when the Webster decision came down from the Supreme Court, which allowed states to pass their own limitations on the right to choose. I became so enraged, I went out and got involved.

So if you are outraged about this South Dakota law banning abortions, then IT IS TIME TO TAKE ACTION.

HERE'S SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1) Talk to every friend you know about this. Bring it up even if you think it's uncomfortable. Don't ask them whether they are personally opposed to abortion. That is irrelevant. Instead, ask them if they think the government, or a group of religious fundamentalists, have the right to make this decision for us. If their answer is "no," then they are pro-choice. Get THEM to take action too.

2) Join any one of the organizations that fights, not only for the right to have an abortion, but for the right to family planning, i.e. contraception. Send an annual contribution, or send money monthly. It will take MONEY to fight these dinosaurs. The main organizations fighting for the right to choose and family planning are:
-- Planned Parenthood
and
--NARAL (National Reproductive Rights Action League)

3) Call the local chapters of these pro-choice groups and give your TIME. Help with their annual fund-raiser. Talk to groups of college women. Write letters to the editor. Attend rallies. Post a yard sign. Post a pro-choice bumper sticker.

4) Perhaps even more important, get involved in politics by getting in touch with your legislators. Go to a "lobby day" sponsored by one of the pro-choice groups that allows you to meet your legislator face to face. Also write a thoughtful letter to each of your legislators stating clearly that you don't want the government making these decisions for you, and THAT YOU EXPECT THEM TO UPHOLD THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT ABORTION.

5) Make maintaining this right a priority. If I had a nickel for women who say, "Gee, I'm not a feminist. That's not my issue." I'd be independently wealthy. So if you want to maintain this right for yourself, your daughters, nieces and granddaughters, then you must make it a priority. Give up a night on the town with friends, and donate that money. Give up your Victoria's Secret purchases, and donate it for free contraception for a poor woman. Give up one night watching TV, and give that time to one of these groups.

6) Get truly educated about this issue. For starters, outlawing abortions does NOT stop abortions. That is fact. Mexico and Brazil outlaw abortions and there are more abortions there per year than the United States. Get the facts, memorize them and use it as a tool to get people to take action.

7) Find common ground with people who initially say they don't agree with you. And the common ground is this:
-We ALL would like to minimize abortions. It is a total waste, and hard on everybody.
-Challenge them to agree with you on that basic principal.
-Then explain that there are two ways to minimize abortion, and the pro-choice groups are the ones working on these two strategies to minimize abortions, NOT the religious right: 1) Provide easy and cost-effective access to contraception, and 2) provide medically accurate sex education.

Take action folks -- and don't wait for someone else to fight for you. Your rights are going south if you wait and hope somebody else will do the work for you.

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

take a deep breath, forget about south dakota, forget about the implications, forget about containers and about having rights taken away. now, what is an abortion, as it pertains to pregnancy? when does the fertilized egg become a human? when does that human get protection? when does it first get loved and wanted? when is it too late for an abortion? 3 months 6 months 8 months? many people actually think and believe that an abortion is nothing less than killing a person. i can understand these peoples' concern, can you? however, if they truly believe abortion equals murder, they should do something about it as they would if people were aborting these lives after they were born. i bellieve much can be understood by using ones imagination and placing ones' self on the other side of an issue in an earnest attempt to empathize with their perspective.

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

His thinking is so off base. His quote, "When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married..." I remember those days; those weddings are called shotgun weddings. The woman was humiliated, shamed, and treated terribly by Bill's little neighborhood.

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

While most of the arguments for or against pregnancy abortion stem from rights issues, and some from death and legal issues, I think the concern can be viewed on a much simpler perspective. In order to produce a pregnancy, it requires a specific action on the part of at least two persons, and they must be of the opposite sex. Because this action is a conscious choice by one or the other (or both), then responsibility for that action is immediately attached. Therefore, the act of abortion is essencially an avoidance of responsibility. If we look at abortion strictly from a responsilbility point of view, we can then judge each act of abortion on it's own merit. In some cases, the responsibility is squarely with the woman, and to allow abortion in that case is to allow a lack of responsibility for her actions. Occsionally, the responsibility is directly applied to the man, and the abortion is more reasonable. In other cases, the responsibility may need to be judged because of extenuating circumstances. In each case, none of the issues of religion, rights, choices, or mortality should be allowed to enter the discussion. Responsibility is the most applicable factor, and applying whatever means necessary to require taking that responsibility should be the action taken for remedy.

