Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Neener Neener Neener!
March 22, 2006 5:01 PM   Subscribe

Remember HB 1215, the bill banning almost all abortion in South Dakota? Cecilia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux tribe in South Dakota, has a solution: “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.” An impassioned blogger has spoken to President Fire Thunder and is trying to drum up support for the proposed clinic.
posted by needs more cowbell (112 comments total)

 
You just beat me to the punch with this post.

This is awesome.
posted by brittney at 5:05 PM on March 22, 2006


(And now for my editorial comment: this is awesome! Please consider sending a donation if you're into that sort of thing...you know, reproductive choice and all.)
posted by needs more cowbell at 5:07 PM on March 22, 2006


Absolutely brilliant. To quote President Bush:

"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."
posted by scoria at 5:10 PM on March 22, 2006


Amazing. What a beautiful thing.
posted by symphonik at 5:10 PM on March 22, 2006


What? The Bush quote?
posted by bz at 5:11 PM on March 22, 2006


That is the greatest thing I've heard all day!
posted by birdherder at 5:12 PM on March 22, 2006


They just want to kill the white man's babies.
posted by 517 at 5:13 PM on March 22, 2006


Well played, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Well played.
posted by billysumday at 5:13 PM on March 22, 2006


An audio clip of the Bush quote, Aug. 6, 2004.

Excellent news!
posted by VulcanMike at 5:14 PM on March 22, 2006


Bravo.

(though, with regard to the Bush quote... I don't know that I'd be all that thrilled to have the sort of sovereignty recognised by Bush...)
posted by pompomtom at 5:14 PM on March 22, 2006


Well, one thing is for certain: considering the hot-button nature of this issue, and the current leanings of the administration on this issue, this is going to be one sure-as-heckfire-significant test of that sovereignity.

(I'm going to need some popcorn)
posted by davejay at 5:16 PM on March 22, 2006


They just want to kill the white man's babies.

While you want them alive and suffering your misery ? How toughtful ! Maybe I don't know the difference between love and desire, but I didn't give birth to pain.

Excellent idea Cecilia !!
posted by elpapacito at 5:16 PM on March 22, 2006


Good for her. It's a shame I can't visit my father, now, what with S. Dakota having forced birth and state-owned uteri on the books. I'm not going to such a state.
posted by teece at 5:18 PM on March 22, 2006


Can we make her president of the whole country and get rid of the village idiot from Texas...?
posted by HuronBob at 5:20 PM on March 22, 2006


Can we make her president of the whole country and get rid of the village idiot from Texas...?

Hey, now! Not everyone in Texas wants him! Hell, he's not even really from here...
posted by kaseijin at 5:28 PM on March 22, 2006


(though, with regard to the Bush quote... I don't know that I'd be all that thrilled to have the sort of sovereignty recognised by Bush...)

I think that I finally understand what is happening. We're reliving an expedited version of history.

At the moment, we must be reliving the Crusades. Next, we will discover the New World, and avian flu will serve as a substitute for smallpox. Finally, we will have a massive conflict with the Native Americans, and everything will start over again!

Just kidding. Or am I? :-(
posted by scoria at 5:30 PM on March 22, 2006


Do whatever you want with him, but don't send him back to Texas. Also, hurrah!
posted by MadamM at 5:30 PM on March 22, 2006


I honour Ms Fire Thunder. This would be a much, much better use of tribal sovereignty than casinos. And I'd be glad to send dollars to support a PP clinic on the res, but LJ just isn't a reputable source.

Great title, too.

/me does the happy dance
posted by QIbHom at 5:34 PM on March 22, 2006


Cecilia Fire Thunder is a hero.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:36 PM on March 22, 2006


An audio clip of the Bush quote, Aug. 6, 2004.

You really need the video to fully appreciate the President of the United States answering a question like a high school student who didn't do his homework.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:36 PM on March 22, 2006


HA!

This is sweet. I've been waiting to see Native Americans do something more interesting with their independent nation status than open casinos.
posted by scarabic at 5:40 PM on March 22, 2006


This is fantastic! Is there any sovereign tribal land in Missouri?
posted by scody at 5:40 PM on March 22, 2006


QIBHom: I'm emailing the PP South Dakota headquarters (which, funny enough, is located in Minnesota) to see if they have spoken to her/can speak to her and perhaps set up some sort of donation system with money going to the reservation clinic.
posted by needs more cowbell at 5:41 PM on March 22, 2006


elpapacito - I think 517's comment was entirely in jest ;)

I would be curious to know how this impacts the anti-abortion groups' access to protesting outside the clinic if/when it is built. Surely different rules apply on Reservation lands?

WTG Cecilia!!
posted by contessa at 5:41 PM on March 22, 2006


Fucking brilliant! A modern day hero(ine)!
posted by Bear at 5:44 PM on March 22, 2006


At the very least, "President Fire Thunder" is a kick ass name. w00t!
posted by drstein at 5:46 PM on March 22, 2006


Wow. Just wow. This made my day.

