In the spirit of INXS, the Women’s Media Center compiled some pretty staggering statistics on women in the media at the Sundance Film Festival in what’s a nice little Friday video nugget worth sharing.
Ridiculous, right? Now what are you gonna do about it? You can start by attending your area’s legislative coffee or cracker barrel tomorrow and follow it up with a letter to the editor.
Apparently since I’ve graduated, a Native Women Activists course has been added to the curriculum at USD — awesome. Actually, I’m pretty jealous. Not only would it have been an interesting course to take, but also, back in my day, there was an incredible disparity of Women’s Studies electives, forcing anyone actually interested in pursing a minor (namely me) to do a lot of independent study credits.
But it’s a good thing this course exists now, because it was the source of inspiration for what has become far more than just a class project — it’s become an agency for real change around a set of issues almost always shoved under the rug in our state (and especially by our state legislature): Native issues.
The film Everybody Belongs…Out of the Basement, created by USD students, shows the concerning location of the American Indian Studies Department and springboards from there into the larger discussion about the prioritization of Native issues at the university. And as if that isn’t impressive enough, the students also prepared a 7 prong strategy for USD to consider on how to improve the situation. Activist course FTW!
From it’s YouTube description:
In addition to an environmentally toxic physical location, these issues include a poor retention rate of Native students at USD, under representation of Natives in the student body as well as faculty, administrative, and Board of Regents positions, poor relationships with South Dakota’s tribal colleges, underdeveloped recruitment strategies, and a racially hostile campus climate.
The whole film, in three parts, is available on YouTube. The first part is below, the second part is here, and the third part is here.
Watch, spread the word, and let these student filmmakers remind us all that, although slightly cliche, Margaret Meade was right: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
To the students: a big DW hats off to you!
On December 28th, we contacted both Ben Nesselhuf, Executive Director of the SD Democratic Party and Lucas Lentsch, Executive Director of the SD Republican Party, inviting them to answer a handful of questions relating to women’s issues. As the ‘old’ DakotaWomen were often the target of whiny partisanship accusations, the idea was to invite both parties to give DakotaWomen readers some additional insight into how their parties viewed some of the issues facing women in our state and recommend what we do about it, meanwhile giving both parties a platform to speak directly to these issues and reach a new audience with their messages.
The outcome? Lucas Lentsch/SDGOP: 0. Ben Nesselhuf/SDDP: 1.
After repeated attempts to solicit a response from Mr. Lentsch, we never so much as received a “We’re not interested” email reply, let alone answers to the overly softball questions we submitted. Meanwhile, Mr. Nesselhuf responded almost immediately and his answers are below.
So, assuming we’re not unaware of a Lentsch kidnapping, what gives? Does the SDGOP hate women-run blogs? Or are they too busy running an underground GOP v. Tea Party fight club?
You can decide for yourself what the SDGOP’s silence says not only about their party, but also their prioritizing of women’s issues. Or — hell — send them an email asking them why they’re silent. Meanwhile, DakotaWomen will remain open to posting a response from them.
From SDDP Executive Director, Ben Nesselhuf:
How can both parties work together to improve the overall status of women in SD?
Moving past the old recriminations that take women hostage should allow both parties to find common ground advancing the status of women in South Dakota. Women are still paid 30 percent less than men with commensurate experience. Access to domestic violence shelters and sexual assault centers remains uneven across the state. We can only move to address the pressing issues facing women if both Parties agree to move forward from the debates of the past.
Native women experience significant disparities in several areas including access to health care, education, and jobs. What can be done to address these disparities?
For far too long, the Native community – and Native women in particular – have been overlooked in state and federal public policy. Eliminating disparities for Native women in health care, education, and employment requires not only an honest and open recognition of these disparities, but legislation that eliminates them in word and action that eliminates them in fact.
What role do women’s issues play in your party’s platform?
Democrats have consistently upheld the dignity deserved to women by championing in our platform efforts to eliminate discrimination and pay differentials in the workplace, ensuring women’s reproductive care, and expanding access to domestic violence shelters and sexual assault centers. Dignity for women is non-negotiable, and our Party would like to keep it that way.
Women are approximately 50% of the population of SD, yet only make up 20% of our legislature. How can that be improved?
Few people realize this unfortunate reality in our state Capitol. Women in public service deserve to be elevated just as public service itself requires elevation if we want effective public policies geared towards the public good. We are proud to include Angie Buhl as Chair of the Senate Democrats, and Susy Blake and Peggy Gibson as Democratic Whips among Party leadership. Raising awareness of the many effective women like Angie, Susy, and Peggy allows the Democratic Party to extend that example to women during the candidate recruitment process.
