Fire Thunder Challenges South Dakota Abortion Ban
“I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.???
Cecilia Fire Thunder, Giago: Oglala Sioux president on state abortion law, Indianz.com, 3/21/06
Oglala Sioux girl at Pine Ridge [Stephen Thompson / Flickr]
When Gov. Michael Rounds signed HB1215, the law that will ban all abortions in South Dakota as of July 1 (including those procedures for victims of rape and incest, excepting those that could potentially save the mother’s life), he said he “fully expected a legal challenge.” He probably didn’t expect that the challenge would come from Cecilia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux tribe.
The statement aroused quite a bit of interest among LiveJournalers after kathrynt proposed a fundraising campaign to support the proposed clinic. Blogger tezliana did some digging and emailed Planned Parenthood of South Dakota for a statement.
Things are unfolding quickly in South Dakota, so this information may change at any time, but we are not currently planning to establish a clinic on tribal land. While we appreciate Ms. Thunder’s support, I believe she made the comment prior to speaking with us about a clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
Mark Fredrickson, Email from Planned Parenthood this morning, re: South Dakota, Liana’s Little Jungle, 3/23/06
When Cecilia used the name Planned Parenthood, she used the name in reference to an abortion clinic in general. She fully intends to donate land so that a clinic can be built….You can’t possibly expect a victim of violence to raise a 100% healthy child.
Vonnie Bush, personal assistant to President Fire Thunder, in a conversation with Open Source, 3/24/06
American Indian women are sexually assaulted at a 3.5 times higher rate than women in all other racial groups. Given these numbers and her background counselling rape victims as a nurse, Fire Thunder says she had to take a stand.
Rather than having our daughters and our women have to drive several states away, as if they were criminals, to protect their own health, we wanted to have a viable option closer to their homes, until this law is struck down. We intend to take the lead to make sure that we live up to our constitution and our own ideals, and respect our female citizens.
Cecilia Fire Thunder, in an email to Open Source, 3/24/06
Could plans for a clinic on tribal lands actually go through? Will this move test the limits of tribal sovereignty? South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long says the state might be able to enforce HB1215 in Indian County “but only against non-Indian women who receive abortions by non-Indian doctors.” Could this bring down the law that would bring down Roe?
This is not a matter of an assertion of tribal sovereignty – we already have that. Nor is it a matter of confronting Governor Rounds or the State of South Dakota, it is a matter of upholding federal law, as it now exists. I believe that the South Dakota law banning abortion will be struck down as unconstitutional. We are making it clear that we support the constitutional right of women all over this country, and particularly here in South Dakota, to make their own decisions and their own choices regarding their own health.
Cecilia Fire Thunder, in an email to Open Source, 3/24/06
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
March 28th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Cecilia Fire Thunder is my new hero.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Wow! – complete agreement w/ Nikos. This effort to stand up in the face of unreasonable restrictions is to be fully supported. I find SD’s new restrictions to be very disappointing – and frankly, HARD TO BELIEVE! It’ll certainly be interesting to see what happens when it hits the Supreme Court.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Listen or watch Amy Goodman interview S. Dakota Planned Parenthood President and Women’s Health Resource Center on today’s Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/
March 28th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
I meant to say…
Native Women’s Health Resource Center Representative.
(and Nikos: I agree 100% with you on this one)
March 29th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Nikos… Once again, we agree.
It may be that the sovereignty of Native Americans will be severely tested, especially as the question of abortion is closely tied with questions of life and liberty. Assuming abortion is murder (I don’t), then can the US intervene to stop illegal acts on, basically, US soil? Assuming the tribes are completely sovereign (I do), can they do whatever they want?
Justice Scalia says no – in a case regarding the smoking of peyote (I think off tribal lands), police arrested some Native Americans on rug charges. Convicted, they challenged up to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia said fderal law, and universally-accepted American mores, trump the mores of the tribal people, even if they are sovereign.
The Scalia position has me thinking about the issue in broad strokes: to me, it comes down to a fundamental difference between “red” and “blue” (for lack of better descriptors). And, I think, people on both sides of the aisle might agree with me.
To the “red”, law is about morality. It is about, truly, what is “good” and what is “bad”. Law reflects true boundaries. On one side, there is good, lawful, behavior. On the other, there is bad, lawless, behavior. In essence the role of government is simple – make sure good people are given every opportunity to flourish. Of course, since “bad” and “good” are central, the definitions of “bad” and “good” are central, and these definitions come from the only historic place where they are irrefutable – religion.
To the “blue”, law is about society. Functionality is key, and since “good” and “bad” are not easily defined, everything is debated. Laws reflects boundaries within society. It is a means of enabling interaction between different people with different ideas. The connection between good laws and “good” laws is loose.
In a sense, pro-life people are representing a moral position, and pro-choice people a social one. For pro-life people, society is where we play out religious and moral code. For pro-choice people, morality is played out between people and their god(s). To pro-life people, the moral evil of abortion means that is a societal evil. To pro-choice people, the social good of abortion is paramount because of the moral muddle of the question.