Stick it to The Man Cecilia!
posted by djeo at 5:47 PM on March 22, 2006


Bravo. Someone is finally doing something to oppose the systematic plunder of our rights. Isn't it ironic that help comes from the people who were robbed so blatantly of theirs. There's a valuable lesson to be learned here folks.
posted by Libster at 5:49 PM on March 22, 2006


You go, girl!
posted by unrepentanthippie at 5:54 PM on March 22, 2006


Expect Bush to announce the Pine Ridge reservation has WMDs by lunch tomorrow.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:56 PM on March 22, 2006


needs more cowbell - I appreciate that. Donations through PP would be tax deductable, too, no?

I can see the headlines now...blue website funds Red baby haters...that's enough to make me green with envy.
posted by QIbHom at 5:59 PM on March 22, 2006


Thank God for them! Watch for a campaign to try to remove their sovereignty now tho--this is a giant F-U to the lawmakers of SD, who deserved it.

Pine Ridge is where Wounded Knee happened, by the way.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 PM on March 22, 2006


XQUZYPHYR, that'd be a lot funnier if the showdown between AIM and the FBI hadn't happened at Pine Ridge.
posted by QIbHom at 6:02 PM on March 22, 2006


Not only does she rock, she's more in touch with popular opinion than Our Dear Leader. Maybe she could toss him a clue.
posted by maryh at 6:06 PM on March 22, 2006


I think this is incredibly gutsy on the part of Ms. Fire Thunder, and a big middle finger in the air to the imperious white men in the SD government (and elsewhere).

If she can actually do it, there will be confrontations involving both women crossing into Indian Territory to go to the clinic, and protesters trying to do their thing, and they could be ugly.

One fearless voice, from someone with actual legal power... that's a good thing. Bravo!
posted by zoogleplex at 6:11 PM on March 22, 2006


From the Wikipedia artcile linked above on Pine Ridge

The population on Pine Ridge has among the shortest life expectancies of any group in the Western Hemisphere: approximately 47 years for males and in the low 50s for females. The infant mortality rate is five times the United States national average.

It sounds like we shouldn't just be sending donations to help the Oglala Sioux with this idea, but should be looking at helping them get better clinic facilities in general. It's interesting that the 'pro-life' activists in South Dakota have had nothing to say about people living in conditions so poor they have five times the average infant mortality.
posted by Flitcraft at 6:12 PM on March 22, 2006


"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."
posted by scoria at 7:10 PM CST on March 22 [!]


What he means is we can blow them the fuck up if they look at us wrong. Er, I mean, are harboring doctors terrorists. Freedom is on the march, red skinned brothers!
posted by [insert clever name here] at 6:13 PM on March 22, 2006


We now have a new definition for a good indian, it seems.

*writes check*
posted by stet at 6:17 PM on March 22, 2006


This is fantastic.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:19 PM on March 22, 2006


Bravo to President Fire Thunder and the Oglala Sioux tribe. I'll be sending a donation.
posted by Miss Bitchy Pants at 6:28 PM on March 22, 2006


"It's interesting that the 'pro-life' activists in South Dakota have had nothing to say about people living in conditions so poor they have five times the average infant mortality."

I'm guessing the "pro-life activists" in this case are White Protestant Christian Fundamentalists, who, as a group nationally, basically don't care two cracked corn kernels' worth about the Indians. They only want white babies getting born, as rapidly as possible, to make God's Flock larger (they can try to convert ones that aren't born in their denomination).

Of course, most Americans in general don't care much about the Indians, or most of them wouldn't live on reservations in appalling conditions of poverty. (Casino tribes notwithstanding, of course.)
posted by zoogleplex at 6:31 PM on March 22, 2006


This is incredible. Good for her and the tribe.
posted by etaoin at 6:42 PM on March 22, 2006


Hmmm. Pine Ridge Reservation, you say?

Home of Wounded Knee and Leonard Peltier.

Given the government's earlier response to native self-realization, I wouldn't be dancing in the aisles, just yet.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:52 PM on March 22, 2006


you've been given sovereignty,

Shrub so doesn't get it. He just shows his fascist nature You don't givegive soverignty, nor do you purchase or sell it: sovereignty is declared or sovereignty is recognized.

Despite what the Neocons think, Freedom isn't a gift from whitey, it's an actual right.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:57 PM on March 22, 2006


Not anymore in America, gesamtkunstwerk. Not really.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:03 PM on March 22, 2006


First it was legal gambling, now legal abortions. The next thing will be legalized opium dens. (Thank GOD they weren't wiped out by the damn whiteman so many years ago!

Serisously, this is AWESOME!!!!
posted by snsranch at 7:03 PM on March 22, 2006


This made my day.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:03 PM on March 22, 2006


i dont know how this would work. here in az the state can tell a casino how many slot machines it can have. that doesn't sound very sovereign.
posted by CCK at 7:04 PM on March 22, 2006


This is how you open a can of worms.

As much as I admire the statement, it needs to be put into place and acted upon. There are also pratical matters to consider: Yes slavery was abolished in in American in 1865 (?) but that didn't stop Jim Crow laws from popping up.

Also the tribes land is located in the southwest portion of the state, bordering Nebraska, so it'll still be hard for women to the clinic, if it's built.

