the_siobhan: It means, "to rot" (Default)
the_siobhan ([personal profile] the_siobhan) wrote2006-03-22 09:19 pm

one for the "Right. On." files

Story yoinked from [livejournal.com profile] kightp.

So it was all over LJ and the news when South Dakota and Senator Bill Napoli banned abortion even in the case of rape.

The latest development is that now Sioux tribal President Cecelia Fire Thunder has offered to open a Planned Parenthood clinic on the Pine Ridge reservation to serve South Dakota women.

[livejournal.com profile] kathrynt got permission from President Fire Thunder to post contact info in case anybody wants to send donations to help out.

I expect to see this all over the blogosphere by tomorrow. Ha! In your face Napoli!

[identity profile] coyotegoth.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 02:58 am (UTC)(link)
Speaking of Napoli, you've seen this, (http://lilchiva.livejournal.com/150103.html) right?

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:04 am (UTC)(link)
Somebody pointed me at it today. Brilliant.

[livejournal.com profile] minwee also pointed me at a post where somebody put up Napoli's office address and suggested everybody mail him boxes of wire hangers.

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:09 am (UTC)(link)
Found it.

http://wildcherrygal.livejournal.com/55275.html

[identity profile] greylock.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:29 am (UTC)(link)
That's most amusing.

[identity profile] greylock.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:37 am (UTC)(link)
I'm was confused about how tribal land doesn't have to abide by state law, and I'm amused that there's someone called President Fire Thunder.

But more amused at this gaping loophole in the law.

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:48 am (UTC)(link)
I'm not entirely sure how it works in the states, but AFAIK, tribal land isn't considered a part of the state. It belongs to the Indians, and they answer only to federal laws.

It's not actually a loophole - it's a seperate entity. South Dakota can no more make laws over tribal land than they can over North Dakota.

[identity profile] greylock.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:52 am (UTC)(link)
I'm not entirely sure how it works in the states, but AFAIK, tribal land isn't considered a part of the state. It belongs to the Indians, and they answer only to federal laws.

Ah. That makes perfect sense now.

Still, thinking on it what does this flaw in the South Dakota plan actually achieve? I thought the whole rationale behind the law was to force the US Supreme Court into reconsidering and (in theory) over-turning Roe v Wade and then allowing the individual states to ban abortion?

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:03 am (UTC)(link)
Well in the meantime, it acheives access for women in South Dakota, at least on a temporary basis.

What it means to RvW, I don't know.

[identity profile] greylock.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:06 am (UTC)(link)
I presume, since RvW is federal law ... if that gets overturned it becomes purely academic.

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:27 am (UTC)(link)
If RvW gets overturned, all it means is that states are allowed to make their own laws on the matter. It doesn't require it to be banned. So as long as no federal laws are passed making it illegal, the reservations aren't restricted.

The big concern would be if states made it illegal to cross state lines to obtain one.

[identity profile] greylock.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:30 am (UTC)(link)
There's always Canada, eh?
Or Mexico.

[identity profile] emzebel.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 02:51 pm (UTC)(link)
U.S. lawyer weighing in...Siobhan, you have it exactly right, that overturning Roe v. Wade would only allow states to invidually regulate and ban abortion, but would not create a federal mandate to do so. Theoretically, Congress could pass a national law outlawing abortions nationally, but I think, perhaps with a little too much hope, that at least at the moment, the will would not be there to do so.

I also think that it would be very tough to justify a state law making it illegal for a woman to go to another state an engage in activity that is legal in that state - I can see a state trying it, but I cannot see such a law withstanding any sort of Constitutional scrutinity if challenged.

This whole thing makes my stomach turn, but cheers to President Fire Thunder.

[identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for the clarification. The difference between federal and state jurisdiction is a bit confusing for non-Americans.

[identity profile] emzebel.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh. Sadly, it is indeed more than a bit confusing for a large percentage of Americans as well. Unfortunately, some of them appear to hold high-level public office, and not just work at McDonalds.

Y'all explained it better than I think at least 50% of my fellow countryfolk could.

Pardon me while I go drown my sorrows in some tea, now. :P

(Speaking of which, anyone know a good source for snarky political icons?)

[identity profile] unagothae.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 09:12 am (UTC)(link)
That's why it's acceptable to build casinoes on tribal land in states where gambling is prohibited/limited.

[identity profile] redheaded-pixie.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 03:39 am (UTC)(link)
also, in case you haven't seen it yet, this is also making the rounds at the moment:

Image

ROTFL!

[identity profile] siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 10:28 am (UTC)(link)
i'm stealing it and putting it on my LJ. now.

Re: ROTFL!

[identity profile] redheaded-pixie.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 04:17 pm (UTC)(link)
by the way.... those numbers are in fact his......

Re: ROTFL!

[identity profile] inulro.livejournal.com 2006-03-23 09:02 pm (UTC)(link)
On the one hand, I can't afford the transatlantic phone calls.

On the other hand, when I'm awake it's likely to be 2 am in South Dakota.