Calling for a Boycott of the fundamentalist State of South Dakota

Try Tourism


Bye Bye money

Besides more than likely the citizens of the state would had voted it down but the Fundies forced the state house and impotent governor to go along and will probably had flooded the state with new citizens, just enought to get it passed.

The Federal Govt is only suppose to exist BECAUSE of State Governments...not vice versa. The Federal Govt is not suppose to be the Mommy and Daddy for the States. But I fully support your right to express _your_ disagreement with SD.

Besides, I'd rather see a girl cot. ;-P

Gov. Rounds Signs Bill Banning Most S.D. Abortions

Monday, March 06, 2006

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Click here to read the text of the bill (pdf).

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. 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," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,186961,00.html

We know what the Incompetent and Impotent South Dakota governor did. Quite criminal actually and its impeachable. He is breaking the Law (Row V Wade 1973 is the Law he is breaking)

Hah. Liked the postscript. ty for the giggle.

Roe V Wade is not a law, it is a court ruling. The Supreme Court can not make laws.

Don't you really think the kind of people that go to SD on vacation already agree with this? The majority of people, while they think abortion should be legal, aren't al that passionate about it. I wouldn't deny my family a vacation we planned over some abortion law that doesn't affect me and I really don't care about.

You've been there 3 times? Damn! They must have a statue of you in Pierre.

I would :hrug::

You were planning on visiting SD this year? Seriously? I mean, come on. The people that are like OMG WTF is SD thinking, would never set foot in that state anyway.

No its the law. The Congress said so. The Judicary Act of 1791 and other acts say so.

I've gone through South Dakota on road trips before and spent my money there. Now I'd likely plan my route another way.

If I were you I would plan my trips that had to cross a strip of land running from North Dakota to Texas, by going up into canada, driving over this Fundamentalist strip and then coming back into the US on either side of these Fundamentalist states.

Doesn't democracy and freedom of religion suck when it's not your opinion and chosen religion?

No, she's right. The Supreme Court does not pass laws. Roe V Wade is many things, "disgraceful proof of our fucked up legal system" among them, but it's not a law.

I could I suppose. But then I miss seeing the Grand Tetons.

Anti-abortionists are very familiar with the 14th Amendment. However, we choose to apply it to the unborn child as well.

-Kiamat Dusk

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

While I'm sure you familiarized yourself with the South Dakota State Constitution before you wrote that, merely passing stupid laws is not illegal or unconstitutional. Even passing a law which flies in the face of federal court precedent is not illegal, simply a waste of the people's money and the legislature's time, since it will likely be blocked by an emergency injunction and therefore never take effect.

It's not illegal to be a moron.



Nope.
In fact, I think I actually just enriched my cultural experience, go me.

Contribute to a pro-choice legal defense fund. It'll be more effective.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Think tactically about what South Dakota has done. We've had additions to the high court. It was inevitable that abortion opponents would seek to move the issue to the high court.

But their approach is tactically unsound. They chose the most draconian, over-the-top legislation as a test case. A piece-by-piece approach would have been more likely to accomplish their goals. Supporters of Roe should not fear this coming to the high court.

Abortion opponents aren't morons or evil. They simply have different views. Many of us prefer that those views not become the law of the land.

Suddenly being all accepting of other's opinions and how they came to them now, are we?

This statement is the most simple, to the point argument FOR separation of church and state. Thank you.

Revisit 8th grade, Row v Wade is not a law. Do you understand how the system works at all?


They have passed this law, not because they really think it will stand, but they want to take it to the supreme court in an effort to get a different rulling than Roe V Wade or to nullify it. The reason Roe v Wade was brought to the supreme court was because of laws like this, they are attemping to challenge it again. The Supreme court rules on interpeting the law, they can not pass laws, they can not sign laws into order. They are supposed to be the check that balances Congress and the Executive branch. You learn this in 8th grade in the United States. If you don't understand the concepts we can make a thread, and also link a some cartoons, "I'm just a bill...".