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

well, i know that this is not really the point, rape and a woman's right to choose how to control her body are of much more importance. But Mr Neandert...oops Napoli didn't quite get his facts strait when describing with what appears to be sadistic glee (personal confession of past acts???) his description of what would constitute a life-endangering pregnancy by rape. "...sodomized as bad as it can be, and gets pregnant..." Well, a woman cannot get pregnant by sodomy. That particular form of sex does not involve female reproductive organs. I think these guys have no clue/no intelligence when it comes to what makes a woman biologically a woman. Women to them are objects, usually of the sexual variety, to be fawned over, bought sold and controlled because they are so frightened of the amazing power that resides within a woman's body. Women, to them, are NOT to be trusted, respected or free from total male domination.

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

Many (about 49%) of Americans don't agree with what's going on but it appears all we can do about it is post to these kinds of things, bitching about how the situation is out of control. We need to stop bitching and start acting. Who among us is willing to risk going to jail for protesting these days? Who among us is willing to be the 'Rosa Parks' of the American citizenry sitting down in protest of the runaway train of a brand of conservatism, which takes us backward in time rather than forward?

Are we willing to test the 'domestic terrorist' aspect of the Patriotic Act and step us to raise awareness and change public policy?

The current administrations approval rate is the lowest of any ever - lower than Stalin's was when he rose to power. Have we turned into sheeple allowing others to think for us and act for us rather than assuming the responsibility of being citizens?

It's past time for the liberal thinkers of our society to continue to allow ourselves to be branded as evil and burned at the stake of conservative opinion polls. Let's take to the streets - give Bill O'Reilly something to really yell 'shut up' about!!

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

These anti-abortion right to lifers are so full of shit. They don't bat an eye at sending young men off to war in the name of freedom but we all know it's for oil rights. How precious is life to them? Only when it involves a woman's right to choose.

Why are these people still in control of our government. Fire the bastards!

Love and peace,

Sick of this admistration

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

At the moment this is obviously a class issue. After all, rich little repugnican kids can be flown out of state to "visit their aunt" for a week any time, whatever the legislation. so this is just a swipe at poor women, the sort that don't vote fascist anyway.

So, if this is unlikely to be defeated in SD, how about introducing an amendment to criminalise the transportation of women across state lines for the purpose of having an abortion ? Bet they won't be quite so keen when it's their daughters and squeaky clean image on the line, when it's their sons facing paternity suits

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

There are three subjects that are inextricably intertwined involving this issue.
First of all, slightly more than twenty years ago, I seen one of these abortions, we had taken a 13 year old Native American female for an abortion in Rapid City, SD. Her sister and husband somehow paid the operation. I didn't know that that was the purpose of the trip, I was told that we were just going for the ride. We got to the clinic near Baken park and there were crowd of protesters carrying signs opposing the abortion clinic. I visited with one of the protestors and asked what the clinic does besides abortions, and she said that is all they do there. They had turned death into a product. The ease of abortion, all they needed was the money to pay for her abortion, nothing else, not even the fact that she was only 13 years old. I don't even think that the Social Services or any relevant authority had any involvement in the issue nor did they consider that the fact that she have been given at least some sort of counseling, because now that little girl is really a mess. The last part of this is that a couple years afterwards I found out that the sister's husband was the father. This sickened me. He is no longer my friend.
Secondly, the State of South Dakota is not a state of educated individuals, it is a state rampant with inconsistencies in their government as such in a democracy. Business interests currently control the legislative process and that is how the abortion issue came about in the first place; a group of unscrupulous doctors got approvals to conduct these abortions either through a loophole in the state laws or outright purchased the right to murder through a legislative process that caused a loophole through the law.
Lastly, the fact that the State of South Dakota is up for sale to businesses that have the money is not unknown to outside busisness interests; this state will sell to any business that has the money the lives of its citizens. I write this because during this abortion issue, this state has given the right to mining interests to conduct ISL [in situ leaching] uranium mining within the state again without having any water monitoring program in place for the areas that are being proposed to be mined for uranium. In other words, in my opinion, they are using the abortion issue as a distraction to steer the eyes of the public from the true issue and that is ISL uranium mining. The proposed ISL uranium mines are all upstream from Indian reservations and whether these mines will have any effect on groundwater supplies is not questioned, nor is there any regulations in place that will determine if there is possibility of groundwater contamination. In other words the Native Americans have not been consulted nor were they properly informed of the possible consequences. In the words of the South Dakota Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Steven Pirner, "We don't want a fight with the Tribes and State."
This is how politics are bought in the State of South Dakota, the buyer just needs enough money. This is how abortion came to South Dakota, and this is how uranium mining will come and finish making this state a real American Desert.

