Bad Day in the Bad Lands

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed the state abortion ban, which bars all abortions without exception except to preserve the life of the mother. Doctors who violate the law face five years in prison. Although the law will surely be stayed by the courts, this should be a real Aha! moment for the women of South Dakota. Now they know they live in a state that values them only as incubators of fertilized eggs--even when fertilized by rapists. That's valuable information! It's a real Aha! moment for us all, actually--turns out the anti-choice movement really means it when they talk about abortion as murder. While Gov. Rounds and President Bush expressed their preference for the strategy of nibbling away at Roe--a much shrewder political tactic that Democrats are always recommending to Republican strategists--the antis went for the whole pie. Why? Because they're fanatics on a mission from God. They think birth control is abortion too.

If you want to get a sense of what's at stake in the war against legal abortion, take a look at How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex by Cristina Page (Basic Books). It's short and sweet and shrewd and funny, and makes a persuasive case that what is at stake is not just the right of women to terminate pregnancies, but modern sexuality and family life, from the very idea of sex for pleasure not procreation to flexible gender roles in marriage. Page packs in an amazing amount of factual information into 168 pages. Did you know, for example, that one effect of parental notification/consent laws is to push abortions later, as 17 year olds decide to wait till they turn 18 and don't need a permission slip for the doctor? And did you know that not one major pro-life organization has an official policy supporting "artificial" contraception? No wonder those well-meaning attempts to find "common ground" never get anywhere.

Comments (44)

1. Could the RNC choose a more expendable state to fire up it's base? What, 2 electoral votes? It's a no lose situation to get this before SCOTUS. Politically, they're without peer, managerially, they're without a clue.

   Posted by TOBYL at 03/06/2006 @ 6:07pm

2. It is puzzling to me that there isn't more outrage from women on this issue, but more importantly there doesn't appear to be a strategy or plan to counter this type of illiberal action as represented by the deeds of the South Dakota politicos.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/06/2006 @ 6:14pm

3. sorry, 3 electoral votes. what a gamble.

   Posted by TOBYL at 03/06/2006 @ 6:19pm

4. The main point here is that states are going to claim their right to decide this law.

   Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 6:37pm

5. well, at least we will get to find out where alito and roberts really stand

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/06/2006 @ 7:07pm

6. Any comment from Tim Johnson?

   Posted by Mask at 03/06/2006 @ 7:27pm

7. and you know it's the extreme wing of the party that states:

   "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

   doesn't the governor have advisors to tell him that, should this bill ultimately succeed, a state-level crisis will ensue? i mean, let's face it, legal or illegal, if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one, even if it means borrowing money, telling her father she's going to a friend's place for the weekend, and travelling 1,000 miles to get one. is this what south dakota wants for its young women?

   the other (deeper) question is this: does life really have value? the anti-choice crowd, in general, says YES, life does have value. every life.

   well, every life cannot have value, otherwise there's no such thing as value.

   so, some lives must have more value than others. in the case of a woman who wants an abortion, obviously her life has more value than a fetus. end of story.

   and why are anti-choice people so obsessed with every single possibility of life? i mean, let's just take this scenario. right now, i could impregnate 10 different women. in 9 months, we could have 10 new babies. now why the fuck would i want to do that?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/06/2006 @ 8:48pm

8. I would like to pose the following request:

   All good (to moderately good) looking black, hispanic, oriental, native american, middle- eastern, mongolian men, etc. should be given Ferraris (or some such monster machine) as well as a wad of cash and should be given an opportunity to spend a week in any state that seeks to restrict abortion.

   Let's see if this is really about abortion.

   It's just a one week experiment and well worth the effort to look in our national mirror.

   Posted by AmeriPundit at 03/06/2006 @ 10:05pm

9. What the heck- throw in the guys who aren't that good looking as well.

   The only criteria is that they're not white.