Finally, I wouldn't count on that sovereign status. The Indians have been run over before, so it can definitely happen again.

I hope this succeeds though, but lets let clap in joy yet. The hard work begins now for those people.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:07 PM on March 22, 2006


aho!
posted by moonbird at 7:09 PM on March 22, 2006


Cecilia Fire Thunder is a brave woman.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:23 PM on March 22, 2006


I'm sending money. What a hero.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:34 PM on March 22, 2006


Yes!!
That's awesome.

of course, do you think a couple of clinic-bombers are above playing cowboys & indians?
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:48 PM on March 22, 2006


Now, people have to set up car or van service there, and find a friendly motel or 2 right nearby.
posted by amberglow at 7:54 PM on March 22, 2006


This is awesome. How do we send donations?
posted by Dasein at 8:03 PM on March 22, 2006


From the posted links...

" If you want to mail donations to the reservation, you may do so at:

Oglala Sioux Tribe
ATTN: President Fire Thunder
P. O. Box 2070
Pine Ridge, SD 57770

OR: and this may be preferred, due to mail volume:

ATTN: PRESIDENT FIRE THUNDER
PO BOX 990
Martin, SD 57751

Enclose a letter voicing your support and explaining the purpose of the donation. Bear in mind, the Pine Ridge Res is not exactly dripping with disposeable income, so do consider donating funds directly to the tribe as well as specifically for this effort."

posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:08 PM on March 22, 2006


You can also send South Dakota senators a letter, too:

Dear Sirs, Suck It.
posted by brittney at 8:10 PM on March 22, 2006


Main Entry: foe·tus /'fEt-&s/
Function: noun
foetus

n : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal [syn: fetus]


If yer gonna troll, at least try to get it straight. Did you kiss your sainted mother with that mouth, tweak?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:21 PM on March 22, 2006


a) abortion is a beautiful thing especially when the fetus is simply an inconvenience to a career-minded couple!

Goddamn career-minded couples. Atheists and whores the lot of 'em. Goddamn them all to hell.
posted by docpops at 8:24 PM on March 22, 2006


tweak: a) abortion is a beautiful thing especially when the fetus is simply an inconvenience to a career-minded couple!

God forbid a woman want to do anything with her life but be a biological incubator.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:24 PM on March 22, 2006


CFT is an exemplar in this and many other issues. I was made aware of her work through Nebraskans for Peace which is working with her administration to shut down the liquor sales in Whiteclay—an unicorporated town of ~22 residents with three active and one in-limbo off-sale licenses. The village sits in the [disputed] reservation buffer zone in Nebraska and exists primarily to sell liquor to a dry reservation. The NE State Patrol cannot be arsed to enforce the distinction between off- and on-sale, nor public intoxication or open container laws and only recently deputized reservation police to provide enforcement for them. The punchline being, they have to come up with the funding themselves, which they obviously don't have.

That she would take the initiative here is indicative of her committment to her people and trying to provide them the opportunity climb out of the mind-numbing poverty that exists on that reservation. Not to pander, but the idea of donating funds to make this happen is the best I've heard all day. I'm writing a check myself.
posted by Fezboy! at 8:29 PM on March 22, 2006


RUN!!

It's the dreaded Attack Of the Unhatched Vertebrates!.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:29 PM on March 22, 2006


This is how you open a can of worms.

I don't quite share your cynicism, Brandon. I think this is an amazingly gutsy move to cheer regardless of how it turns out.

I do share your doubts about how immediately this could change things in a practical sense. For one thing, the casino "loophole" is based on some very careful reading of the balance of tribal sovereignty vs. the sovereignty not of the US, but of the surrounding states. Thus casino gambling is only permissible in states that already legalize some form of gambling. So I wonder if the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of a reservation permitting abortions that are illegal elsewhere in the state [allowing for a range of possible such laws].

I also know that it's been ruled constitutional for a tribe to buy property and put a casino on that land. That's how the Ho-Chunk and Chippewa in Wisconsin are able to build new "off-reservation" casinos hard up by Madison and (soon) Beloit. The boom in such off-reservation casinos came to the attention of Congress last year although they declined to pass limiting legislation. The abortion issue, on the other hand, would definitely provide an opening for Congress to impose federal regulation of reservation economic activities that could have broad effects.
posted by dhartung at 8:39 PM on March 22, 2006


b) a noble native american couldn't possibly be opening a planned parenthood for any nasty, for-profit reason, because the abortion industry isn't profitable or anything. Interesting how everyone here wholeheartedly approves of free-market capitalism when it supports an unrelated aspect of their ideology. But alas, consistency is but a hobgoblin that you needn't worry yourself with.

it's a bit telling that your first three reactions to this post were:

a) a hearty dose of paranoid towards another people.

b) admiration for said people's financial enterprise.

c) snide little strawman roasting of liberals. (to which I say, it's funny how almost all of "you" are in favor of limited government and privacy and states rights blah blah blah)
posted by mcsweetie at 9:02 PM on March 22, 2006


a) abortion is a beautiful thing especially when the fetus is simply an inconvenience to a career-minded couple!