This is not to say that “red” people do not care about society. Obviously, they care that as many people as possible are benefitted from law, and moral order will enable that. And “blue” people mostly DO believe in god(s), and even more believe in morality. They believe as well that social questions and moral ones are not the same; allowing people within society to do something is different from choosing to do it oneself.I n the end, what it comes down to is this: when it comes to law, there are people who put morality first and those that put society first.
Where I’m leading to is here: there are those on the American right who say, “How can those people be AGAINST the death penalty and FOR abortion?” Personally, I rarely hear the question going the other way. I think it is because the question is a moral one. From a moral (often religiously so) position, the question is salient. However, the left’s position is a socially-oriented one. The death penalty serves no identifiable good to the social order, and abortion does.
Basically, I’m saying that the fight between Pesident Fire Thunder and Governor Round is the fight between social and moral good. This battle is the proxy for the battle between the two fundamental ways people have viewed this country, since day one.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:41 am
Interesting theory Vijtable but I think a case can be made for the morality of being pro-choice. I say that because I think it is a moral value to treat women with respect.
An argument I do hear often from “blues” is, How can “reds” care so much about a little gob of fertilized egg when they are so gung ho for the death penalty and war? Peace and justice are “blue” moral values.
After the 2004 election when the press said Bush won on “moral values” I sure knew a lot of livid “blue” people who deeply resented being told that they were supposedly less moral than the “red” homophobic war mongers.
I think it is a mistake to deny “blue” people our morality.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Vijtable Where I’m leading to is here: there are those on the American right who say, “How can those people be AGAINST the death penalty and FOR abortion?�
Those who want the right to make their own decision about abortion are not “for abortion” as you know. It is unfortunate that the zealots on the right get away with painting this issue that way. The “pro-choice” position addresses a person’s right ( in this case a woman) to make decisions about her own body and life. It begs the questions: when does life begin? When does the state have a right or duty to step in to protect the life of a citizen? With the unborn, it seems to me that the state is very far away from having that right.
Being anti-death penalty (which does not serve to deter potential murderers) means to be against choosing to kill another person where there is no need and where, especially these days evidence may be found to exonerate some. This position puts weight on how such killing reflects upon us as a society.
I am cheering the Sioux on because I want to see indian tribes across the country fill the possible emerging need for planned parent clinics. This would be better for them than running gambling casinos ( though probably not a lucrative).
March 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Peggysue, I agree that there is a moral argument to be made in favor of choice. (I recommend reading Freakonomics for an explorationof that.) I think the way morals are considered in the “red” sense is that they are absolute and have the wieght of universal truth. Please don’t think I am denying us “blue” people our morality, I’m saying we couch morality alongside social needs. If a documented religious value (punishment for polytheism) is in conflict with social good (accepting that there is more than one religion), social good is paramount.
Potter, I know that people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. I am simply repeating words of a friend who is questioning her pro-choice stance. She sees this commentary as valid, logically. She also knows that pro-choice doesn’t equal pro-abortion, but it does sanction abortion. I was trying to explore the simplicity (not pejorative) of the “red” worldview of black and white, and the complexity (also not pejorative) of the “blue” one.
To be clear, I am anti-death penalty for myriad reasons, and pro-choice for myriad reasons. All these reasons, at their core, relate to what is social good, what makes society work better, more inclusive, and more free.
To the issue at hand, I’m simply asking whether this issue can be resolved, given the fact that this conflict goes to the country’s beginnings. Is this the US’s internal clash of civilizations (universal moralism vs. social moralism)? Also, in terms of law, where would the Supreme Court stand on sovereignty of Native Americans (given mind Justice Scalia’s universal moralistic stand)?
March 29th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Vijtable: Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that the blue people value social good and personal liberty more while the reds have a more monolithic morality of absolutes.
Gloria Steinem was on KUOW yesterday morning and talked about how the value of choice is respecting women’s autonomy ie a woman who is a feminist may decide that she is against abortion for herself but still respect the right of other women to make their own decisions. I agree with her. To me the core value of choice is respect for women.
I would go a step further and say another moral value of choice is valuing the integrity of the physical environment. As an environmentalist, whatever eles I’ve done I consider not having children to be my most important contribution to the health of the planet. (I’m greenish/blue) If I weigh famine, war and environmental degredation against use of birth control and legal abortion the choice is clear to me. I don’t think the right-to-lifers actually value life so much as they want to maintain a power stucture that controls women.
April 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Vijtable, I think the shortcoming in the ‘red’ position is their absolute conviction. They do not accept that they are living in a pluralistic society. Supposedly, a democratic one. I find the argument about whether you believe abortion to be murder is a red herring. It is a point on which reasonable people may forever disagree. I have conflict within myself over that question.
In a pluralistic society, one group cannot claim that their morality reigns supreme. For me, the pertinent question isn’t “How can you believe in the death penalty and oppose abortion?” But rather, “How can you claim to believe in democracy and then claim that you can impose your moral compass on others?”
If they want to impose their moral compass, then they need to convert the nation to a religious state, not a democratic one. First they would have to determine who the religious leader would be and then, if they could come to an agreement on that, they had to fight a civil war to put that structure in place. Until then, get off the moral righteousness platform.