   Posted by AmeriPundit at 03/06/2006 @ 10:06pm

10. Ameripundit,

    Can you send all the non white good looking women to Nebraska?,ah... send the good looking white girls here too...for 1 week or more, and we will see what(?) on abortion? ;)

    Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 10:13pm

11. I am troubled by the rape and incest clause...why should a victim of a crime be punished? I don't think a woman should be forced to deliver in case of rape or incest... I have a problem with abortion as birth control and also do not feel the state has a say so in it at all, also, I have a daughter and have found my opinions drift on this subject....I am totally split and confused by my own opinions...yikes..I am a libertarian and split...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 10:18pm

12. ah... send the good looking white girls here too...for 1 week or more, and we will see what(?) on abortion? ;)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2006 @ 10:13pm

    Is that why you hate women? Are there no good looking women in nebraska?

    Who do you guys breed with? Livestock? Is this the ultimate source of fundyvangelist/neo-cons?

    Seriously, what are you implying? Your average white girl would prefer backwards rednecks, who don't veiw her as an equal to darker skinned guys in ferraris, with wads of cash?

    I've think they've figured out all the breeding with livestock hasn't increased neo-con girth any. Bet they gamble on the guy, who appears to be overcompensating with his car.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/06/2006 @ 10:26pm

13. I don't think a woman should be forced to deliver in case of rape or incest...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2006 @ 10:18pm

    Please help me understand, how 'abortion is murder'. How these doctors have 'the blood of innocents' on their hands. How 'every life, starting at conception, has value'.

    Then in the same breath, "well, if she was raped..." How does this mitagate murder (Which, of course, I don't believe it is) How can it be ok?

    If life begins at conception and my mother was raped, am I still a disposable 'life' at this point? Or did my 'status' somehow change at some point, during gestation.

    I don't expect JM to respond, as I am always trashing his views. Any anti-choicer, who could explain that, though. Please do.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/06/2006 @ 10:33pm

14. Eric,

    I am just stating that I have torn feelings on abortion issue...after reading your response to me, I have no idea what you are bitching about..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 10:39pm

15. We are talking about a woman's right to choose being abrogated by a bunch of pasty- faced white men (and their Stepford women).

    Sorry, "choose" does not mean "choose to kill". It means "choose to have some semblance of control over what one's own body goes through, what one's mind goes through, and what one's future may hold".

    Any knuckledragger that doesn't understand that should be (as in this case) raped (by a stranger or their father- "step" included), forced to carry that memory to conception, and then provide for their precious little one on their own (since presumably, the rapist won't be around for pre-school, much less, college).

    I wish for the day when black people determine what laws to enforce and women get to decide when a man should be given a vasectomy (or perhaps- a castration).

    I will suffer, but there is a charm in Karma. I will get to laugh at the fat f**ks who make these decisions rather than balancing a budget, providing jobs, ensuring that healthcare is available, etc. (all the things they're elected to do).

    Plus, you can't beat walking through hell with Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson.

    Posted by AmeriPundit at 03/06/2006 @ 10:44pm

16. Actually,

    All I have said is that SD is trying to determine its own policy on abortion and not abide by federal standard. I have no idea if they can do so.

    I also am saying, without preaching to one side or the other, that I am torn between my own views on abortion. Thats it. Nothing more and nothing less.

    No opinion and I am having a battle within myself on the abortion issue.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2006 @ 11:36pm

17. imagine this scenario:

    my partner and i are planning on pro-creating this afternoon. we hop in bed, pull out the lube, and start humping. seconds before i'm about to spew, the phone abruptly rings. we lose our rhythm, and i decide to answer the phone. it's my mother.

    was that sperm i was about to spew a catalyst to a potential life? and if we began humping again later that afternoon, would that potential life appear any different from the previous potential life (had that previous potential life seen the light of day)?

    these sorts of scenarios really beg the question: if life can be created at virtually any time and space, does life then have any intrinsic value?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2006 @ 12:06am

18. boycott south dakota products: iams, gateway computers, citibank.

    refuse to visit there. they need tourism. bypass south dakota. the south dakota department of tourism: (605) 773-3301, www.travelSD.com, the south dakota department of state development: (605) 777-5032, www.sdgreatprofits.com

    let them know this will hurt them in more ways than one.

    the following is a cut and paste from daily kos:

    Here is a nuclear option for bloggers. Here are 40 companies with a presence of over 50 workers in South Dakota. Most of these companies have from 2-300 workers, some have workers in the thousands. All are exporters. Copy and paste this list and write a generic leter against buying their exports.