Maybe, maybe not. Fortunately, though, we still live in a society that lets people choose whether or not they want to bring a fetus to term; your reasons for deciding one way or the other simply are not relevant when it comes to removing parasitic growths from your own body.

b) a noble native american couldn't possibly be opening a planned parenthood for any nasty, for-profit reason, because the abortion industry isn't profitable or anything. Interesting how everyone here wholeheartedly approves of free-market capitalism when it supports an unrelated aspect of their ideology. But alas, consistency is but a hobgoblin that you needn't worry yourself with.

What inconsistency do you see? I don't think anyone opposes abortion for economic reasons.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:19 PM on March 22, 2006


My guess is that South Dakota would start preventing pregnant women from visiting the reservation.
posted by drezdn at 9:24 PM on March 22, 2006


PareidoliaticBoy, doh! Should have read all the links. Thanks.
posted by Dasein at 9:24 PM on March 22, 2006


In case you may be wondering about the mindset of the crazies who pushed this law in the first place.
posted by owillis at 9:30 PM on March 22, 2006


b) a noble native american couldn't possibly be opening a planned parenthood for any nasty, for-profit reason, because the abortion industry isn't profitable or anything.

Please cite something to support your assertion of the profitability of abortion, because I'm going to call complete BULLSHIT on that. Most abortion clinics are operated as non-profit organizations. I find it difficult to believe that even those which are *not* non-profit are getting rich, given the security and malpractice insurance costs associated with such a practice.

Anyway, if running abortions clinics was a big money-maker, I'm pretty sure Halliburton would own a big fucking chain of them, and abortion would not only be legal it would be mandatory.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 9:32 PM on March 22, 2006


PareidoliaticBoy: I have no idea why you felt the need to post the definition of fetus, but shine on you crazy diamond!

Goddamn career-minded couples. Atheists and whores the lot of 'em. Goddamn them all to hell.

docpops: if you had seen my comment history, you may have noticed that I am in fact an atheist. Take a deep breath, I realize this may be unexpected and scary.

God forbid a woman want to do anything with her life but be a biological incubator.

God forbid a woman be responsible and intelligent enough to properly use contraceptives. Why can't people be beholden to the consequences of their actions?

c) snide little strawman roasting of liberals. (to which I say, it's funny how almost all of "you" are in favor of limited government and privacy and states rights blah blah blah)

mcsweetie: Who's paranoid now? You are putting words into my mouth. I said nothing of limited government or some such, just pointing out the inconsistencies - people on this site consistently harp on for-profit motivated corporations who are doing things they disagree with, e.g. Halliburton, which predictably has been mentioned in this thread. If you don't think members of this site have a hard-on for ripping on Microsoft, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Healthcare, et al, then you are living in Shangri-la.

I suppose it doesn't matter that this tribal leader is already nationally soliciting donations. Looks like a publicity grab and some get rich quick mixed in with good PR. Not a bad play, but if this had

Please cite something to support your assertion of the profitability of abortion, because I'm going to call complete BULLSHIT on that

Wow... calling bullshit and pulling out the Halliburton canard - demonstrative of your own lack of care for the truth. I apologize for not including the reference earlier, but someone in this gig is making some serious cash.

Check out Planned Parenthood's own annual report (PDF) from 2003-2004.

Especially note page 22, which includes their net revenue, expenses, etc. For that year, net revenue was 810 million dollars. Net costs were 774.8 million dollars. Even you can do that math - and they don't have to worry about nasty things like taxes on contributions, being a non-profit, government funded organization. Where do you think all that money goes? Right back into the system? Sure. Also remember that Planned Parenthood is not the only abortion providers, many doctors provide them through private clinics, and no, it's not like The Cider House Rules, it's more like 'I want to get paid.'
posted by tweak at 11:02 PM on March 22, 2006


Finally, a good reason to give the voters to get rid of tribal "sovereignty".
posted by madajb at 11:35 PM on March 22, 2006


God forbid a woman be responsible and intelligent enough to properly use contraceptives. Why can't people be beholden to the consequences of their actions?

And we all know that all contraception is 100% effective and never fails! And that all women have equal access to it! And that open information about sexuality, conception, and contraception are widely available in all public schools! And that women are never raped! God forbid! There's not a reason in the entire world that any pregnancy should ever be unplanned or unexpected! Silly women!
posted by scody at 11:41 PM on March 22, 2006


tweak: God forbid a woman be responsible and intelligent enough to properly use contraceptives. Why can't people be beholden to the consequences of their actions?

Well, things fail and mistakes happen. Besides, it is a way of accepting the consequences of your actions. If you accidentally light your kitchen on fire, do you stay 'beholden to the consequences of your actions' by letting your house burn down? Or do you get the fire extinguisher?

In the end, it all comes down you whether or not you believe the fetus is a sentient being with human rights. We're not really accomplishing anything by dancing around that aspect of the issue.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:10 AM on March 23, 2006


Cool! More power to her!

a) abortion is a beautiful thing especially when the fetus is simply an inconvenience to a career-minded couple!