What does your party do to encourage women’s political participation?
The Democratic Party consistently partners with organizations elevating women’s issues in the public sphere. That partnership allows us to work together to identify strong female leaders and advance their profiles. We will continue to reach out and engage the many strong women who lead our communities and enrich our lives.
Thank you to Ben Nesselhuf and the SD Democratic Party for making women’s issues and DakotaWomen blog a priority. We salute you.
The big bag of gross that is HB1217 has been largely overshadowed by Hal Wick’s symbolic fail mandatory gun law, but lest we get too distracted by the hilarity and forget about all the nefarious stuff going down in Pierre, I wanted to revisit and dig a big deeper.
As you’ll remember from yesterday, this bill is really long and stuffed full of crazy. While Hal Wick is losing his mind over ‘death panels,’ we’ve got a piece of legislation here that would require a woman seeking an abortion to go in front of an Unruh panel before she could get her procedure. Luckily, this thing is so out of left field, so open to court challenges, that you have to wonder if the sponsors actually have any interest in it becoming law or if was just the result of some twisted anti-choice MADlib at their last misogynist sleepover.
While Planned Parenthood v. Casey did a lot of things I don’t really dig — like allow mandatory waiting periods — it did set some limits for the mutated version of informed consent that abortion patients are subjected to. It allowed the state to pass laws with the purpose to “dissuade” women from choosing abortion, as long as the information it required was “truthful and not misleading.” That’s why a good part of South Dakota’s current informed consent statute has been struck down (at great expense to the state, of course). Crisis pregnancy centers, the real ‘stars’ of 1217, are the very definition of misleading. Numerous investigations and reports have concluded as much.
Another important aspect of Casey to note is that it struck down a provision requiring women to notify their spouses of their abortions. Yet somehow the yahoos behind this bill think they can compel a woman to disclose her medical details to some washed up youth pastor turned ‘counselor’ at the Alpha Center? I guess that’s why Marty Jackley gets paid the big bucks.
Casey also created a test for abortion restrictions known as “undue burden.” The Court explained:
“A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. A statute with this purpose is invalid because the means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman’s free choice, not hinder it. And a statute which, while furthering the interest in potential life or some other valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.”
HB1217 has Due Process Violation written all over it. There’s no other way to interpret its labyrinth-like mandates than as a blatant attempt to hinder a woman’s free choice and to place substantial obstacles in her path.
The bill is on its way to House Judiciary, where 8 out of 13 members are sponsors of this piece of crap, so I don’t expect it to die the swift death it deserves there. Let’s do our best to make sure it doesn’t get any farther than that for the sake of the women of our state and for our tax dollars that are so desperately needed elsewhere.
If you were one of the people not able to attend the 6th Annual Women 4 Women Day held yesterday at the Capitol due to wonderful South Dakota winter weather — or even if you were not — there’s another way you can still contribute to one of the event’s objectives: to support the brave minority of pro-women legislators and thank them for their courage and conviction. At a time when our legislature is looking like the identical twin of the 2006 body, it’s even more important that we take a second to thank our advocates. Pierre is not a fun place. It’s actually kind of horrible. Being there yesterday (and battling Mother Nature in order to even get there) reminded me of just how unfortunate that job can be. And standing up day after day — often alone <sigh> — while being surrounded by people who hate education, want to require you to own a gun, or don’t even fundamentally believe you’re an equally-created human being is more than just a tough job, it’s heroic.
In the spirit of W4W Day and pro-choice women comprising a whopping 4% of our state legislature, take a minute to shoot an email of gratitude to the following few ladies. And if you’re so inclined, you could also mail them this.
Though while you’re thanking Sen. Cutler for her continued support as a women’s advocate, you might also want to inquire as to why she drank the kool-aid on the previously discussed CPC resolution — not such a harmless vote now that HB 1217 is on the table…
Even though Sen. Peters isn’t outwardly pro-choice, she’s not crazy and she has been good to our issues more often than not. Not only was she an outspoken opponent of the mandatory sonogram legislation, but she was also the prime sponsor of the anti-discrimination bill from last year. Additionally, she was the *only* legislator on the panel of Districts 9, 11, and 12 that isn’t interested in defying the voters of SD at the expense of education, pre-natal care, and your tax dollars.
So, to all the real “women for women,” in Pierre, we thank you!