    cr_supply@yebb.com, info@aaladin.com, amtool@nvc.net, bpisales@pionet.net, roger@blackhillsgold.us, bhgcco@bhgcoleman.com, acy.smith@gateway.com, atay@hti.htch.com, kobermiller@american-foods.com, mike.klein@daviscofoods.com, mgraham@bell-inc.com, ezhealth@siouxvalley.net, brenda.polzin@apex-carex.com, mtrgold@teamridco.com, info@stamperbhg.com, sdgold@rapidnet.com, ccl@cclind.com, bramecsales@bramec.com, vlarson@customcoils.com, oem@oemworldwide.com, info@ravenind.com, t-r@t-r.com, prince@princehyd.com, johgro@ppdusa.com, lte@luvernetruck.com, kolee@kolee.com, internationalsales@hubcityinc.com, info@chicago-rawhide.com, info@angus-palm.com, falcon@falconplasticsinc.com, trussbilt@trussbilt.com

    Posted by loveloki at 03/07/2006 @ 12:22am

19. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/07/2006 @ 12:22am

    boycott south dakota products: iams, gateway computers, citibank.

    refuse to visit there.

    I think you've got the right idea. As the saying goes, "Money talks. Hit 'em where it hurts."

    Posted by scoff0165 at 03/07/2006 @ 07:06am

20. This is going to get exciting this year! The rabid woman enslavers are jumping up and down about some state giving them the right to enslave any woman that conceives by any means even rape or incest.

    The pro-slavery faction will never have any moral standing until they hold the liberty of women to equal protection before the law, and not treat them as chattel to be forced into becoming broodmothers by anyone sick enough to rape them.

    Posted by Guiles at 03/07/2006 @ 11:52am

21. I think its time that those of us who don't believe abortion is murder start calling antiabortionists what they really are - proslavery. It's only fair that we return the rhetorical favors they have bestowed on us.

    Posted by Guiles at 03/07/2006 @ 11:54am

22. Just in case it wasn't clear, the guy suggesting sending hot non-white guys to South Dakota for a week was implying that fundie foes of reproductive rights are often white supremacists, as well, so give them enough incentive (oh my god a brown grandchild!) and you might see some born again feminists in the heartland.

    His comment was of questionable taste (and redolent of the stinky "Crash"), but I like the observation that for the extremists this is about so, so much more than reproductive rights.

    Posted by leftbehinds at 03/07/2006 @ 1:23pm

23. Pollitt wrote: this should be a real Aha! moment for the women of South Dakota. Now they know they live in a state that values them only as incubators of fertilized eggs

    This is so offensively condescending.

    I used to love KP, but her unedited Notion posts are often really revealing. Has she ever spent one second in a flyover state? Her disdain for regular Americans is palpable. Does she really think teenage girls in South Dakota are the ones championing this legislation? Or perhaps they're just stupid hicks too ignorant to stop and think about their role in society. Because God knows if they just read a Kath Pollitt op-ed, there's nothing else stopping them from glorious self-determination.

    Posted by leftbehinds at 03/07/2006 @ 1:32pm

24. Leftbehinds - if WA outlawed abortion, that would be a real "Ah-ha!" moment for me, as I would realize I lived in a state that valued the contents of my womb over my rights as a person - that isn't an a-ha! moment for you? I think I'm just not understanding why you have quite such a large problem with what she wrote - I didn't think she was implying either that SD girls are supporting this legislation or that they're stupid hicks who don't realize their role in society.

    Posted by LClaire at 03/07/2006 @ 2:57pm

25. Kerry 04 should have made this crystal clear, "If dumb-ass W. gets re-elected, Roe will be overturned, creating social and economic hardship in this country the likes of which we haven't seen in over 50 years." That's not a fear tactic (ala GOP), that's REALITY.