Even if that is the case, and abortion is being used to dispose of an "inconvenience", I see that as an opportunity for education, which places like Planned Parenthood provide.

That is, my automatic response, unlike yours is not to then ban it for all cases. Law, priviledge and rights work best when we understand that we are dealing with humans, not stereotypes. The law works best, for example, when judges are given broad latitude not when all of us react in fear based on an imagined scenario of a callous "career-minded couple."

These days, if I have a strong immediate reaction to something, it generally means I am thinking with my lizard brain. Wisdom comes I think from backing away from that and thinking about policies in their wider scope and implications.
posted by vacapinta at 12:13 AM on March 23, 2006


God forbid a woman be responsible and intelligent enough to properly use contraceptives. Why can't people be beholden to the consequences of their actions?

Who are you? Cotton Mather?

Let's say that I'm building a shed. I quite enjoy shed building. Not that I need one, mind you; I just really enjoy pounding nails into two-by-fours. While building the shed, I happen to smash my thumb with the hammer I'm using. Oops! Accident! The bone is broken, and it generally causes a lot of discomfort and inconvenience. Left untreated, I'll be struggling to button my shirts for the rest of my life.

Shall I then be beholden to the consequences of my actions? I mean, God forbid I be responsible and intelligent enough to properly use a hammer, right? Should I seek a resolution to the mistake I have just made or should I just grin and bear a lifetime of handicap? I'd sooner wear a cast than live with a malformed opposable digit.

Point is, accidents happen. If there exists a solution that mitigates the worst consequences of my stupidity, I'm using it.

Please save the righteously indignant gasp when being confronted with the callousness of comparing a smashed thumb to a pregnancy. I'm well aware that the emotional and social strain of a broken bone don't quite measure up, but the point remains that being eternally lashed to the direct results of one's mistakes is a godawful way to live.
posted by quite unimportant at 12:19 AM on March 23, 2006


Or, what Mitrovarr said without the "sentient being" notion.

In my opinion, if I had anything--from tapeworm to fetus--growing inside of me, it's mine to kill.

Of course, having a Y-chromosome sort of disqualifies me from an opinion. Who was it that said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament?"
posted by quite unimportant at 12:27 AM on March 23, 2006


That is, my automatic response, unlike yours is not to then ban it for all cases.

Did I ever propose banning all abortions? No. Again, imputing the motives and beliefs of dissenters. I am disagreeing with the unqualified chearleaderism going on in this thread. It's sickening.

The law works best, for example, when judges are given broad latitude not when all of us react in fear based on an imagined scenario of a callous "career-minded couple."

Did you come up with that form of jurisprudence all by yourself? In your society, who makes the law? It sounds neither free or democratic. Without clarification that statement amounts to weasel words.

In the end, it all comes down you whether or not you believe the fetus is a sentient being with human rights. We're not really accomplishing anything by dancing around that aspect of the issue.

Not necessarily. What is the point of heterosexual sex, from an evolutionary standpoint? Reproduction. So, when the natural, most common consequence of an action is pregnancy ... one must understand certain risks are being taken. Would you use a condom to have sex with someone with a potentially fatal STD? Oh, come now, accidents!

Another issue people dance around is that half of the DNA comes from the father, why doesn't he get to use the abortion option? He helped put it there, after all.

Please save the righteously indignant gasp when being confronted with the callousness of comparing a smashed thumb to a pregnancy. I'm well aware that the emotional and social strain of a broken bone don't quite measure up, but the point remains that being eternally lashed to the direct results of one's mistakes is a godawful way to live.

From a purely clinical standpoint, this is simply the most retarded analogy I have ever come across on MetaFilter. You win the gold star.
posted by tweak at 12:48 AM on March 23, 2006


tweak: Another issue people dance around is that half of the DNA comes from the father, why doesn't he get to use the abortion option? He helped put it there, after all.

Because you'd have to go through her body, which is sovereign, to get to it.

You're still not addressing the root of the issue, just dancing around the edge attacking people's motives and being snarky about their arguments. If what you are truly trying to do is convince us that it is wrong, then provide evidence to that effect, or logical arguments, or something. Because if you don't presume it's wrong then it doesn't matter if people do it because children are inconvenient.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:08 AM on March 23, 2006


this is awesome -- as tweak demonstrates, pregnant American women need all the help they can get -- they'll soon have to hide in Native American Reservations. ah the irony.

also, what scody said. and, as always, Free Leonard Peltier.
posted by matteo at 1:32 AM on March 23, 2006


What is the point of heterosexual sex, from an evolutionary standpoint? Reproduction. So, when the natural, most common consequence of an action is pregnancy ... one must understand certain risks are being taken.

Sex is not just a "all babies all the time" deal. In some animals -- humans being one of them -- it serves to create a powerful social bond, among other things. This is just one of the evolutionary uses of sex.

That said, the notion of binding women to the natural consequences of sex is disgusting. The choice to have a child must be entirely the woman's, or she is functionally enslaved during her pregnancy and unable to make the most fundamental choices about how to live her life. The right to choose whether to have a child at any point up until the child is born is a cornerstone of the liberation of women from a previously subordinate role in society.
posted by graymouser at 1:36 AM on March 23, 2006


What is the point of heterosexual sex, from an evolutionary standpoint? Reproduction.


