A Win for Women

A Win for Women

Thanks to a thoughtful grassroots campaign, voters in South Dakota rejected a draconian abortion ban.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

By a whopping twelve points, voters in South Dakota have rejected a draconian ban on abortions, which would have outlawed the procedure in every instance except to save the life of the mother. This was an important defeat for the grassroots right-wing quest to overturn Roe v. Wade. It had a spillover effect, too, costing Republicans a seat in the House of Representatives and several state legislators. The outcome was all the more welcome because the campaign was a critical test of prochoice strategy: Could democracy–something reproductive rights organizations have often feared–be a better guardian of our rights than the legislature or the courts?

“This has been such a judicially focused movement,” says Lindsay Roitman, campaign manager of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the coalition against the ban. Taking the abortion ban, which had been enacted by the legislature but was not yet in effect, to the voters, she says, was “a huge risk, one that people were questioning even until last week.” The victory is even more impressive given that, as Roitman points out, “this is not just a red state but a deeply religious state.”

What worked in South Dakota? First, prochoice activists paid close attention to local political culture and talked about things that mattered to fellow South Dakotans. “It was not ‘Our Bodies, Our Choice,’ or ‘Get Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries,'” laughs Roitman. Instead, they emphasized the idea that government shouldn’t interfere in deeply personal decisions. Second, good old-fashioned organizing worked. The Campaign for Healthy Families had more than 2,000 volunteers knocking on doors and standing on street corners. In every county where the campaign had an office and a grassroots volunteer operation, prochoice forces prevailed. Abortion “has been treated as such a black-and-white issue,” says Roitman. “We got people to have conversations about the gray area.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x