South Dakota must live with its abortion-ban decision
March 7, 2006 8:37 AM Subscribe
South Dakota must live with its abortion-ban decision I say: boycott South Dakota! Don't spend tourists dollars there! Tell others to join a boycott]
Newspapers in South Dakota are full of worried speculation about how the state's radical stance on abortion will play to the world. The concern is justified. Internet vendors are already selling bumper stickers showing a wire hanger and the words, "South Dakota: The Back Alley Abortion State."
This post was deleted for the following reason: one link newsfilter axegrindfilter post
The law is unconstitutional; however, it's a great way to "try out" Dubya's new buddies on the bench.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2006
Wasn't there a thread in MeTa the other day going on about how FPPs should try to be objective?
posted by GuyZero at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by GuyZero at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2006
South Dakota has a double standard when it comes to life.
posted by furtive at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by furtive at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2006
A total ban on abortion could accelerate South Dakota's ongoing brain drain.
Woot!
posted by brain_drain at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
Woot!
posted by brain_drain at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
Is it OK if I just maintain my pre-decision level of South Dakota spending? Which was zero.
posted by jfuller at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by jfuller at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
I've been boycotting S.Dakota my whole life already!
posted by selfmedicating at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by selfmedicating at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2006
So, with the hopes of getting something useful here, can someone please explain how they can pass a law that is the opposite of the outcome of Roe v. Wade? Is this legal trickery or just business as usual - are all supreme court decisions up for revision by state legislatures that just don't like 'em?
posted by GuyZero at 8:46 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by GuyZero at 8:46 AM on March 7, 2006
No, jfuller. You have to go to South Dakota and steal something.
posted by Malor at 8:48 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Malor at 8:48 AM on March 7, 2006
> South Dakota has a double standard when it comes to life.
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.
posted by jfuller at 8:48 AM on March 7, 2006
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.
posted by jfuller at 8:48 AM on March 7, 2006
You may not be boycotting South Dakota already if you eat beef, corn, soy, wheat or pork.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:50 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 8:50 AM on March 7, 2006
can someone please explain how they can pass a law that is the opposite of the outcome of Roe v. Wade?
They can pass any law they like, but it can be challenged and struck down in the courts.
posted by cillit bang at 8:52 AM on March 7, 2006
They can pass any law they like, but it can be challenged and struck down in the courts.
posted by cillit bang at 8:52 AM on March 7, 2006
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.
I am able to distinguish between intelligent life, such as death row inmates, and unintelligent life, such as pigs and human embryos. You could too.
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:53 AM on March 7, 2006
I am able to distinguish between intelligent life, such as death row inmates, and unintelligent life, such as pigs and human embryos. You could too.
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:53 AM on March 7, 2006
A total ban on abortion could accelerate South Dakota's ongoing brain drain.
I thought having more abortions would accelerate the brain drain (and increase the skull puncturing as well).
posted by Falconetti at 8:55 AM on March 7, 2006
I thought having more abortions would accelerate the brain drain (and increase the skull puncturing as well).
posted by Falconetti at 8:55 AM on March 7, 2006
jfuller said 'They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.'
I've thought about that, and come to the conclusion that I cannot support the taking of a human life, innocent or otherwise, and also that I do not consider a foetus equivalent to a human life.
posted by jack_mo at 8:55 AM on March 7, 2006
I've thought about that, and come to the conclusion that I cannot support the taking of a human life, innocent or otherwise, and also that I do not consider a foetus equivalent to a human life.
posted by jack_mo at 8:55 AM on March 7, 2006
There's some handy information here if you're looking to do a clean and safe back alley abortion.
posted by Jart at 8:56 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Jart at 8:56 AM on March 7, 2006
This post reads like an editorial. Please get your own blog. Flagged.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:58 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:58 AM on March 7, 2006
Postroad: "Newspapers in South Dakota are full of worried speculation about how the state's radical stance on abortion will play to the world. The concern is justified. Internet vendors are already selling bumper stickers showing a wire hanger and the words, "South Dakota: The Back Alley Abortion State.""