Can we take it from this that your CD of indie rock love songs never actually did the trick for you then?

Because for most of us who actually have sex, reproduction isn't the point at all.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:42 AM on March 23, 2006


All this tsk-tsk rhetoric about the "natural consequences of sex" is just self-indulgent wanking. Maybe over the last generation or two our taking-abortion-for-granted society has collectively forgotten the horrible and lethal measures that appalling numbers of women used to inflict upon themselves while trying to self-abort (and even occasionally today, as abortion access dwindles). You know what? As someone with dangly bits, I'll never understand why so many thought that doing such patently ridiculous things to their bodies was their best (or only) course of action -- to know what it's like to be driven to such desperate extremes. Ever. But it's enough for me to know that I don't want the women in my life to illustrate this for me. It's more than enough.

This is not my fight, but any woman who wants to keep abortion legal has my support. And that includes Ms. Fire Thunder.
posted by DaShiv at 2:04 AM on March 23, 2006


First it was legal gambling, now legal abortions. The next thing will be legalized opium dens. (Thank GOD they weren't wiped out by the damn whiteman so many years ago!

Yeah indeed thank God , because they give an excellent representation of convenient hypocrisy. To keep the moral high ground one claims the US is free of bad evil gambling, then build a city like Las Vegas and pretend it's a sinner place..only populated by sinners !

To make the claim even more brilliantly deceptive they organize conventions like Mom's Knitting Convention which occours in Las Vegas ONLY because they have cheap hoteling. YEAAAAAHH right

So maybe tomorrow a city for abortions, a city for opium dens ? Nooooo even better, let the indians do the dirty job and claim we are morally cleeeeean, so cleaaan. We NEVER would have an abortion on our territory : but in the backyard it is OK.
posted by elpapacito at 2:23 AM on March 23, 2006


I applaud the idea, but I wonder if, in this case, "resistance is futile." The state of California had no trouble putting the kibosh on the tribes selling tax-free cigarettes in California. Whitey (I'm white) is respectful of tribal sovereignty only when it is to his advantage to do so.
posted by phewbertie at 4:14 AM on March 23, 2006


Why can't people be beholden to the consequences of their actions?

They are. You just don't like the actions they're taking. If a woman gets pregnant and aborts the fetus, she has to deal with the consequences (a goodly mix of emotional and physical) that come from it.

The whole "take responsibility" schtick is tired and hopelessly myopic. Go back to the books and better learn your philosophy before you start spouting it off in public forums.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:27 AM on March 23, 2006


tweak, I'm horrified by the idea of abortion, but even more horrified that a bunch of old, rich, white guys get to make a decision that's probably one of the most intimate and personal decisions one can make. I don't expect this plan to ever come of anything, but my check is on the way regardless.

That the SD laws bans abortion in cases of incest and rape pretty much torpedoes your "yuppie abortions of convenience" tripe. If you want to tell some 14-year-old raped and impregnated by her cousin about her "responsibilities", knock yourself out. I know that I don't have that power, and I know the SD Legislature sure as hell shouldn't have it either.
posted by jalexei at 6:27 AM on March 23, 2006


mcsweetie: Who's paranoid now? You are putting words into my mouth. I said nothing of limited government or some such, just pointing out the inconsistencies

yes, I was putting words in your mouth to illustrate how you were putting words in people's mouth. and pointing out the malfescence of

people on this site consistently harp on for-profit motivated corporations who are doing things they disagree with

what the hell are you talking about? I don't think anyone on this site has ever slammed Microsoft, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Healthcare (who?) simply for having a lot of money. if "we" harp on a corporation for doing something we disagree with, it's because they're doing something wrong and/or illegal that we disagree with.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:39 AM on March 23, 2006


"and pointing out the malfescence of " is an errant cut and paste and those of you with sharpies can go ahead and mark it out!
posted by mcsweetie at 6:41 AM on March 23, 2006


Noble an idea that this is it ain't gonna fly. Why? Look at the precedent set by tribes in Connecticut trying to sell Cigarettes for fuks sake. The Gubner sent the State police in to literally crack heads. The State courts said that the tribe had no right to do anything that was against state law. (in this case failure to collect taxes on cigarettes) You think that the State of SD will just allow this clinic. Dream dream dream...
posted by Gungho at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2006


Do abortion opponents really believe that abortion is murder, or is their goal to penalize women who have sex?
posted by kirkaracha at 6:46 AM on March 23, 2006


Tweak, you honestly believe that Planned Parenthood is motivated by profit? Those doctors who wear bullet proof vests just to go to work in the morning, it's all about the filthy lucre for them? You really think that the difference between PP's net income and expenses is going into someone's pocket? (And best of all, you reach that conclusion on the basis of the mere fact of a gap between income and expenses. By that standard, every well-managed non-profit which can keep its expenses below its income is secretly profit-motivated. Whoa. You're blowin' my mind, d00d.)