Celinda Lake, keynote speaker at this year’s Women4Women Day in Pierre, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on electing women candidates and on framing issues to women voters. Lake is one of the progressive’s leading political strategists, and has worked with EMILY’s List, The White House Project, Planned Parenthood, The Unmarried Women’s Project, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Human Rights Campaign, and the Women’s Campaign Fund.
You knew they couldn’t resist. So get ready for HB1217: An act to establish certain legislative findings pertaining to the decision of a pregnant mother considering termination of her relationship with her child by an abortion, to establish certain procedures to better insure that such decisions are voluntary, uncoerced, and informed, and to revise certain causes of action for professional negligence relating to performance of an abortion.
A few things to note before I get to the full text:
1. Note the reference to pregnancy care centers. To anyone who thought the resolution honoring CPCs was meaningless, here’s your proof to the contrary. This bill would REQUIRE women to go to these non-governmental, non-medical, often religiously affiliated lie centers before they could get an abortion. The law also would make it impossible to establish a crisis pregnancy center that was not anti-choice.
2. Much the recent law that made its way to federal court in the form of Rounds v. Planned Parenthood, this bill pretends to be about ‘informed consent,’ while actually being about making it as difficult as possible for a woman to obtain an abortion. This bill creates a 72 hour waiting period!
3. This bill is so unconstitutional it’s not funny. Of course, while our legislature loves to bitch and moan about how little money we have, they have no problem setting up the state to spend millions defending unconstitutional legislation year after year.
Full text:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The Legislature finds that as abortion medicine is now practiced in South Dakota that:
(1) In the overwhelming majority of cases, abortion surgery and medical abortions are scheduled for a pregnant mother without the mother first meeting and consulting with a physician or establishing a traditional physician-patient relationship;
(2) The surgical and medical procedures are scheduled by someone other than a
physician, without a medical or social assessment concerning the appropriateness of such a procedure or whether the pregnant mother’s decision is truly voluntary, uncoerced, and informed, or whether there has been an adequate screening for a pregnant mother with regard to the risk factors that may cause complications if the abortion is performed;
(3) Such practices are contrary to the best interests of the pregnant mother and her child and there is a need to protect the pregnant mother’s interest in her relationship with her child and her health by passing remedial legislation;
(4) There exists in South Dakota a number of pregnancy help centers, as defined in this Act, which have as their central mission providing counseling, education, and other assistance to pregnant mothers to help them maintain and keep their relationship with their unborn children, and that such counseling, education, and assistance provided by these pregnancy help centers is of significant value to the pregnant mothers in helping to protect their interest in their relationship with their children; and
(5) It is a necessary and proper exercise of the state’s authority to give precedence to the mother’s fundamental interest in her relationship with her child over the irrevocable method of termination of that relationship by induced abortion.
Section 2. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The physician’s common law duty to determine that the physician’s patient’s consent is voluntary and uncoerced and informed applies to all abortion procedures. The requirements expressly set forth in this Act, that require procedures designed to insure that a consent to an abortion is voluntary and uncoerced and informed, are an express clarification of, and are in addition to, those common law duties.
Section 3. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No surgical or medical abortion may be scheduled except by a licensed physician and only after the physician personally meets with the pregnant mother, consults with her, and performs an assessment of her medical and personal circumstances. Only after the physician completes the consultation and assessment complying with the provisions of this Act, may the physician schedule a surgical or medical abortion, but in no instance may the physician schedule such surgical or medical abortion to take place in less than seventy-two hours from the completion of such consultation and assessment except in a medical emergency as set forth in § 34-23A-10.1 and subdivision 34-23A-1(5). No physician may have the pregnant mother sign a consent for the abortion on the day of this initial consultation. No physician may take a signed consent from the pregnant mother except on the day the abortion is scheduled, and only after complying with the provisions of this Act as it pertains to the initial consultation, and only after complying with the provisions of subdivisions 34-23A-10.1(1) and (2). During the initial consultation between the physician and the pregnant mother, prior to scheduling a surgical or medical abortion, the physician shall:
(1) Do an assessment of the pregnant mother’s circumstances to make a reasonable determination whether the pregnant mother’s decision to submit to an abortion is the result of any coercion, subtle or otherwise. In conducting that assessment, the physician shall obtain from the pregnant mother the age or approximate age of the father of the unborn child, and the physician shall determine whether any disparity in the age between the mother and father is a factor in creating an undue influence or coercion;
(2) Provide the written disclosure required by subdivision 34-23A-10.1(1) and discuss
them with her to determine that she understands them;
(3) Provide the pregnant mother with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pregnancy help centers that are registered with the South Dakota Department of Health pursuant to this Act, and provide her with written instructions that set forth the following:
(a) That prior to the day of any scheduled abortion the pregnant mother must have a consultation at a pregnancy help center at which the pregnancy help center shall inform her about what education, counseling, and other assistance is available to help the pregnant mother keep and care for her child, and have a private interview to discuss her circumstances that may subject her decision to coercion;
(b) That prior to signing a consent to an abortion, the physician shall first obtain from the pregnant mother, a written statement that she obtained a consultation with a pregnancy help center, which sets forth the name and address of the pregnancy help center, the date and time of the consultation, and the name of the counselor at the pregnancy help center with whom she consulted;
(4) Conduct an assessment of the pregnant mother’s health and circumstances to determine if any of the risk factors associated with abortion are present in her case, completing a form which for each factor reports whether the factor is present or not;
(5) Discuss with the pregnant mother the results of the assessment for risk factors, reviewing with her the form and its reports with regard to each factor listed;
(6) In the event that any risk factor is determined to be present, discuss with the pregnant mother, in such manner and detail as is appropriate so that the physician can certify that the physician has made a reasonable determination that the mother understands
the information, all material information about any complications associated with the risk factor, and to the extent available all information about the rate at which those complications occurs both in the general population and in the population of persons with the risk factor;
(7) In the event that no risk factor is determined to be present, the physician shall include in the patient’s records a statement that the physician has discussed the information required by the other parts of this section and that the physician has made a reasonable determination that the mother understands the information in question;
(8) Records of the assessments, forms, disclosures, and instructions performed and given pursuant to this section shall be prepared by the physician and maintained as a permanent part of the pregnant mother’s medical records.
Section 4. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
On the day on which the abortion is scheduled, no physician may take a consent for an abortion nor may the physician perform an abortion, unless the physician has fully complied with the provisions of this Act and first obtains from the pregnant mother, a written, signed statement setting forth all information required by subsection (3)(b) of section 3 of this Act. The written statement signed by the pregnant mother shall be maintained as a permanent part of the pregnant mother’s medical records.
Section 5. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The Department of Health shall maintain a registry of pregnancy help centers located in the state of South Dakota. The Department shall publish a list of all pregnancy help centers which submit a written request or application to be listed on the state registry of pregnancy help
centers. All pregnancy help centers seeking to be listed on the registry shall be so listed without charge, if they submit an affidavit that certifies that:
(1) The pregnancy help center has a facility or office in the state of South Dakota in which it routinely consults with women for the purpose of helping them keep their relationship with their unborn children;
(2) That one of its principal missions is to educate, counsel, and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children;
(3) That they do not perform abortions at their facility, and have no affiliation with any organization or physician which performs abortions;
(4) That they do not now refer pregnant women for abortions, and have not referred any pregnant women for an abortion at any time in the three years immediately preceding July 1, 2011;
(5) That they have a medical director licensed by South Dakota to practice medicine or that they have a collaborative agreement with a physician licensed in South Dakota to practice medicine to whom women can be referred;
(6) That they shall provide the counseling and interviews described in this Act upon request by pregnant mothers; and
(7) That they shall comply with the provisions of section 11 of this Act as it relates to discussion of religious beliefs. For purposes of placing the name of a pregnancy help center on the state registry of pregnancy help centers maintained by the Department of Health, it is irrelevant whether the pregnancy help center is secular or faith based. The Department of Health shall immediately provide a copy of the registry of pregnancy health centers to all physicians, facilities, and entities that request it. The registry shall be regularly updated by the Department of Health in order to include a current list of pregnancy help centers and shall forward all updated lists to all physicians, facilities, and entities that previously requested the list. The Department of Health shall accept written requests or applications to be placed on the state registry of pregnancy help centers from pregnancy help centers after enactment but prior to the effective date of this Act.
Section 6. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
A pregnancy help center consulted by a pregnant mother considering consenting to an abortion, as a result of the provisions of this Act, shall be permitted to interview the pregnant mother to determine whether the pregnant mother has been subject to any coercion to have an abortion, and shall be permitted to inform the pregnant mother in writing or orally, or both, what counseling, education, and assistance that is available to the pregnant mother to help her maintain her relationship with her unborn child and help her care for the child both through the pregnancy help center or any other organization, faith-based program, or governmental program. During the consultation interviews provided for by this Act, the pregnancy help centers, their agents and employees, may not discuss with the pregnant mothers religion or religious beliefs, either of the mother or the counselor, unless the pregnant mother consents in writing. The pregnancy help center may, if it deems it appropriate, discuss matters pertaining to adoption. The pregnancy help center is under no obligation to communicate with the abortion provider in any way, and is under no obligation to submit any written or other form of confirmation that the pregnant mother consulted with the pregnancy help center. The pregnancy help center may voluntarily provide a written statement of assessment to the abortion provider, whose name the woman shall give to the pregnancy help center, if the pregnancy help center obtains information that indicates that the pregnant mother has been subjected to coercion or that her decision to consider an abortion is otherwise not voluntary or not informed. The physician shall make the physician’s own independent determination whether or not a pregnant mother’s consent to have an abortion is voluntary, uncoerced, and informed before having the pregnant mother sign a consent to an abortion. The physician shall review and consider any information provided by the pregnancy help center as one source of information, which in no way binds the physician, who shall make an independent determination consistent with the provisions of this Act, the common law requirements, and accepted medical standards. Any written statement or summary of assessment prepared by the pregnancy help center as a result of counseling of a pregnant mother as a result of the procedures created by this Act, may be forwarded by the pregnancy help center, in its discretion, to the abortion physician. If forwarded to the physician, the written statement or summary of assessment shall be maintained as a permanent part of the pregnant mother’s medical records. Other than forwarding such documents to the abortion physician, no information obtained by the pregnancy help center from the pregnant mother may be released, without the written signed consent of the pregnant mother or unless the release is in accordance with federal, state, or local law.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to impose any duties or liability upon a pregnancy help center.
Section 7. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Terms as used in this Act mean:
(1) “Pregnancy help center,” any entity whether it be a form of corporation, partnership, or proprietorship, whether it is for profit, or nonprofit, that has as one of its principal missions to provide education, counseling, and other assistance to help a pregnant mother maintain her relationship with her unborn child and care for her unborn child, which entity has a medical director who is licensed to practice medicine in the state
of South Dakota, or that it has a collaborative agreement with a physician licensed in South Dakota to practice medicine to whom women can be referred, which entity does not perform abortions and is not affiliated with any physician or entity that performs abortions, and does not now refer pregnant mothers for abortions, and has not referred any pregnant mother for abortions for the three-year period immediately preceding July 1, 2011;
(2) “Risk factor associated with abortion,” any factor, including any physical, psychological, emotional, demographic, or situational factor, for which there is a statistical association with an increased risk of one or more complications associated with abortion, such that there is a less than five percent probability that the statistical association is due to sampling error. To be recognized as a risk factor associated with abortion, the statistical information must have been published in any peer-reviewed journals indexed by the search services maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed or MEDLINE, or any replacement services subsequently established by the National Library) or in any peer-reviewed journals included in the Thomson Reuters Scientific Master Journal List, and the date of first publication must be not less than twelve months before the date of the initial consultation described in section 3 of this Act;
(3) “Complications associated with abortion,” any adverse physical, psychological, or emotional reaction, for which there is a statistical association with abortion, such that there is a less than five percent probability that the statistical association is due to sampling error. To be recognized as a complication associated with abortion, the statistical information must have been published in any peer-reviewed journals indexed by the search services maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed or MEDLINE, or any replacement services subsequently established by the National Library) or in any peer-reviewed journals included in the Thomson Reuters Scientific Master Journal List, and the date of first publication must be not less than twelve months before the date of the initial consultation described in section 3 of this Act;
(4) “Coercion,” exists if the pregnant mother has a desire to carry her unborn child and give birth, but is induced, influenced, or persuaded to submit to an abortion by another person or persons against her desire. Such inducement, influence, or persuasion may be by use of, or threat of, force, or may be by pressure or intimidation effected through psychological means, particularly by a person who has a relationship with the pregnant mother that gives that person influence over the pregnant mother.
Section 8. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Any woman who undergoes an abortion, or her survivors, where there has been an intentional, knowing, or negligent failure to comply with the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of this Act may bring a civil action, and obtain a civil penalty in the amount of ten thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, jointly and severally from the physician who performed the abortion and the abortion facility where the abortion was performed.
This amount shall be in addition to any damages that the woman or her survivors may be entitled to receive under any common law or statutory provisions, to the extent that she sustains any injury. This amount shall also be in addition to the amounts that the woman or other survivors of the deceased unborn child may be entitled to receive under any common law or statutory provisions, including but not limited to the wrongful death statutes of this state.
Section 9. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
In any civil action presenting a claim arising from a failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter, the following shall apply:
(1) The failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter relative to obtaining consent for the abortion shall create a rebuttable presumption that if the pregnant mother had been informed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, she would have decided not to undergo the abortion;
(2) If the trier of fact determines that the abortion was the result of coercion, and it is determined that if the physician acted prudently, the physician would have learned of the coercion, there is a nonrebuttable presumption that the mother would not have consented to the abortion if the physician had complied with the provisions of this Act;
(3) If evidence is presented by a defendant to rebut the presumption set forth in subdivision (1), then the finder of fact shall determine whether this particular mother, if she had been given all of the information a reasonably prudent patient in her circumstance would consider significant, as well as all information required by this Act to be disclosed, would have consented to the abortion or declined to consent to the abortion based upon her personal background and personality, her physical and psychological condition, and her personal philosophical, religious, ethical, and moral beliefs;
(4) The pregnant mother has a right to rely upon the abortion doctor as her source of information, and has no duty to seek any other source of information, other than from a pregnancy help center as referenced in sections 3 and 4 of this Act, prior to signing a consent to an abortion;
(5) No patient or other person responsible for making decisions relative to the patient’s care may waive the requirements of this chapter, and any verbal or written waiver of liability for malpractice or professional negligence arising from any failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter is void and unenforceable.
Section 10. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Nothing in this Act repeals, by implication or otherwise, any provision not explicitly repealed.
Section 11. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or its enforcement temporarily or permanently restrained or enjoined by judicial order, the provision is severable.
Write your legislators, kids. Especially the geniuses who sponsored this tripe.
There are so many issues facing our country. You would hope that newly elected Rep. Kristi Noem would be up to her ears trying to create jobs or get some fat pork for South Dakota roads or something important like that. Well…not so much. She’s cosponsoring b.s. like the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would redefine rape to pretty much exclude most sexual assaults. Mother Jones explains:
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. … With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible.
Other types of rape that wouldn’t meet the narrow Republican rape test? Victims under the influence of drugs (including date rape drugs) or alcohol, victims with limited mental ability, and pretty much any situation where a woman doesn’t physically resist out of fear or incapacity.
I may not agree with everyone who voted for Kristi Noem, but I’m pretty sure they elected her to protect South Dakota’s interests, not to empower rapists.
Not surprisingly, the proposed 10% cut to education was the main topic at the District 17 cracker barrel in Vermillion this morning. The message from the crowd was pretty clear: cuts to education, whether K-12 or higher ed, are unacceptable. Rep. Tom Jones (D-17) heartily agreed. It was a little harder to pin down where newly Republican-ed Sen. Eldon Nygaard stood. He said he didn’t think there were enough votes to pass the 10% and generally gave the impression that he wouldn’t support one. He did talk about a bill that would cut 5.4% that he would support. Obviously, that didn’t go down well with most of the constituents. Rep. Boomgarden’s (R-17) bosses at Avera apparently wouldn’t give him the morning off, so I have know idea where he stands on the cuts or anything else.
What frustrated me the most (and I shared this with my legislators) is the continuing refusal of anyone in government to take any blame for the budget situation we find ourselves in. They talk about deficit spending like some unknown entity has been in charge of things for the past decade and only now are we discovering what’s been going on. You would never get the impression that a single party has been in control of our legislative and executive branch this whole time, that many of the legislators are in fact the EXACT SAME PEOPLE, or that our new Governor was part of the previous administration that they’re so happy to blame for our current economic woes. Take some friggin’ responsibility.
The related issue that came up numerous times was our state’s continued reliance on quick fixes without any regard for long term effects and unintended consequences. A local doctor talked about how cuts to Medicaid just get passed on to private insurance carriers. Cuts to education hurt economic development and pretty much guarantee having to spend more on prisons in the future (and we don’t exactly have an incarceration rate to be proud of). We need to quit just trying to scrape by from year to year and start thinking about what kind of state we want to be. What kind of life do we want to create for our children? The suggestion of an income tax got a loud round of applause from the crowd today, but obviously we know it doesn’t have that kind of support in Pierre. What is it going to take to get this state to adopt fiscal model that’s equitable, sustainable, and actually works?
This video from last week’s legislative coffee in Sioux Falls shows what we’ve all pretty much suspected: despite wasting millions of dollars, despite the majority of South Dakotans speaking loud and clear that they do not want to ban abortion, many legislators have no problem with continuing to put it on the agenda:
Follow Us!