    I agree with ORAIBI, it is puzzling why more women aren't outraged. I think women, particularly post-Roe in their twenties and thirties, share a national "won't happen" syndrome. I can only assume this is going to change fairly quickly, in which case I have full confidence that women will champion their rights once again. I appreciate the enlightened comments of what appears to be (can't really tell from the url nicknames) mostly men posting.

    from an outraged woman...

    p.s. IBBLEBIBBLE, were you kidding when you suggested we'll "see" where Alito and Roberts stand? I'm guessing yes.

    Posted by kfine at 03/07/2006 @ 4:50pm

26. Yeah, as opposed to Kerry's really pansy assed comments when he was asked about abortion during the debates - but I appreciate that he was in kind of a tough spot, there.

    Posted by LClaire at 03/07/2006 @ 4:54pm

27. LEFTBEHINDS,

    LCLAIRE is right. KP isn't assuming SD women are hicks! If anyone is assuming that it's their Governor! The footprints of special interest groups are on the back of SD women.

    Posted by kfine at 03/07/2006 @ 4:57pm

28. I believe that there is no stigma attached to abortion - anyone have any ideas on how that could be the generally accepted opinion? Afterall, conservatives made "liberal" a derogatory term. Why can't we change the way people think? Any more outraged women out there want to join KFINE & I? (not that you guys didn't do a good job)

    Posted by LClaire at 03/07/2006 @ 6:32pm

29. People can stigmatize (unfortunately) or even be conflicted (like John Maasch above) just keep abortion legal and stay out of my uterus.

    Here's a proposal: There is an antiandrogen drug called LUPRON which (at the right dose) reduces testosterone in men and causes impotence. Let's give that drug to all boys at the onset of puberty and take them off of it on their wedding night. Problem solved. No erections, no sex, no sperm, no unwanted pregnancies, no abortions. Done. Stop the problem at the source.

    The religious right would have to embrace this idea unless their fight is not really about the the aborted embryos, but about sexuality and controlling women after all! Anyone outraged by the above example, or anyone who thinks it's completely ridiculous, could possibly begin to understand the outrage of most women at decisions of men with respect to women's bodies.

    Posted by kfine at 03/07/2006 @ 6:49pm

30. LEFTBEHINDS,

    That's exactly what I was suggesting. However, as you can see, even the sledgehammer approach I used was lost on some.

    Posted by AmeriPundit at 03/07/2006 @ 6:49pm

31. Kfine,

    I have a 14 year old boy and a 13 year old daughter..where can I get some LUPRON. I will gladly pay for it to be put in the drinking water at schools...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 7:34pm

32. It doesn't matter what SD does, as any other state allows abortion, then it will be available and legal....therefore, abortion will never be illegal unless all states vote no,...an unlikely senario.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 7:38pm

33. "therefore, abortion will never be illegal unless all states vote no"

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2006 @ 7:38pm

    Close.

    "therefore, abortion will never be illegal ( for those who can afford to have a baby anyway) unless all states vote no"

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/07/2006 @ 8:24pm

34. Eric,

    While technically true it is highly unlikely or probable. Too many want to keep abortion legal, more than don't...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 8:39pm

35. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2006 @ 8:39pm

    I guess, at the moment, you could go to ND. But if this spreads, it'll resemble a blue/red stae thing and the least able to be decent parents, will be the most likely to have a baby.

    Plus, your rights and liberties need to apply to all states. Anything less, is tantamount to secession. This would not be good.

    When I refer to 'revolution', I don't mean in a literal, war like sense. We would all lose. (Besides all our soldiers are in different countries...but we're not an empire, we're a ... nevermind.)

    I appreciate your 'inner battle'. Just remember, no matter the outcome, your opinion should not be legislated unto others. (It may appear as though I want my opinion legislated. But in fact, I want no legislation on womens bodies. Or mine for that matter.)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/07/2006 @ 8:57pm

36. To John Maasch and all of the other male scribblers:

    You don't get pregnant. Either support a woman's right to control her own body or shut up.

    As you don't get pregnant, you have no business in this issue. How would you like society to take control of your testicles and penis?

    In fact, it might be a good thing, as long as all of the law makers were women. We'd have no rapes and fewer unwanted pregnancies.

    - a woman who is tired of all the male pontificators in an issue in which they have NO knowledge. These pontificators never pay the price in blood or pain or ripping of flesh..........