Gah. You're an idiot.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 6:58 AM on March 23, 2006


Having worked at several PP's I can't say I ever recall being involved in a situation where abortion was being sought. The point being, they seem to be synonymous with pregnancy termination, but anyone who has actually dealt with them would tell you their overarching role in the community is women's health services. I can't tell you how many cases of cervical and endometrial cancer they prevent every year in this country because of their presence. If they make a profit, thank-god, because there's no question that the fuckwits who run things in this country would sooner see a few thousand women a year die in agony with their insides rotting out than make these services available as they are currently.

Or perhaps you can have your Pap, but only after enduring a twenty minute lecture on the sins of the flesh.
posted by docpops at 7:36 AM on March 23, 2006


This is a brilliant manouver. I hope it works out! But even if it doesn't, it's wonderful to hear of someone challenging this law, and trying to find creative solutions.
posted by raedyn at 7:52 AM on March 23, 2006


And I'd like to send scody a lollipop.
*blowskiss*
posted by raedyn at 7:58 AM on March 23, 2006


Check out Planned Parenthood's own annual report (PDF) from 2003-2004.

Especially note page 22, which includes their net revenue, expenses, etc. For that year, net revenue was 810 million dollars. Net costs were 774.8 million dollars. Even you can do that math - and they don't have to worry about nasty things like taxes on contributions, being a non-profit, government funded organization. Where do you think all that money goes? Right back into the system? Sure.


Non-profit 501-3(c) organizations like Planned Parenthood are classifed because they don't distribute stock or dividends to any shareholders, nor do they pay board of directors on a profit-based system. I happen to work for one and would be happy to mail you the volumes of our tax status legalise should you be willing to PayPal me the shipping expenses.

Many non-profits get more income than they spend in a year; while not encouraged the annual balance is either invested or carried over. They do "go back into the system" by the very nature of 501-3c orgs. You would know this had you checked anything about this on Wikipedia other than the one link on the PP entry you were directed to look for from whatever right-wing website first implanted this accusation in your head.

Like the organization I work for, surpluses are often used to acquire larger services, expand the organization, and extend outreach for the organization's goals- for example, building a new clinic. You apparently claim that the $35 million overhead from PP's 2004 budget has somehow been diverted to someone(s) for personal profit. From your comment, you have acquired this conclusion based entirely and with absolutely no outside or alternative means from deep within the confines of your own ass.

While a sarcastic "yeah, sure" could possibly be construed as a valid argument- perhaps, say, if we were debating with schoolchildren- it tends to be considered lacking in veracity by most people who read above a first-grade level. Would you mind actually justifying your claim that President of an Indian tribe and Planned Parenthood are running a for-profit abortion slush fund? It would help in staving off any premature conclusions- rampant though they are amongst many on MetaFilter, myself included- that you're actually the dumbest fucking person on the planet. Thanks.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:02 AM on March 23, 2006


Last fall, Cecelia Fire Thunder was "accused of mortgaging trial land and of abusing elders and a council member," and of "perjury, trespassing, fraud, disloyalty and assault and battery." She and her council were accused of "dipping into [a] $38 million [loan, intended for paying off debt and expanding a casino] to put into their own pockets."

She was suspended pending a hearing. In October, at the tribal council meeting -- where witnesses, including her accuser, were not permitted to speak -- the councillors unanimously voted to reinstate her.

Source.

I think that having a Planned Parenthood on tribal land is a good loophole, and that women in the area will benefit from it. I hope that the tribe and the individuals involved are doing it for the right reasons.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2006


I fully support this and it happening across the country, but it could really come to naught with some concatenation of a Supereme Court ruling reversing Montana v. U.S. and making state law applicable as well as some fix in Congress.

The sovereignty afforded the Nations is not the same sovereignty afforded The Netherlands and has a long, varied and unique history of precedents. If there's a way to thread through that and make abortion bans pass through to reservations, you bet a conservative Congress will find it and enact it into law.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:31 AM on March 23, 2006


When I was at another agency I used to work extensively with the tribes in North and South Dakota. The kind of infighting and accusation of malfaesance in booksandlibretti's post is par for the course. I'm not commenting on whether Ms. Fire Thunder is or is not corrupt. I'm just saying that if you assume that every tribal official in Indian Country who has been accused of corruption is corrupt that would be just about every tribal official period.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 8:40 AM on March 23, 2006


The right to choose whether to have a child at any point up until the child is born is a cornerstone of the liberation of women from a previously subordinate role in society.

You have a right to choose to have sex. You have a right to choose to get pregnant (within reasonable probability). You are not slaves to your biology or your society unless you think you are.

Can we take it from this that your CD of indie rock love songs never actually did the trick for you then?

Because for most of us who actually have sex, reproduction isn't the point at all.


LOL. Then hopefully you are taking the appropriate measures, and thankfully you aren't reproducing, because that would be a tragedy. Bravo on the ad hominem, off-topic though.