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

When I was 21, I was asked (during a job interview), what form of birth control I used. The interviewer had noticed that I had recently married. When asked "why do you ask this"? he replied..."because all of our girls quit their jobs to be full time mommies when they become pregnant". It appalled me then (1972) and I guess it will appall me again. The young women in this country need to get their heads out of the TV and the fashion magazines and WAKE UP. Politics concerns ALL of us. If you don't start screaming NO, NO, NO...you'll end up being a broodmare for the state, pumping out little soldiers for the never-ending pre-emptive wars of the near future! Not to mention that after abortion law is overturned, contraception is next...it's already happening, ladies!

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

"My thought was, sure, because most rapes, they are so gentle and respectful of the woman's dignity and physical integrity..."

EXACTLY! As if his example is all the more brutal because the hypothetical woman was religious!

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

Every man - Napoli, Santorum etc etc etc - who takes a public stand against abortion should be asked this question -

"Will you assert that you have never been involved in any way with an abortion for a woman in your family or a woman you know - not a girlfriend nor a daughter nor a wife nor a sister nor a niece nor an employee nor a friend.
If you refuse to answer this question I will assume your own history is compromised."

I don't have any confidence that the men would answer honestly, but when they lie someone out there will know the truth.

We should ask this question and ask this question and ask this question.

You can't argue about a "woman's right to choose," her right to bodily integrity, the right of medical professionals to give advice. These arguments fall on deaf ears. Make these men take a personal stand!

That being said, I think the right wing attack on women via trashing our reproductive rights is only one part of the right wing indifference to all our civil rights.

Warrantless wiretapping and secret surveillance anyone?

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

The first is: I wonder if anyone has pointed out to the "Good" Christian Citizens of South Dakota, how much this is going to COST them to take this new law, and court case, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? It has to go through several State Courts before it can get there, each one requiring 'specialized' attorneys in that courts procedures!

My guess is close to a Million! Just think of how many school lunches that could provide, or Food Banks it could stock!

Secondly: This man's description of who should qualify for an abortion in the case of Rape; leaves out HIS mother, wife, and any married daughters! Is he going to be SO o o 'self-rightous' when he has to raise, and provide for a child (not his own) but a product of rape? Because his wife, wasn't a Virgin, wasn't brutilized because she feared for her life, and didn't fight back hard enough?

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

I find it incredibly hard to believe, Toto, but we're not in Kansas, anymore.

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

It's just the kind of legislation that will keep women a permanent underclass, at least in South Dakota.

If you want to force women to have their babies, then you should also force the man to take 50% responsibility in that birth: money, time, etc. It seems to me that it's all too easy for the man to bolt when he's done and leave the woman with all the heavy lifting. Typical.

In the end, this is just a BS law that is meant to bait the Supreme Court. I really feel bad for my red state brothers and sisters - I'll make some room for you here in Illinois.

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

One thing too many people forget is that morals cover much more than just sexual activity. Morals also cover lying, cheating, stealing, and/or breaking the law.

Thirty-five years ago, before Roe v. Wade, I had an abortion. I had to travel from Nebraska to California where it was legal. It's not what I'd do today, but back then I made the best decision I could based on the information at hand and my feelings at the time. Now I live with that decision.

I think there are much worse things happening in government today that need to be scrutinized and the wrongdoers held accountable. I suspect the abortion issue is a red herring to distract from the moral bankruptcy of government in this country.