I'm sure glad I'm not a politician from South Dakota. Those Internet bumper stickers would worry me.
posted by Plutor at 9:00 AM on March 7, 2006
I'm sure glad I'm not a politician from South Dakota. Those Internet bumper stickers would worry me.
posted by Plutor at 9:00 AM on March 7, 2006
I sure am glad I live in Canada!
posted by slatternus at 9:01 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by slatternus at 9:01 AM on March 7, 2006
I've thought about it, and I'm for killing convicts AND unborn children. I'm just damn agreeable in general.
posted by notmydesk at 9:02 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by notmydesk at 9:02 AM on March 7, 2006
Have I mentioned that Canada also has an excellent medicare plan, and surprisingly clement weather on its west coast? We're always looking for bright, energetic people, yearning to be free.
posted by slatternus at 9:02 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by slatternus at 9:02 AM on March 7, 2006
Remember, kids -- the last time abortion was illegal, they didn't have DNA paternity tests....
posted by eriko at 9:03 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by eriko at 9:03 AM on March 7, 2006
I heard all the judges are adopting the unwanted babies. Apparently you can just leave them on their doorstep.
posted by iamck at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by iamck at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2006
I think with all the editorializing and pointing out of editorializing and such, we're all missing the most important thing of all, which is:
No, jfuller. You have to go to South Dakota and steal something.
Malor wins!
posted by gurple at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2006
No, jfuller. You have to go to South Dakota and steal something.
Malor wins!
posted by gurple at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2006
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.
People who are sure they can plainly spot the 'badness' in a person as if plainly seeing the difference between black and white scare me. Mostly because I know no matter how I life my life, I will say or do something at some point that will make me bad, because no life is lead by black and white choices.
posted by FunkyHelix at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2006
People who are sure they can plainly spot the 'badness' in a person as if plainly seeing the difference between black and white scare me. Mostly because I know no matter how I life my life, I will say or do something at some point that will make me bad, because no life is lead by black and white choices.
posted by FunkyHelix at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2006
GuyZero,
The general assumption seems to be that this law is designed to go up against Roe V. Wade in the Supreme Court. The idea behind its sponsors being 1) write an unconstitutional law, 2) wait for it to get deemed unconstitutional, 3) hope that we can keep appealing it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Doesn't seem like a very solid plan, because 3 is a bit iffy. I don't think that once it got struck down they would be able to move it up through the federal system.
Another option they may be hoping for is 1) write law, 2) law struck down, 3) get someone to write a federal law saying "no, actually this is constitutional" 4) wait for THAT law to get struck down, 5) take *that* law to the supreme court and get it upheld in some sort of "federal law beats state supreme court" decision.
Actually, i don't know what i'm talking about, nevermind.
posted by papakwanz at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
The general assumption seems to be that this law is designed to go up against Roe V. Wade in the Supreme Court. The idea behind its sponsors being 1) write an unconstitutional law, 2) wait for it to get deemed unconstitutional, 3) hope that we can keep appealing it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Doesn't seem like a very solid plan, because 3 is a bit iffy. I don't think that once it got struck down they would be able to move it up through the federal system.
Another option they may be hoping for is 1) write law, 2) law struck down, 3) get someone to write a federal law saying "no, actually this is constitutional" 4) wait for THAT law to get struck down, 5) take *that* law to the supreme court and get it upheld in some sort of "federal law beats state supreme court" decision.
Actually, i don't know what i'm talking about, nevermind.
posted by papakwanz at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
no stupid abortion ban is keeping me away from mount motherfucking rushmore.
posted by hypocritical ross at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by hypocritical ross at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
flagging it too. before it gets deleted, hopefully, however, I'd like to say that I think this was done specifically to provide an opportunity to challenge roe v wade in the now stacked-deck supreme court. As I understand it, you can't just say "I don't like roe v. wade, let's go to court about it." there needs to be an existing trial related to it in order to challenge how constitutional it is. and this looks to be leading straight to that.
posted by shmegegge at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2006
Anyone else living in a state you are often ashamed of breath a sigh of relief? At least it's not us!
