Dakotans for Health occasionally pays me for nerd work. Dakotans for Health has never paid me to write posts on Dakota Free Press. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have never had me on payroll. But even if PP and the ACLU wrote me a million-dollar check, I’d still tell them they are wrong on this issue.
Representative Jon Hansen and the “Decline to Sign” petition blockers have been saying the abortion-rights amendment that Dakotans for Health is working to place on the 2024 ballot is more extreme than Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood now says the proposed amendment doesn’t do enough to protect for abortion rights:
“Constitutional amendments are serious and expensive undertakings that must be initiated after due diligence and input from those who would be impacted the most,” wrote Tim Stanley, Planned Parenthood North Central States vice president of public affairs.
“As the sole abortion provider in South Dakota for more than 30 years,” he continued, “Planned Parenthood is acutely aware of the impact policy language can have on patients’ lives. We stand with our partners at ACLU of South Dakota and do not support the amendment as drafted because we don’t believe it will adequately reinstate the right to abortion in South Dakota” [Joshua Haiar, “Abortion Rights Groups Don’t Support Ballot Measure That Aims to Restore Abortion Access,” South Dakota Searchlight, 2023.12.06].
Now I have to admit: I kind of agree. If I held the constitutional pen, I’d write, “The right of women to conceive, control, and terminate their pregnancies shall not be denied.” No trimester or viability complications, no intrusions of the state, no dictates from impregnators or second-guessing from doctors. If you’re pregnant, if the fetus is in your body, it’s your business, not mine, not anyone else’s, and not the state’s.
But I didn’t write that amendment. I didn’t put that amendment on a petition and start collecting signatures to call a vote as soon as possible following the Dobbs decision in June 2022 and its immediate triggering of South Dakota’s draconian abortion ban. I could’ve, but I didn’t.
Neither did Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has vast resources. In the year and a half from the time the Alito Court leaked the Dobbs decision to the deadline last month for submitting initiated amendment language, Planned Parenthood could have mustered the advisors and lawyers and stakeholders to have serious conversations about more effective language to restore abortion rights in South Dakota at the earliest possible opportunity—i.e., the 2024 election, with voter-approved ballot measures to be enacted on July 1, 2025. They could have tapped their national organization and network of donors for the money necessary to collect 35,017 signatures on an initiative petition and prepare for a statewide campaign.
But Planned Parenthood didn’t.
Neither did the American Civil Liberties Union, which is joining Planned Parenthood in disdaining the circulating abortion-rights measure:
“We are not telling people to donate, or volunteer,” said Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. “We are staying out of it. We’re not telling people to vote no or yes” [Haiar, 2023.12.06].
Well, at least her not comes before her verb and not after people. But when an advocacy group does not advocate, many followers read that as the same thing as opposition.
Neither did an alternative amendment come from the South Dakota Justice Empowerment Network, which claims it felt shut out of the process:
Kim Floren is the co-founder and director of the South Dakota Justice Empowerment Network, which helps South Dakotans seeking abortions. She said the drafting of the measure was rushed.
“Advocates wanted to pause and do some research, complete some polling first, figure out the best language for a bill in this state,” Floren said. “Dakotans for Health didn’t want to wait for any of that” [Haiar, 2023.12.06].
Cathy Piersol and Jan Nicolay, veteran campaigners for women’s rights in South Dakota, refute the claim that Dakotans for Health, led by Rick Weiland of Sioux Falls, rushed ahead without inviting input from interested groups:
“It’s simply not true that those groups did not have input,” Piersol said.
She said the idea of pursuing a ballot measure with Dakotans for Health came from former South Dakota legislator Jan Nicolay, who helped lead efforts to defeat abortion bans in 2006 and 2008. The 2006 ballot measure would have banned abortions except to save the life of the mother, and the 2008 ballot measure would have banned abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest.
Nicolay felt compelled to take action when the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision was leaked.
“We sat around and waited for someone to surface, to take the lead and go forward,” she said.
Early meetings on the ballot measure, according to Nicolay, “included everybody.”
“Planned Parenthood was there, ACLU was there,” she said. “And we were not there to take over. We were just trying to create some structure for leadership.”
Ultimately, Nicolay said, “None of them was willing to take on the ballot measure.”
“That includes the ACLU and Planned Parenthood,” she said. “Rick Weiland stood up” [Haiar, 2023.12.06].
The ACLU at this point resorts to the remarkable claim that old women and men in general aren’t to be trusted as advocates of reproductive rights:
Chapman, of the ACLU, said the ballot measure was initiated by “women who are not of reproductive age” and said “Dakotans for Health is ultimately run by three white men. None of these people are directly affected by this.”
Nicolay disagreed with that assessment.