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

"Look at some of the incompetent women we have running around in this country. Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright -- now there are a couple of girls in need of guidance from the South Dakota legislature. "

Um, Condi might be a bright, independent woman, but I wouldn't hold her up as a shining example of anything. She is unquestionably a perpetrator of incompetence, umbilically attached as she is to the Bungler in Chief. This is the administration official who said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted they'd fly planes into buildings."

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

So it's about time the men took over. Ban non-reproductive ejaculation!

Deconstructing Empires: Jismism

It's a revolution!

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

You'd have to be closely alligned with South Dakota to feel the demoralizing, depressing & conflicting feelings surrounding the mindlessness of our state legislature regarding the whole abortion ban. Thank God for Molly Ivins to help people realize the absurdity of it all.

Today's Argus Leader, the largest daily paper in the state, takes a humorous look at who might play the Hollywood version of the issue. Players include:
Dennis Quaid as Governor Mike Rounds
Sam Waterston as Roger Hunt, the patriarchal, ranting 60-something legislator who introduced it all (not a good actor fit)
Courtney Cox as Kate Looby, head of SD Planned Parenthood
Kathy Bates as Jennifer Ring, head of ACLU of the Dakotas
Kirstie Allley as Leslee Unruh, psycho head of local Abstinence Clearinghouse
Donald Sutherland as Stan Adelstein, one of few state senators with a somewhat reasoned view
Alan Alda as Terry Woster, seasoned political reporter for the Argus who has great experience reporting on state government, is friend to all, & has great sense of humor.

It's good to see levity in it. The only scary part is there are too many out there who just don't get it.

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

How old do you have to be to be put to death in that state? How many of their soldiers have died in Iraq and Afganistan? How many Iraqis have their soldiers killed? How many South Dakotans die of exposure or hunger or lack of medical care? How many Native Americans were murdered and displaced in that state?
I find it extremely hypocritical that the so-called "pro-life" crowd does not care about the sanctity of life once the kid is out of the womb. And why should their taxes go to feed the needy or provide medical care to the under-employed?

And the hypocrisy is only a side issue compared to the right of a woman to control her own body. I can't believe we are still fighting this fight. what is wrong with this country?

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

It is my belief that many people rely heavily on emotions rather than careful thouhgt and consideration to form their opinions. Let it be known that South Dakota Senator Bill Napoli may be such a man.

According to Argusleader.org, Mr. Napoli only finished sixth grade and was kicked out of school at age sixteen. Mr. Napoli believes that this lack of education gives him a "unique perspective" on some issues.

Perhaps abortion is one of these issues. His recent comments in the media, show, at least to me, his "unique perpesctive"...that being emotional reaction, rather than thoughtful, reasonable discourse. Perhaps if he were to use his emotions to empathize, he would use his brain to come to a different conclusion.

May God bless Bill Napoli with wisdom.

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

It has always amazed me that in this "democracy" of ours we have no freedom of our own bodies but must follow the religious mores of a particular group. It also has always amazed me that women, who are in the majority numerically, are so powerless.

I hear a lot of complaining about the status quo, but precious little about how to change it. I don't think it can be changed anymore. I think it's too late for that.

It's time to "vote with our feet" and get the hell out of Dodge before it implodes, 'cause that's what's happening.

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

Here is a website which discusses the South Dakota boycott and gives several S.D. organizations to which you may call or write to inform them of your support for the boycott. Unortunately I had to add a space after .php? to get by the Alternet ban on more than 40 charater words. So please delete the space and put it in your address bar as one long continuous expression.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?
p=opedne_katherin_060227_changing_the_scene_3a_.htm

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

If this is the wave of the future, there is an aspect not yet mentioned. Drug pedlars will share the street corners with condom sellars.