Sigh...
It does seem this is not going to do anything but get people all riled up. Heck, you could drag this on awhile very publicly. For like a year at least. This is a real hot button issue that might even get people to vote for one party this fall. Even if the war isn't going well, there are indictments going on, Katrina keeps coming back to haunt..
Oh. Tinfoil hat time!
posted by dig_duggler at 9:07 AM on March 7, 2006
Sigh...
It does seem this is not going to do anything but get people all riled up. Heck, you could drag this on awhile very publicly. For like a year at least. This is a real hot button issue that might even get people to vote for one party this fall. Even if the war isn't going well, there are indictments going on, Katrina keeps coming back to haunt..
Oh. Tinfoil hat time!
posted by dig_duggler at 9:07 AM on March 7, 2006
So, with the hopes of getting something useful here, can someone please explain how they can pass a law that is the opposite of the outcome of Roe v. Wade? Is this legal trickery or just business as usual - are all supreme court decisions up for revision by state legislatures that just don't like 'em? - GuyZero
papakwanz pretty much has it. The state can pass whatever damn law they want. The courts will stike it down based on precedent (like Roe and Casey) and they'll keep appealing it up to the Supreme Court. Their whole plan is to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court, who is not bound by precedent in the same way and who is essentially free to change their minds whenever they want. The lawmakers are gambling that Bush's new Supreme Court appointees will tip the scales and uphold this law. There is a possibility of that. There's a possibility that one or more of the judges will surprise South Dakota and rule against the law. There's also a chance the Supreme Court will refuse to even hear the case, but no one know for sure until someone tests it.
posted by raedyn at 9:14 AM on March 7, 2006
papakwanz pretty much has it. The state can pass whatever damn law they want. The courts will stike it down based on precedent (like Roe and Casey) and they'll keep appealing it up to the Supreme Court. Their whole plan is to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court, who is not bound by precedent in the same way and who is essentially free to change their minds whenever they want. The lawmakers are gambling that Bush's new Supreme Court appointees will tip the scales and uphold this law. There is a possibility of that. There's a possibility that one or more of the judges will surprise South Dakota and rule against the law. There's also a chance the Supreme Court will refuse to even hear the case, but no one know for sure until someone tests it.
posted by raedyn at 9:14 AM on March 7, 2006
Such is the path on the way to the devolution revolution. Supreme court will likely rule in favor of south dakota's law, throwing the abortion question back to the states, which will most likely pass many, many restrictions on abortion across the country. Then, hopefully, people will start actually turning out for their state legislature elections and the new assemblies will roll back some of the restrictions.
posted by The White Hat at 9:16 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by The White Hat at 9:16 AM on March 7, 2006
Damn! I guess now I have to postpone my trip to the International Vinegar Museum.
posted by Otis at 9:17 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Otis at 9:17 AM on March 7, 2006
That's it! I'm cancelling my trip to Fargo!
posted by mr_roboto at 11:18 AM CST on March 7 [!]
Wrong Dakota. NoDak's as charming as it ever was.
posted by COBRA! at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 11:18 AM CST on March 7 [!]
Wrong Dakota. NoDak's as charming as it ever was.
posted by COBRA! at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2006
it should be boycott Citibank--they're headquartered there--and it should be to boycott all businesses based there or who have big plants there--3M is one too. I can't believe the editorial writers didn't even mention it.