The sovereignty question of the tribes is interesting. Someone mentioned that they are essentially on US soil. But they are not. Tribal lands are like embassies They are a sovereign island surrounded by foreign land. The case of the drug arrest was because they were acting outside of the tribal lands. The interesting question on the women’s health clinic is that some official has stated that they have no jurisdiction over the Oglala women on the tribal land, but that US women from SD could be prosecuted if they went to the tribal land for an abortion. This is a huge sovereignty test. Would a woman be prosecuted if she went to England? And does a state have the right to what a resident does when outside of the state? That prospect is the most frightening of all.
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 am
allison, are you suggeting that a pluralistic democray leads to moral relativity (I don’t actually think you are)? If we are to safeguard the values and practices of cultural others, you say we cannot impose a moral compass, but does this include the set of moral values that underpin the laws on which the democracy itself flourishes? Are all morals given equal weight, even ones in one faith that many would judge immoral in another faith? How do you draw the line, and you must somewhere, though you needn’t carve it in stone for all eternity? How do you set the laws and rules of conduct for the society? Through some form of democratic practice, where people take to the TV, the pulpit, the blog, the soapbox, whereever and try to convince others that they are right? Isn’t this what is happening on the issue of abortion? So what is the real problem? That more voices are not heard to counter the pro-life/pro-death message? That only certain voices have positions of power? That the democracy is failing the people? That a few are opposing their will on the many? Or are the many really getting what they deserve (not everyone, of course) because they don’t get out into the street like in France and Thailand and demand that their representatives actually listen to them and not just the few, the richest, the loudest, the rightest and the whitest?
I think in a democracy it is ok for some to try and impose a moral compass. What is not OK is to accept, without one hell of a political fight, such efforts or to accept changes to the rules of the game that allow some to more readily impose their will.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
sidewalker, these are all great questions that force me to elaborate more deeply. I’m not sure I have the time right now to do them justice. So, I’ll put a few thoughts here and come back to you. Thanks for engaging me.
Am I suggesting moral relativity? Perhaps, in some areas. Moral relativity is often tossed out as a criticism, but there may be some place for moral relativity in a pluralistic society. To say there is not, is to claim that there is a set of universal absolutes. The question of abortion shows that there is not. In the case where a society does not suffer from the actions of an individual, there may not be an absolute and we may have to tolerate the different moral compass of another on that issue. It may not be a matter of allowing a majority to rule, or simply one of protecting the masses from a powerfully vocal minority. If we are to live in peace with one another, we may have to accept that some topics may always be the source of heated debate – perhaps, rightfully so – and may never be settled into a an absolute law.
There are, obviously, many things that need to be absolute for a society to function. Its pretty dificult to have any stability if people are free to kill one another. So, we’ve come to the conclusion that this needs to be universally illegal.
I guess I am suggesting, that peaceful co-existence requires a lot of letting go of judgement of others. We must own and embrace the fact that lives are complex and that we do not serve each well by being trigger happy with judgement. This should be the last lens we look through rather than the first. Before judging we might try seeing how we can, as a society, can eliminate or reduce the impacts that lead to controversial choices. Rather than basing our laws on some set of right/wrong standards based in a religious morality that is not universal, perhaps we should adopt a Do No Harm standard.
This still makes abortion a tricky subject because of those who believe that it is murder. But since this is not universally considered murder, and there is such a complex web of issues that are tied into the question, we need to be very careful about declaring absolutes. Women are raped, coerced, uninformed, underinformed, ill-informed. The sperm provider is not held to equal responsibility for the resulting child and mothers have even less income potential that women without children. The physical, emotional, economic, and social ramifications for a woman facing childbirth can be overwhelmingly enormous. Basically, there is a lack of empowerment. So, until women are fully empowered, it is reprehensible to be placing a judgement upon them.
Perhaps, the next layer of consideration in our system of laws needs to go beyond Do No Harm, to Do Everything to Empower. Every time we are thinking of making a law we must show that these standards have been met.
I have some other vague thought that certain parties should not have a say in certain matters. Since men don’t end up pregnant if they are raped or coerced or ill-educated, and since they don’t bear the same child-rearing responsibilities effecting their ability to earn an income and participate in society, perhaps, they should not have a voice on the topic of abortion????? big question on that one in my head. Leads to a difficult morass of how to determine when specific groups are not allowed a voice. May not be a workable idea.
That’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve never really thought this through, so its pushing me to articulate what’s in me. I look forward to your thoughts and to see what else comes out of me.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Food for thought from calm Canadians:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm
See especially the quotations that lead the second link’s brief essay.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Thanks for your explanation allison. You have given me some tasty thoughts to chew on. I will get back to you in a couple of days once I can put work back into its cage.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
In the unlikely event somebody looks in the ROS Archives to continue dialogue here, you might be interested in this: http://www.kuow.org/program_lecture_series.asp
Two hours of Gloria Steinem on April 5th, 2006.
After today it will be stored in the KUOW archives.