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

Dailykos Jismism

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

Molly's article is right on the money -- as usual -- on this
decisively important issue. The idea that the rights of ALL American
women to choose for themsleves whether or not to have an abortion
could well be lost through this premeditated attempt of truly
reactionary legislators in ONE state to bring Roe v. Wade up for
review by a Supreme Court that has been deliberately packed with
abortion foes is as sinister as it should be preposterous. The
question for all of us should thus be what to do about the matter.
Fortunately, one of the previous respondents to this disscussion here
has already provided us with several sound strategies for fighting
back against this right-wing outrage. One strategy that I believe to
be especially crucial if we are to have any chance of success has,
however, not yet been sufficiently discussed; namely, organizing a
large-scale BOYCOTT of South Dakota's large tourism industry -- and
the state's other products and services -- until such time as the
state repeals the malicious law just enacted. When confronted with
the possibility, and perhaps even the reality, of lossing millons of
dollars of business, increasing pressure will undoubtedly be placed
upon members of the state legislature by businees interests to
rescind their arrogant de facto attempt to have South Dakota
legislate abortion policies for the entire nation. The Women's
Medical Fund of Madison Wisconsin has already called for such a
boycott and one can anticipate that several other women's and
progressive organizations will soon follow suit. Clearly a consumer
boycott alone can probably not get the state legislature to reverse
its folly. But, in concert with several of the other good strategies
that have also been proposed, we have a real chance of turning the
tide against the overreaching attempt of the state's Republican Party
to tamper with the entire nation's abortion policy at the expense of
their own state's economic interest and political reputation, as well
as the fundamental rights of 140+ million American women.

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

Sounds like South Dakota is about to have some abandment issues..

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

Why did it take you all so long to realize the plight? Reproductive rights has already been under assault law after law long before the final abortion ban kicked in.

As an earlier poster also pointed out, here in South Dakota, the big business interests control everything. So don't think that it's just women who are being affected on reproductive rights. Both men and women who are lower/middle class are being pounded the most and yes, sexual harassment and wage discrimination are SEVERELY high in the state despite all attempts to hide these ugly truths.

And don't be fooled by the TRAVEL CHANNEL making it look like everything's hunky dory in Sturgis. Yes, I am one of those SD natives who will happily allow boycotts to pour in especially since tourist areas are where labor torture is the greatest.

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

Its funny, i would love to see Bill Napoli's daughter get raped, and see what happens...oh wait..shes to marry that man? like in the old west Bill right? we'll have the party at the saloon after too? pleeease can we.. your ridiculous, those two statements he made sound liek there coming out of his ass, Molly is 100% right, whats next voting rights?

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

The corruption that is happening can only get worse. You will be listened to on the telephone, your Emails are monitered already and the library books you take out of the Library are scrutinized.
Everything you do will be watched by the cameras. Everything you say will be monitered and if you say anything against the Administration it will be heard and read and you will be arrested and put into jails like they are doing in Iraq.

A teacher has been fired for speaking out. A nurse has been fired for speaking out. Cindy Sheehan has been arrested so many time for speaking out.

Good luck, people. You voted him in.

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

Has no one considered the baby boomers in all this. As our society grows older the potential to have a child with downs syndrome or other birth defect increases. Can and older populace even live long enough to raise special needs children. Abortion isn't just about selfish motives. We care about the future of the children brought into this world. Making the descision to have an abortion is extremely painful and difficult but we want what is best for the children.

I hope Napoli has tucked away lots of state funds for orphanages and state run institutions so he can raise all the children who will be left behind.

I'm afraid South Dakota is on its way back to a very dark age.

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

few people -- if any -- are mentioning the main reason abortion became an issue in the first place -- ie, the resulting illegal and dangerous abortions that INEVITABLY will ensue if abortion is once again driven underground by legislation. sitting around debating the morality of abortion is a red herring. personally i don't think anybody is "for" abortion; rather, everyone is for the right a woman to have a legal one as opposed to an illegal one. The moralists on the right appear to be confusing "creating a law to ban abortion" with "stopping abortion." the former is within their power; the latter is not. So if they succeed, there will probably be fewer abortions, but a hell of a lot more dead and maimed women who went for illegal abortions, which is why the abortion laws were rescinded in the first place. All these restrictive laws do is prevent women from obtaining LEGAL abortions. I can't believe, even in red states, that women would vote in majority numbers to support laws banning legal abortion. of course, i'm from canada. cheers.

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

The union between the traditional Republican base, the money interests, and the new-found "base" the Wacko Coalition, seems to me to be a marriage of convenience at best. We need to think about driving a wedge between the two halves of the Repugnant party. It seems at least at first glance that economic pressure may drive this wedge. Perhaps I have not thought through the "boycott" idea. But I am viewing it as a "wedge" tactic. I guanantee that Citibank and any other targeted businesses won't be very happy in the political marriage they have created if progressive consumers can really affect their bottom lines.

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