Any concerned person with Citibank accounts should be taking their business elsewhere.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2006
Any concerned person with Citibank accounts should be taking their business elsewhere.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2006
also, don't buy anything labelled with their South Dakota Certified Beef labels
posted by amberglow at 9:21 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by amberglow at 9:21 AM on March 7, 2006
Oppress someone, in this case some desperate young lady who will become their human sacrifice to the political machine. Close the door on an abortion for her. She petitions the feds. - skallas
Actually, they don't have to wait for a test case now. Planned Parenthood and like minded organizations can immediately challenge the law and have an injunction to stop the law from being encorforced while it is being examinined by the courts. This article mentions PP doing this for a different abortion law passed in SD last year. And this article indicates PP plans to directly challenge the law. Sorry, I don't have time to look for a better source for that at the moment, but it does indicate that I'm not making this up.
posted by raedyn at 9:23 AM on March 7, 2006
Actually, they don't have to wait for a test case now. Planned Parenthood and like minded organizations can immediately challenge the law and have an injunction to stop the law from being encorforced while it is being examinined by the courts. This article mentions PP doing this for a different abortion law passed in SD last year. And this article indicates PP plans to directly challenge the law. Sorry, I don't have time to look for a better source for that at the moment, but it does indicate that I'm not making this up.
posted by raedyn at 9:23 AM on March 7, 2006
As for me, I'm planning a roadtrip to Mt. Rushmore right now.
posted by Axandor at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Axandor at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2006
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot
the alleged followers of a religion based on an unjust execution should maybe know better than that (well, maybe not South Dakotans, but still). You could realize that too if you thought about it, etc
posted by matteo at 9:29 AM on March 7, 2006
the alleged followers of a religion based on an unjust execution should maybe know better than that (well, maybe not South Dakotans, but still). You could realize that too if you thought about it, etc
posted by matteo at 9:29 AM on March 7, 2006
"This article mentions PP doing this for a different abortion law passed in SD last year. And this article indicates PP plans to directly challenge the law."
I don't support this law, but I did nothing of the kind...
posted by ParisParamus at 9:29 AM on March 7, 2006
I don't support this law, but I did nothing of the kind...
posted by ParisParamus at 9:29 AM on March 7, 2006
This link might not work, but the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce has a membership directory.
posted by subgenius at 9:31 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by subgenius at 9:31 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by LarryC at 9:32 AM on March 7, 2006
South Dakota has an unusual procedure that allows a freshly passed law to be suspended until the voters decide whether they like it.
The petition must be signed by registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total vote for governor in the last election. In this case, 16,278 signatures would put the abortion law on the November ballot. Implementation of the law would be suspended pending the election.
According to the website of the South Dakota secretary of state, 42 laws have been referred to the voters, and 35 of them have been rejected.
posted by Otis at 9:33 AM on March 7, 2006
The petition must be signed by registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total vote for governor in the last election. In this case, 16,278 signatures would put the abortion law on the November ballot. Implementation of the law would be suspended pending the election.
According to the website of the South Dakota secretary of state, 42 laws have been referred to the voters, and 35 of them have been rejected.
posted by Otis at 9:33 AM on March 7, 2006
I don't support this law, but I did nothing of the kind... - ParisParamus
HarHar
posted by raedyn at 9:34 AM on March 7, 2006
HarHar
posted by raedyn at 9:34 AM on March 7, 2006
“Wasn't there a thread in MeTa the other day going on about how FPPs should try to be objective?” -posted by GuyZero
So?
Why?
/not that I’m going to defend a single link to an op-ed plus the editorializing as a good post, but I’m not big on rushing to shut people up.
// apparently someone is putting a gun to people’s heads and making them read and comment in the thread. We should talk to the admins about that.
“They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.”
What if the fetus to be aborted was going to grow up to be HITLER!?
/what? I enjoy sophomoric discussion.
I think we should not force South Dakota to live with it’s abortion ban.
South Dakota should have the right to choose.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2006
So?
Why?
/not that I’m going to defend a single link to an op-ed plus the editorializing as a good post, but I’m not big on rushing to shut people up.
// apparently someone is putting a gun to people’s heads and making them read and comment in the thread. We should talk to the admins about that.
“They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.”
What if the fetus to be aborted was going to grow up to be HITLER!?