    Posted by pamcghee at 03/07/2006 @ 9:56pm

37. Pamghee,

    Lets be honest here how about all those female Republican Senators and Congresspersons (and some Dems)that have marched along in lockstep with their misogynist male party members? What about that cruel Phylis Schlafly who practically single handedly defeated the equal right amendment? I am not gloating here. I am sad that those women have no spirit of sisterhood...which we used to think in the late 60's and seventies would not be the case. Instead we thought that if we could only get more women in office it would really be meaningful for women's liberation and society in all its aspects. Here in the U.S. it does not appear to be the case.

    I'm so sorry and sad about this.

    Joseph

    Posted by Rosalinda at 03/07/2006 @ 11:59pm

38. ...abortion will never be illegal unless all states vote no,...an unlikely senario.

    Unless SCOTUS decides the unborn fetus is a person -- then it will have status under civil rights laws, thus making it unlawful to end a pregnancy. And that, btw, is precisely what the court would decide should it uphold this law -- because if the fetus doesn't have the status of personhood, under what legal theory could abortion be banned in any state? This would be true even if they wanted to slough it off to the states to decide: The priveleges and immunities and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment -- the same ones fretted over by the right when it comes to gay marriage being allowed in any state -- would be dragged in to negate abortions in states where it is lawful.

    Posted by johngwrn at 03/08/2006 @ 12:21am

39. Pam,

    Not always true...A womwn gets pregnant and man wants to keep it ..he has no say so..if woman wants it and man does not, man get the bill for years...somehow if woman has total choice, why can man say ..hey your bOdy your choice...I AM OUT...

    I know it is an immoral arguement but I have heard this before..so the man has no say so in anything except his dollars?...help

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 12:58am

40. John Maasch,

    LUPRON is available in any pharmacy for the treatment of prostate cancer among other things. It's not indicated for the drastic example I intended to make above.

    It's wise to be concerned about our young sons as you are. I believe for the radical religious right, this is "about women". But young men will pay dearly and not just dollars. We're now in the DNA age, so boys will not simply be able to go off to college while the girls are stuck in the hometown with the baby. And when states ban abortion except for rape and incest, rape allegations are going to skyrocket. (Probably by the very families who swore "they'd never have an abortion" until of course they're faced with the situation.)

    As the mother of two girls, in this climate where their reproducive rights are threatened, I feel the tools in my arsenal are birth control and the morning after pill. BUT GUESS WHAT FOLKS! THOSE ARE THE NEXT TARGETS OF THE RADICAL RIGHT!

    Posted by kfine at 03/08/2006 @ 07:47am

41. According to my religion, a fetus isn't a baby until it's born and survives. The potential mother, on the other hand, is a living human being and should have some rights.

    Then there's the argument that if men could get pregnant, obortion would be a sacrament.

    Posted by jagoddess at 03/08/2006 @ 11:17am

42. "Then there's the argument that if men could get pregnant:"

    Actually, if men could get pregnant, the species would soon die out........

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2006 @ 12:42pm

43. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2006 @ 12:58am

    Wow. What an injustice. A woman who has to carry a baby to term, then raise it to adulthood or give it up for adoption after delivering it (and perhaps losing job/disrupting education.) Whether she wants to or not. She cannot just walk away.

    Vs. a man. Who had an orgasm. And now has the knowledge that his DNA was spread around and, this time, didn't dry up and die someplace. IF he chooses to aknowledge it.

    The baby you raise, is your child. DNA is meaningless in such a context. Ask any adopted/adoptive person.

    What if you found out an old girlfriend had your baby and didn't tell you? Would you be magically transformed into this childs daddy?

    The only semi-point you have here, is about the money. (Oh yea, you're a 'conservative', it's all about the money.)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/08/2006 @ 1:52pm

44. Bottom line, a woman's right to choose, and to have every form of support she needs in whatever choice she makes. Bottom line. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is a concept that totally eludes the right once it moves outside the definitions of money, property, or the hope in some eternal life that nobody knows anything about. Bottom line, a woman's right to choose, and to have every form of support she needs in whatever choice she makes.

    Posted by Legba at 03/08/2006 @ 8:30pm