“No three men led this,” Nicolay said. “I’m sorry, but that’s very offensive to me and misleading.”
Nicolay, who is 81, also said passing the measure “has nothing to do with whether or not I can get pregnant. It’s about the right to choose” [Haiar, 2023.12.06].
But ignore the claims about personalities and process. Let’s focus on the relevant facts:
- Right now, women in South Dakota have no right to abortion. They can’t legally terminate their pregnancies, even if their pregnancies are causing them great harm.
- Dakotans for Health began drafting its amendment in May 2022, immediately after Dobbs was leaked, and it became public in June 2022.
- Dakotans for Health could not legally circulate its petition until November 2022.
- Any people who saw weaknesses or errors in the proposed amendment could have proposed better language to the amendment’s sponsors.
- Any people who felt the amendment’s sponsors were not open to input or cooperation could have written their own superior amendment, rallied the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, JEN, and other advocates, and launched their own petition drive.
- No one else has made such an effort.
- The only way to restore women’s reproductive rights in South Dakota by July 1, 2025, is the Dakotans for Health Roe v. Wade amendment.
- If you did not launch a petition drive to place reproductive rights on the 2024 ballot, and if you are opposing the one petition drive seeking such a vote, you are saying to South Dakota women, “Tough shiskey: you have to go at least two more years with no right to abortion.”
The Dakotans for Health amendment writes into the South Dakota Constitution, where the Legislature could not touch it, the language of Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed women in South Dakota and across the country abortion rights for 49 years. It’s not my ideal language, but it works. It would substantively restore women’s right to control their pregnancies in South Dakota, and it would provide the basis for further advocacy and reform to broaden reproductive rights in South Dakota. There is no reason to make South Dakota women wait for the chance to take back their rights.
Anyone saying otherwise is doing the work of Jon Hansen and his anti-abortion cabal, keeping abortion illegal in South Dakota for at least another couple years.
7. Republican politicians drive their anti-woman crusade to raise campaign dollars so ending reproductive rights in red states is Balkanizing women’s health care.
Kurtz, I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in growing tired of your rather useless remarks.
That said, I am astounded at the pettiness and wrongheadedness of two of my (formerly) favorite political action groups, PP and ACLU. More than astounded. I am downright wallkicking mad. What is the MATTER with those people?
Bob, there are exactly eleven tenets that describe reproductive rights in red states and it’s my calling to drive them home.
I’m sorry this is happening. We couldn’t wait and Dakotans 4 Health stepped up. We can’t allow the opposition to exploit any chinks in our unity. This is bigger than all of us. These doubts need to be strangled before the election so we can wipe the satisfied little smirk off Jon jon’s mug. Stick with our guns and rest assured; white guys and ripely-aged women are some of the best allies this side of the Cheyenne River. They have the influence, experience and stacks we need.
The other organizations should know better. Either step aside or join. But don’t publicly oppose. We are in this together.
Look, any proposal can be criticized, but Chapman’s criticism that women past menopause should not be involved in writing such legislation is ridiculous. I’m not a fan of complicated initiatives. I’d like it to be simpler, but I get why it has more words than I would prefer.
PP and ACLU didn’t have the ovaries to get involved in this effort. Others did. That this comes from grassroots South Dakotans, rather than out-of-state groups, is a big, big plus.
From my previous life studying organizational behavior, I learned that (scientifically studied and demonstrated) leadership does NOT require agreement to be affected. It requires only a submission to the leader, willingly, consciously, or NOT. 4 years of Trumpian pettiness (8 if you count initial and subsequent campaigning) have led the entire nation’s culture (again, not dependent on agreement, or even conscious willingness to follow) into an era of petty grievances taking center stage. A leader (again, consciously agreed with or not) sets the tone for the whole of the organization. In the case we are all generally here to discuss, that is the often tone of the culture of the nation as a whole. Just sayin’.
correction – “…..often the tone……”
Looks like magat strategy at work. Turn like minded contemporaries against each other.
Although I very muck like Cory’s wording better, doesn’t mirroring Roe language give us the benefit of knowing exactly what that verbiage means after 50 years of legal precedent? What is left to challenge or appeal in the courts about how that language works? It also has the benefit that voters are not being asked for something they are unfamiliar with.
Frankly, I’m surprised that PP and ACLU don’t have boilerplate reproductive freedom language that was behind the in-case-of-emergency-break glass.
The fence sitters at Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Justice Empowerment Network earned our contempt. They’ve done nothing to reverse Dobbs in South Dakota.
Anyone who believes the demonic South Dakota Legislature will allow reproductive rights for women in my home state is delusional.
Left eats left.
Another great article.
Bob Newland is a Libertarian and not a leftist.