/what? I enjoy sophomoric discussion.
I think we should not force South Dakota to live with it’s abortion ban.
South Dakota should have the right to choose.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2006
They are able to distinguish between guilty life, which may not deserve protection, and innocent life, which does. You could too if you thought about it, but that's asking a lot.
What if a baby is just inherently evil, like Damien, or something? Would you have to wait until it killed someone before it became undeserving of protection? Help me out here.
posted by Gamblor at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2006
What if a baby is just inherently evil, like Damien, or something? Would you have to wait until it killed someone before it became undeserving of protection? Help me out here.
posted by Gamblor at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2006
So it would seem to me that we don't really need a ban on abortion, but a reliable pre-natal screening test for pure evil.
posted by Gamblor at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Gamblor at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
South Dakota - doing its part to help raise in Manitoba's tourist dollars (with apologies to North Dakota along the way).
the devolution revolution indeed... I'd love to boycott any of the companies based in South Dakota but in a sense it's punishing the people who live there, no?
posted by rmm at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
the devolution revolution indeed... I'd love to boycott any of the companies based in South Dakota but in a sense it's punishing the people who live there, no?
posted by rmm at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
Newspapers in South Dakota are full of worried speculation about how the state's radical stance on abortion will play to the world.
and you couldn't link to even one of them?
posted by jessamyn at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
and you couldn't link to even one of them?
posted by jessamyn at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2006
I hope the court challenge gets fast-tracked. I would like for voters to see exactly what Republicans have done to the Supreme Court in time for the next elections.
posted by Jatayu das at 9:45 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by Jatayu das at 9:45 AM on March 7, 2006
"I think we should not force South Dakota to live with it’s abortion ban.
South Dakota should have the right to choose"
and it might choose. From the above link: "In this case, 16,278 signatures would put the abortion law on the November ballot. Implementation of the law would be suspended pending the election."
The people of South Dakota may very well abort this ridiculous law before it ever gets out of the womb.
/bad pun, sorry.
posted by drstein at 9:45 AM on March 7, 2006
South Dakota should have the right to choose"
and it might choose. From the above link: "In this case, 16,278 signatures would put the abortion law on the November ballot. Implementation of the law would be suspended pending the election."
The people of South Dakota may very well abort this ridiculous law before it ever gets out of the womb.
/bad pun, sorry.
posted by drstein at 9:45 AM on March 7, 2006
The concern is justified because people are selling bumper stickers on the internet condemning Soth Dakota? I wouldn't hold my breath. The merits of the law aside, because someone now has to drive a few hours to get an abortion does not mean the state economy is going to collapse overnight.
Stupid single-link post on territory we've recently covered before.
posted by Heminator at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
Stupid single-link post on territory we've recently covered before.
posted by Heminator at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
People who are sure they can plainly spot the 'badness' in a person as if plainly seeing the difference between black and white scare me. Mostly because I know no matter how I life my life, I will say or do something at some point that will make me bad, because no life is lead by black and white choices.
That's funny on several levels. But here's a good rule of thumb: Killing people greatly increases the chances of being labeled "Death-penalty-deserving-BAD".
posted by wabashbdw at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
That's funny on several levels. But here's a good rule of thumb: Killing people greatly increases the chances of being labeled "Death-penalty-deserving-BAD".
posted by wabashbdw at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
I'd love to boycott any of the companies based in South Dakota but in a sense it's punishing the people who live there, no? - rmm
Yes. And they're the people who voted this legislature in. Of course, a boycott doesn't discriminate between those who agree with this from those who are fighting it.
posted by raedyn at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
Yes. And they're the people who voted this legislature in. Of course, a boycott doesn't discriminate between those who agree with this from those who are fighting it.
posted by raedyn at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
Molly Ivins: 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.... 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. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
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. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:46 AM on March 7, 2006
« Older Fractal Bacteria | Setting the records straight Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Wow, what a sacrifice.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:39 AM on March 7, 2006