While a sarcastic "yeah, sure" could possibly be construed as a valid argument- perhaps, say, if we were debating with schoolchildren- it tends to be considered lacking in veracity by most people who read above a first-grade level. Would you mind actually justifying your claim that President of an Indian tribe and Planned Parenthood are running a for-profit abortion slush fund? It would help in staving off any premature conclusions- rampant though they are amongst many on MetaFilter, myself included- that you're actually the dumbest fucking person on the planet. Thanks.

XQUZYPHYR: I wasn't saying that, I was arguing that the unqualified cheering for this woman is weak. Why do you suppose Planned Parenthood doesn't publish the salaries of their top administrators in their annual report. One wonders where that money went. I also pointed out that many people are in the abortion business simply for money. You conveniently ignored that, of course. In any event, I'm glad you think so highly of me.

That the SD laws bans abortion in cases of incest and rape pretty much torpedoes your "yuppie abortions of convenience" tripe. If you want to tell some 14-year-old raped and impregnated by her cousin about her "responsibilities", knock yourself out.

I never said that I agreed with the SD legislature, in fact I think abortion should absolutely be an option in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Beyond that, it's debatable. Which is part of what I'm doing. But most of what I'm doing is questioning how you all come off sounding like a bunch of fucking 7th graders watching Captain Planet and cheering 'yay Gaia.' Look, Planned Parenthood can still offer their much-vaunted 'services other than abortion' in South Dakota - and as for rape, incest, and life of the mother, if it's that crucial, then one can look out of state, or get an abortion the old way; have a private doctor quietly take care of it.
posted by tweak at 10:59 AM on March 23, 2006


what the hell are you talking about? I don't think anyone on this site has ever slammed Microsoft, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Healthcare (who?) simply for having a lot of money

mcsweetie: just as kirkaracha tries to point out that those opposed to abortion just don't want woment to get off, I suppose my argument was similarly off-topic and illogical.

I apologize for the off-the-cuff remark, at least that one, it's hard to keep track of it all when my politics, sex life, ethnic, religious, and economic background are all being importuned on MetaFilter. Lots of juggling required, but hey, at least I get to see how enlightened everyone here is, or at least separate the wheat from the chaff.
posted by tweak at 11:03 AM on March 23, 2006


The whole "take responsibility" schtick is tired and hopelessly myopic. Go back to the books and better learn your philosophy before you start spouting it off in public forums.

Non-argument. No justification whatsoever except to denigrate my supposed level of education, while you wear your liberal arts degree on your shoulder like a pretentious badge of honor that has no bearing on the real world, don't you Civil_Disobedient. Oooh, you took Philosophy 201 and studied teh Derrida? lol!1
posted by tweak at 11:05 AM on March 23, 2006


So, I guess you all are agreeing to disagree?

Can we get back to the reservation now?
posted by bz at 11:27 AM on March 23, 2006


tweak: I never said that I agreed with the SD legislature, in fact I think abortion should absolutely be an option in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Beyond that, it's debatable.

Rape and incest exceptions don't make any sense at all. So, if you think abortion is murder, it's ok to murder the children of incest and rape? And if you don't, why do you believe it should be illegal?

Rape/incest exceptions seem likely to be the result of people who want to punish women for having sex, since in those cases they think the woman is not responsible and should not be punished. It makes no sense at all if you believe fetuses are sentient beings and wish to save them.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:31 AM on March 23, 2006


zoogleplex writes "Of course, most Americans in general don't care much about the Indians, or most of them wouldn't live on reservations in appalling conditions of poverty."

Most people most places don't care in any meaningful way about anyone who isn't them or their family/tribe.

kirkaracha writes "Do abortion opponents really believe that abortion is murder, or is their goal to penalize women who have sex?"

Could be both.
posted by Mitheral at 11:54 AM on March 23, 2006


Interesting stuff.
I’d add only that - I don’t hit on married women. I don’t antagonize sleeping dogs. And man, I am NOT going to fuck around with any President named “Fire Thunder.”
posted by Smedleyman at 2:12 PM on March 23, 2006


People with the name Fire Thunder are safe, it's the guys named "sleeping cow" and "Sue" you have to watch out for.
posted by Mitheral at 2:50 PM on March 23, 2006


To be fair, tweak has fairly explicitly stated that his or her main concern is that people be punished for having sex, rather than a belief that the feotus is a little human.
posted by kyrademon at 3:04 PM on March 23, 2006


Non-argument. [+ Personal Attack]

Pot, meet kettle.

Like I said, you really need to work on your presentation. Maybe you could put some PowerPoint slides together.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:51 AM on March 24, 2006


Maybe you could boil it down to the salient bullet points about philosophy that you learned in community college, you mendacious wanker.
posted by tweak at 9:15 AM on March 24, 2006


DaShiv writes "All this tsk-tsk rhetoric about the 'natural consequences of sex' is just self-indulgent wanking. "


Maybe if we taught self-indulgent wanking in the schools, we'd have less unplanned pregnancies?
posted by orthogonality at 9:16 AM on March 24, 2006


hey kirkaracha, thanks for that great link.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 11:00 AM on March 24, 2006


Update: Planned Parenthood says thanks, but no thanks.
posted by booksandlibretti at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2006


« Older The Great Stalacpipe Organ....  |  Google has quietly improved th... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments