South Dakota abortion ban going to a vote
Abortion ban repeal drive gets 37,846 signatures
(From the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls)
The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families announced Tuesday that it had secured more than twice the number of signatures it needed to refer the abortion ban passed by the 2006 Legislature to a vote of the people this fall.
At a press conference at the Downtown Holiday Inn, officials with the campaign said they had 37,846 signatures – more than double the 16,728 they needed to get.
Those signatures still need to be validated.
Supporters of the repeal said they had 1,200 volunteers from 138 communities circulate the petitions. None of the volunteers were paid, they said.
The abortion ban passed by the 2006 Legislature “is the wrong approach to reducing unintended pregnancies,’’ former South Dakota Attorney General Roger Tellinghuisen said Tuesday.
Tellinghuisen was one of three opponents of the ban who participated in a teleconference before members of the group traveled to Pierre to file a petition to force the abortion law to a public vote.
The group planned to file nearly 38,000 signatures with the secretary of state in Pierre early Tuesday afternoon. That’s about 20,000 more than required for a referral – the process by which citizens may veto actions of the Legislature.
Jan Nicolay, a co-chair of the campaign to refer the abortion law, said a likely lawsuit if the ban becomes law “would cost a great deal of money,’’ but she said more important that than, the nearly total ban on abortion “tells victims of rape and incest they have no options.’’
posted by John Good @ 8:33 PM
7 Comments:
Yeaaaahhh! So many here in the East look upon the West with derision when they hear about voters putting matters like this on the ballot. At least every couple of years the Wash. Post runs a editorial deriding voter voting their own Laws or in this case repealing them. It's Old English vs, the Independent, rely on our own attitude.
I know Ca. and most othr Western States can do this. Can Ohio?
Peace.
Yes, Ohio has the ability to run ballot initiatives for many state-constituion-amending policies, like the 2004 initiative that basically buried (by about a 40% margin...it wasn't even close) the idea of a homosexual civil union. Ohio initiatives also exist on the county level for bonds (new taxes created) etc. and anything that will change the income tax/property tax structure. People have to AGREE to getting fucked out of their money in Ohio...others can't just do it for them! You'd be amazed, though...you get the right salesman in there, and people will sign away half their lives...much like mobile home sales I guess.
Last night I erred in putting this on the post below -
Oops I mean Indiana. Well its all the same differance.......
Just joking. Don't go like all Indian on me now.
Peace
This should be very interesting - Planned Parenhood has been gearing up for a fight at the state level for quite some time.
Thanks for the info, Andrew.
It sounds like ballot initiatives are a good thing, unless,as Andy pointed out, you have the snake-oil peddlers involved. Sort of a check and balance against elected officials going against the wishes of the majority (Daniels) (cough).
The South Dakota ban was doomed from the start, as it allowed no exception for rape or incest. That exclusion tips it for the majority of voters. My opinion is that abortion should be a legal, but rarely used, option for women.That is also the view of most pro-choice people.
Too often,people who are pro-choice are misunderstood or mis-labeled as being for complete and open abortion rights, no matter what. That's simply not true for most of us. We want women to be well-informed about all options available to them, but free to make this very personal choice without government intervention.
A fact that many are unaware of: during Bill Clinton's tenure in office, the abortion rate actually declined. I'm not sure what the correlation is there, but an interesting fact nonetheless. . .
John,
You are right and wrong all at once in your assumption that ballot initiatives are a good idea. Let me explain a few points here:
1. It is totally possible for mob mentality to overwhelm common sense. In their push to make gay marriage illegal, Ohioans unwittingly dissasembled the "commonlaw marriage" statute for heterosexuals. Now, I believe the courts shot it down eventually (or maybe they are in the process of doing so?), but still...you can see my point I'm sure. How far out of line would it have been for Americans as a whole to cast a ballot back in Nov. 2001 outlawing any immigration/student/work visas from any/all Arab/Muslim/Islamic nations? Right or wrong, I'll bet the American Public would have passed that bill!
2. Pork barreling is of MASSIVE concern...because most people don't read the initiatves thoroughly. They are very lenghthy and written in strict legaleze (outlined in legislative format that only a Civics whiz would understand), so at the ballot box, if you are in a hurry at all, you end up casting your ballot based on whatever slogans fit on the campaign signs such as
"Vote No on #8" or
"NO NEW TAXES: VOTE YES ON #13."
You can see how unclear these are, but sadly most folks vote based on who puts which signs in their yards. Now, "#8" may be a bill that allows homos to get hitched, but it may have layers and layers of pork attached. Hell, it may buy a new Rolex for every taxpayer in the district! But most people wouldn't know that, because of the difficulty in comprehension.
Likewise, #13 may be an initiative that blocks a school system from EVER asking for a public bond again! You just don't know unless you have a lawyer disassemble the whole damn thing. These initiatives allow for massive and wholesale corruption if abused, and they certainly can allow a lynch mob to put some teeth in a trendy or momentary cause!
Normally, that's why we hire (read: elect) legislators to help us sort all the bullshit out. Sadly, most legislators only pile on more layers of bullshit through which we have to dig.
Points made. I did say sounds like a good idea. I'm not really familiar with them, having been a Hoosier since the age of 4.
As usual, the bottom line seems to be that people need to be more informed. That is the difficult task at hand. People care more about TV, sports, etc. than they do the policies being made and laws being passed that will impact all of their lives in some mannner. . .
Post a Comment
<< Home