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.

Abortion Rights Déjà Vu in South Dakota

By Katha Pollitt, The Nation. Posted May 26, 2008.


Anti-choicers in South Dakota are again attempting to ban abortion. So where are the progressive voters and organizations?
050610prochoicerally1
prochoice

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

More stories by Katha Pollitt

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's baaack. In 2006 South Dakota voters defeated, 56 to 44, a ballot initiative that would have banned abortion even to save the woman's life. Prochoicers cautiously exhaled. Antichoicers got busy. Taking a leaf from polls that suggested a hefty majority would favor a ban as long as it included exceptions for drastic circumstances -- rape, incest, the life or physical health of the woman -- antichoicers have rolled out a new initiative, Measure 11. It contains loopholes, in theory, for rape and incest victims who report the crime to law enforcement and allow collection of their DNA and that of the fetus, as well as to women "at serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system." An ominous sign: it was submitted to the secretary of state on March 31 with 46,000 signatures, although only 16,000 were required.

In 2006 activists stressed the lack of exceptions -- you'd force the woman to die? go blind? be paralyzed? bear her father's baby? That argument was persuasive but left the vast majority of women who terminate their pregnancies undefended against the widespread belief that they were selfish sluts who used abortion "as birth control." This is how short-term strategies come back to haunt us. There was always the risk that antichoicers would go for what they could get. As South Dakota's own Leslee Unruh, colorful head of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told the New York Times, "I have to save as many children as I can."

With 44 percent of South Dakotans supporting the Let the Woman Die ban, what are the chances that the new, supposedly more lenient version will be defeated? Jan Nicolay, co-chair of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the group formed to oppose the 2006 ban, told me voters will reject the ban when they realize its implications: forcing women to carry to term fetuses that cannot survive, tying doctors' hands in difficult obstetrical situations, "revictimizing" rape and incest victims by destroying their privacy. Not necessarily, replied a prochoice activist who wished to remain anonymous: "To challenge the exceptions you have to get deep into the fine print. We can't have a two-hour discussion with every voter in South Dakota." She pinned her hopes on another popular strategy: appealing to the state's libertarian streak. South Dakotans, I heard again and again, don't like the government telling people what to do. But does that include women who have abortions -- alternately depicted as tramps who waltz to the clinic after a night on the town and as naïve weaklings pushed into decisions they will later regret? Of the prochoice activists I spoke with, only Charon Asetoyer, a Native American community activist and health advocate running for State Senate, talked directly about organizing voters around the classic feminist theme of faith in women to make good decisions, to do what's best for their families.

If "faith in women" sounds old-fashioned, maybe that's the problem. In this fight, the antichoicers have the vision, the grassroots energy and the political momentum (as well as the Catholic and evangelical churches and key legislators in both parties), while the prochoicers are left with abstract arguments and the fall-back position that the ban, if passed, will be enjoined by the courts and eventually found unconstitutional. "This could be a galvanizing moment," said one out-of-state activist. "It's outrageous that a state could even be considering a ban! Instead of thinking about the Supreme Court, the national organizations -- Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU -- should be mobilizing women. I don't hear anything creative coming from them." Indeed, as of this writing I haven't received so much as an e-mail about South Dakota from a national reproductive-rights or feminist organization.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: anti-choice, abortion, pro-life, pro-choice, south dakota, reproductive justice

Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
I'm tempted to say screw that backwater inbred state, but...
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on May 26, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where one goes we all go. If we let these bastards get a foot in the door [outside of the southern states, errrr, Jesusland] then they will be pushing for a nationwide ban. They are just aching to get this issue sent to the supreme[ly fascist] court.

This must be fought. To anyone in SD, tell us and every organization you think might have a phone and email list what you need.

There is help and you are not alone.

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

» and by the way..... Posted by: pfeifer999
I'm tempted to say screw that backwater inbred state, but...
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on May 26, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where one goes we all go. If we let these bastards get a foot in the door [outside of the southern states, errrr, Jesusland] then they will be pushing for a nationwide ban. They are just aching to get this issue sent to the supreme[ly fascist] court.

This must be fought. To anyone in SD, tell us and every organization you think might have a phone and email list what you need.

There is help and you are not alone.

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

"Personhood" initiative is now on the ballot in Colorado
Posted by: fanny666 on May 27, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in CO we now have to defeat a measure that would legally define a fertilized egg as a living human being.

This measure began- I wish I were joking- with a 20 year-old female having a direct conversation with God, who told her that this was now her life's mission.

I have not yet heard what we are supposed to do with all of the fertilized eggs sitting in liquid nitrogen in fertility clinics. Perhaps this young woman would be willing to carry each and every one of these Living Human Beings to full term.

I registered at Denver Post using of my favorite Bible passages as my username (I am "Genesis 19_33-36"), and got into it with some fancy book-learnin guy who seems to be a college bioLIEgy student and was using his evil powers of logic and reasoning. I know, I am a bad person.

(I am "Genesis 19_33-36")

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

How amusing!
Posted by: g on May 27, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that one can just legislate the definition of personhood would be amusing, if it did not come at such a high cost to women.
As for 'screw backwater states', it ain't that simple. I live in Texas and try to do my best to teach my students to be open minded and to understand that there isn't only one (i.e. their pastor's) way to think about everything. There are plenty of liberals like me in Texas, and I get annoyed at the assumption that all women in Texas must be dumb conservative with big hair, or that all men are Tom DeLay.
The idea that women in South Dakota or Texas or other red states deserve to be deprived of their reproductive freedom because they 'choose' (??) to live where they live is repellent. And what about minors? This is everybody's fight.

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

» RE: You are absolutely correct Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» very curious Posted by: pfeifer999
The Progressive Voters and Like Organizers ...
Posted by: realmuzik on May 28, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... do not live in South Dakota. As soon as any are able to, they up and leave to settle and over-crowd such "liberal enclaves" as the Northeast Corridor, Madison, Wisconsin, and the Pacific Northwest (Santa Cruz and northward). This is a mistake. This is a clarion call for Progressive South Dakotans to return and fight for the rights of CHOICES for ALL AMERICANS. America is watching South Dakota. So Progressives ... please go home and fight the good fight!

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

South Dakota Gal
Posted by: marsmemories on May 28, 2008 9:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a South Dakota woman who worked hard to defeat the Anti Choice bill. There are many in this state who feel as I do. In South Dakota they want to go back to the "good old days" when women were possessions of their men -barefoot and pregnant. But, the anitchoicers do not want to support the children who are born and abandoned by the fathers. And, the fathers are not forced to support their children here either. We have many, many women struggling to take care of their children on a $7.25 an hour job. At this "high" wage they are not eligible for any assistance in South Dakota. Makes for a tough life for mother and children.

The Unruh's are not interested in saving children. They are interested in running their home for unwedded mother's, talking the mothers into adopting the child out through the Unruh's adoption office. It is a money making program for them. Abortions cut into their supply of children available to place. It is about supply and demand - nothing more.
I live a mile from the Unruh's so know of them quite well. Check the court records for verification of this information.

This is not about saving children - it is about controling people and making big money.

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

» I don't know the unruh's..... Posted by: pfeifer999