I’m a left-handed libertarian.
I just advised SoDak PP that I will not be sending them any more donations until they endorse the Dakotans for Health abortion rights initiative.
I think if a dozen people who have given money to SDPP similarly advise them, that they might start peeing backwards on their stupid announcement.
“If I held the constitutional pen, I’d write, “The right of women to conceive, control, and terminate their pregnancies shall not be denied.” No trimester or viability complications, no intrusions of the state, no dictates from impregnators or second-guessing from doctors.”
The most grotesque and indefensible of all positions.
If you think a 9th month abortion for convenience isn’t a murder you’re a despicable, sub-human monster.
Hey Neal, tell that to Bibi Netanyahu.
Okay, Neal, at what point in pregnancy does it shift from the removal of an unwanted invader in one’s abdomen (justifiable self-defense) to murder?
The question should be: How many potential gas station clerks have you shot off into a sock to die for your convenience?
Bossman- consider SD PP notified.
I hope the left eats the left until it’s so far left, it becomes one big fat anarchist. However, there is no left. There is moderate. Your head would explode if you knew what a real progressive left party looked like.
Neal, just to clarify, do you agree that abortion is not despicable at some stage of the pregnancy? (If so,) What marks that boundary between OK and not OK?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pregnant-woman-texas-gets-court-order-abortion-rcna128537
eff Texass magats.
https://theconversation.com/glyphosate-the-active-ingredient-in-the-weedkiller-roundup-is-showing-up-in-pregnant-women-living-near-farm-fields-that-raises-health-concerns-213636
magats will likely believe glyphosphate babies will be immune from the effects of pot.
Anyone that thinks women get “a 9th month abortion for convenience” is delusional.
I dont think they are delusional; I think they are lying. Hanlon’s razor can eat a fat one here.
Dicta: About what are they lying?
They dont believe women flippantly get abortions until month 9. No sane person would. But they need such a strawman because such a glib hypothetical.makes an easy villain.
Hey, Cory is the one arguing for its permissibility, not me.
Neal, you objected to a critically small element of Cory’s stance (the 9th month abortion on a whim) as being despicable. My question was one of clarification: is that the only element of abortion you find despicable or is there more? I’m just feeling out your objection. Others have taken to task your selective outrage — my question was to find out how selective (or general) your outrage is.
Texass criminal AG has not so gently reminded doctors, hospitals, clinics that violations of Texass abortion laws has heavy consequences if any of them perform abortion on woman recently granted an emergency abortion order.
Neal, totally defensible, because I trust women to make wide, moral decisions about their own bodies and because I recognize that I have no right to make such decisions for them.
And I agree with BCB, Dicta, and O that the notion of whimsical 9-month abortions is a strawman. Abortions “moments before birth” don’t happen. Third-trimester abortions are rare, expensive, and almost invariably motivated by extreme circumstances where the state’s only business should be helping the pregnant woman receive necessary care rather than interfering with her autonomy and putting her life at risk.
South Dakota’s total abortion ban, its relegation of women to second-class citizenship, and its endangerment of women’s lives is despicable. So is Planned Parenthood’s and the ACLU’s willingness to let that morally despicable status quo persist unchallenged for another two years.
In the end, women will do what they need to do, no matter how many men are opposed.
Texass AG and Texass all magat supreme court blocked emergency abortion because they can and will. AG Paton is the sole arbiter of abortion rights in Texass.
Richard is right about “petty grievances dominating our politics” . We become a nation of people walking about looking for something to be offended about. Republicans are the Party of the constantly offended and offensive. The Liberal wing of our politics has been a bunch of whiners as well. Too bad we can’t trust the courts to sort things out under the rule of law. That’s something to complain about.
Indeed, Mr. Blundt. The courts have long been mistrustworthy and failing to deliver quick and correct decisions. The insaner wings on each fringe need to get bonked on the noggin, repeatedly, or just have their heads lopped off. You know the Conservatives with Common Sense offend the libbies and the whackies, and when everybody is angry with you and those fellows all are unwilling to compromise even one belt notch at breakfast, you know you are right.
UH-OH! https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/kate-cox-nonviable-pregnancy-judicial-control-abortion-texas.html
How’s this for crite Zit mansplaining from 9 member Texass Soopreme Court…. especially the last sentence.
All nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court, who unanimously determined on Monday in a nine-page opinion that while “no one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated,” the problem was that when Ms. Cox’s physician expressed a “good faith belief” that her condition met the legal standard for an exception, this was not a sufficient quantum of legal certainty upon which to predicate a medical judgment. While noting in their opinion that “a pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas,” the great minds of the court determined that Ms. Cox could not receive a life-saving abortion in Texas without a court order.