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

Abortion Rights Go South

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted March 7, 2006.


Who needs choice when South Dakota senator Bill Napoli is around to decide for us?
Advertisement

South Dakota is so rarely found on the leading edge of the far out, the wiggy, the California-esque. But it has now staked its claim. First to Outlaw Abortion This Century.

The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. They will decide. Women will do what they decide.

These towering solons, representing citizens from the great cosmopolitan centers of Rapid City and Sioux Falls to the bosky dells near Yankton, are noted for their sagacity and understanding. When you think "enlightenment," the first thing that comes to your mind is "the South Dakota Legislature," right?

As well it might. The purpose of the law is to force a decision from the United States Supreme Court, where the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito have now shored up the anti-choice forces.

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for "convenience," but he told "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" about how he thinks a "real-life example" of the exception could be invoked:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Please stop and reread the paragraph above. See? Clearly Napoli's exception would not apply to the South Dakota woman also interviewed by the NewsHour. "Michelle" is in her 20s, has a low-paying job and two children. And says she simply cannot afford a third. She drove five hours to the state's only abortion clinic:

"It was difficult when I found out I was pregnant. I was saddened because I knew that I'd probably have to make this decision. Like I said, I have two children, so I look into their eyes and I love them. It's been difficult, you know, it's not easy. And I don't think it's, you know, ever easy on a woman, but we need that choice."

But who is she to make that choice when Bill Napoli can make it for her? He explains:

"When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. … I don't think we're so far beyond that, that we can't go back to that."

I find this so profound I am considering putting Sen. Napoli in charge of all moral, ethical and medical decisions made by women. Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he's there, and perhaps that's what we all need -- a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious just for our own convenience.

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. Female doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, engineers and, for that matter, female members of the South Dakota Legislature -- who could ever trust them with an important decision?

In South Dakota, pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives should it trouble their conscience, and some groups who worked on the anti-abortion bill believe contraception also needs to be outlawed. Good plan. After that, we'll reconsider women's property rights, civil right and voting rights.

For years, the women's movement has been going around asking, "Who decides?" as though that were the issue. Well, here's the answer. Bill Napoli decides, and if you're not happy with that arrangement, well, you'd better be prepared to do something about it.

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

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:
I'd like to have a dollar...
Posted by: greentime on Mar 7, 2006 4:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: I'd like to have a dollar... Posted by: crazedredsoxfan
madashell
Posted by: munchkinpup on Mar 7, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: madashell Posted by: cardboardurinal
» RE: madashell Posted by: ann83
Americans are brain dead
Posted by: may261989 on Mar 7, 2006 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Americans are brain dead Posted by: awalton1
» RE: Americans are brain dead Posted by: awalton1
There is hope!
Posted by: HM2Viking on Mar 8, 2006 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

matched set
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 8, 2006 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Blind?
Posted by: O.B.Server on Mar 8, 2006 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Blind? Posted by: Nnaahjwd
» RE: Blind? Posted by: Stonecutter
Lu
Posted by: lu on Mar 8, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Lu Posted by: triana1326
» RE: Lu Posted by: SDres11
warrior woman
Posted by: warrior woman on Mar 8, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: warrior woman Posted by: igmuska
» RE: warrior woman Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: warrior woman Posted by: FSD57110
» RE: warrior woman Posted by: SDres11
Why Are People Surprised?
Posted by: Nez46 on Mar 8, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Exception to Brilliance
Posted by: kwms on Mar 8, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: jverner
» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: kelly.nickell
» not a brilliant response Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: not a brilliant response Posted by: triana1326
» RE: not a brilliant response Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: churchofone
» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: Rebekah
» KATHLEEN: Read my lips Posted by: morticia
» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: Ellie1
» define human life Posted by: gaspass
» So 9 months doesn't count? Posted by: sallyjrw
» RE: xception to Brilliance Posted by: triana1326
Adoption Option=Women as Brood Mares
Posted by: kww355 on Mar 8, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My body is NOT a container.

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

My body, my choice. Period.
Posted by: LeighPerson on Mar 8, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

a culture of caring
Posted by: jefhadist on Mar 8, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Ejaculation Legislation and Regulation
Posted by: honeyrose on Mar 8, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

cobblepot
Posted by: cobblepot on Mar 8, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: cobblepot Posted by: bettsoff
STOP TALKING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!
Posted by: change-agent-denver on Mar 8, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» cobblepot Posted by: cobblepot
is this an emotional issue?
Posted by: scott balogh on Mar 8, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: is this an emotional issue? Posted by: porgygirl
Bill Napoli's thinking
Posted by: WHB on Mar 8, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Bill Napoli's thinking Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bill Napoli's thinking Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Bill Napoli's thinking Posted by: SDres11
» RE: Bill Napoli's thinking Posted by: gaspass
waterman
Posted by: happybear on Mar 8, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: waterman Posted by: monkeybrig
» RE: waterman Posted by: Lara
» RE: waterman Posted by: happybear
» RE: waterman Posted by: triana1326
» RE: waterman Posted by: aahb21
» RE: waterman Posted by: happybear
» RE: waterman Posted by: morticia
» RE: waterman Posted by: aahb21
» RE: waterman Posted by: gaspass
nit-picking
Posted by: brasilaron on Mar 8, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Don't just post!!!
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Mar 8, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

How can one be anti-abortion and pro-war?
Posted by: robinka33 on Mar 8, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Why not "help" them instead ?
Posted by: helen_0f_romford on Mar 8, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Human Rights as Such
Posted by: igmuska on Mar 8, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Human Rights as Such Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Human Rights as Such Posted by: gaspass
» RE: Human Rights as Such Posted by: redjenny
Young women & apathy...
Posted by: nise52 on Mar 8, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Young women & apathy... Posted by: kww355
» RE: Young women & apathy... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Young women & apathy... Posted by: SDres11
EXACTLY!
Posted by: monkeybrig on Mar 8, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]

» RE: XACTLY! Posted by: triana1326
» RE: XACTLY! Posted by: Cathyblj
Question to ask
Posted by: CJC on Mar 8, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Are you kidding me? Posted by: kww355
Two Points Not Covered
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 8, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Wonderland?
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Mar 8, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Easy to pick-on women
Posted by: rusrus on Mar 8, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Morals
Posted by: sassicatz on Mar 8, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

I love you Molly, but poor choice of words here.
Posted by: rollo on Mar 8, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]

Women can't be trusted to make reproductive decisions
Posted by: sln70 on Mar 9, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

SD Women Count
Posted by: SD Women Count on Mar 9, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Doesn't SD have the death penalty?
Posted by: antiapathy on Mar 9, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 o