Posted on 03/01/2006 12:55:39 PM PST by jcb8199
RAPID CITY — The South Dakota Legislature’s passage of an abortion ban bill prompted an angry reaction from abortion-rights supporters who vowed to boycott the state’s tourism industry.
The state Department of Tourism received a dozen e-mails and a number of angry phone calls Friday from abortion-rights supporters who say they will not vacation in South Dakota.
A Madison, Wis.,-based group has formally called for a boycott of South Dakota tourism. In a news release titled “Bypass South Dakota!”, the Women’s Medical Fund urged supporters to steer clear of South Dakota.
“All kinds of families visit Mount Rushmore every year. It’s a favorite of Americans and foreign tourists. But we can do without Mount Rushmore, the Black Hills, the Badlands and the Corn Palace,” Anne Gaylor, director of the Fund, wrote. “We are encouraging all groups who care about women’s rights to urge their members to bypass South Dakota.”
Billie Jo Waara, head of the state office of tourism, said her office has been hearing from people throughout the country.
“They have commented on the fact that the state is a great destination for travel, but our current political situation doesn’t match their agenda,” Waara said.
Waara said she was unsure exactly how many phone calls the Tourism Department has received. She confirmed that the agency got 12 e-mails, a small number compared with the Tourism Office’s daily e-mail traffic.
She hasn’t heard of anyone canceling trips that were already planned for South Dakota; the callers and e-mailers are instead saying they won’t make plans to visit the state.
“Certainly, this is an important issue for South Dakota, an important issue for our country. Our state’s leadership (Legislature) is taking their position, and we’ll have to determine what impact this will have on our industry,” she said.
Meanwhile, the Rapid City Journal received seven letters to the editor on Thursday and Friday that specifically call for a tourism boycott of South Dakota.
One of the letter writers, Louise Jezierski of Okemos, Mich., wrote that she and her husband have visited the Badlands and Black Hills in the past. “We planned to take our two boys to share with them this very special place,” she wrote Friday. “But today, the government of the state of South Dakota voted to take away the civil rights of women and their families. I cannot, in good conscience, support any economy that thrives on intolerance and promotes the relegation of women to second class citizenship.”
In an interview Friday afternoon, Gaylor of the Women’s Medical Fund compared a South Dakota tourism boycott to the 1990 Idaho potato boycott, which she said was successful in turning back an abortion ban in the state.
The potato boycott never became an actual boycott. The National Organization for Women and other pro-choice groups called for a boycott of Idaho’s most famous agricultural product.
Pro-life groups countered with a drive to encourage members to increase potato consumption if the bill became law.
It isn’t clear what effect the potato boycott threat actually had. Then-Gov. Cecil Andrus vetoed the abortion bill, citing an aversion to out-of-state pressure.
Tourism is billed as South Dakota’s second-largest industry, behind agriculture. It isn’t clear whether the “Bypass South Dakota” movement has broad support. The National Organization for Women Web site posted a statement decrying the South Dakota Legislature’s vote. However, it made no specific mention Friday of a boycott.
South Dakota has seen various tourism boycotts in the past. Most recently, some motorcycle groups vowed to boycott the Sturgis motorcycle rally to protest what they believed was a light sentence for Rep. Bill Janklow’s manslaughter conviction. He served 100 days in jail for killing a motorcyclist in an auto accident.
In 2003, American Indian groups called for a South Dakota tourism boycott to protest the treatment of Indian burial grounds and sacred sites.
Neither had a significant effect on visitation.
Bill Honerkamp, head of the Black Hills, Badlands & Lakes Association, said Friday he was not aware of an abortion-rights tourism boycott of South Dakota.
“That’s the first I’ve heard of it,” he said. “We’re powerless to stop a faction from staging a boycott, but I can’t imagine it having much political leverage (on the Legislature).”
Contact Dan Daly at 394-8421 or dan.daly@rapidcityjournal.com
Best to keep the pro-aborts out of the state anyway. Can't trust 'em around the kids and they scare the animals anyway.
What, North Dakotans and Canucks looking for a warm weather getaway?
Time for all good S. Dakotans to boycott cheese.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA...S.D. legislature probably now (if they didnt before) knows they definitely did the right thing.
We have been there and we are definitely going again...the sooner the better.
Badlands, Mt. Rushmmore, Black Hills, Deadwood, Crazy Horse...beauty abounds in South Dakota and the people are beautiful too!
I guess NOW cancelled that members only hunting trip to ND for this fall?
As if there was anything for a liberal in South Dakota anyway. It's not as if they would care to see Mount Rushmore since it's just four dead white guys to them.
"Instead we will take our two boys out back and kill them using a saline solution".
I would have to agree! :-)
Jessica Fjerstad, Miss South Dakota 2005
It's always helpful when a liberal boycotts a destination. Lets you know where you can take the family.
And how many liberals visit South Dakota? After all, the place does not contain the perversions that liberals enjoy (cross dressing freaks, child molesters, and the like).
Professor Jezierski's deeply respectful comments on Ronald Reagan, a mere week after his death. Most of her stats are out of context or pure crap (the unemployment rate very early in Reagan's term, due to the recession caused by Carter's stagflation, hit 7.5%, etc).
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/040616/features/index.asp
MSU urban sociologist Louise Jezierski notes that “the outrageousness of some of this stuff is just amazing.” Reagan’s social policies increased both poverty and homelessness. He drastically cut Aid for Families with Dependent Children AFDC and food stamp programs. He also greatly decreased government expenditures on public and low-income housing when he cut HUD’s budget from $74 billion to $19 billion.
Reagan also engineered the change from AFDC to TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Under TANF, the federal government gave block grants for welfare to each state. Each state then formulated its own welfare regulations. The result is that welfare battles have to be done on a state-by-state basis.
Cities were faced with the harshest realities of declining social welfare. Federal funding to cities was cut by 60 percent. The ongoing deindustrialization of the United States had created a deep recession. “Unemployment nationwide was 7.5 percent; that was double in cities, double for African-Americans”Jezierski said,
Reagan was unwilling to combat the growing problem of homelessness. During his time in office, the number of homeless people increased to around 600,000. The federal government wouldn’t support the social safety net anymore. “He said homelessness is a choice, and people should find a park bench to sleep on,” Jezierski said.
Yup - they could even use that on their tourism ads - visit beautiful liberal-free South Dakota!
"We and our non-existant offspring refuse to go to South Dakota for the rest of our generation"
Say it ain't so! (Gnashes teeth and weeps in anguish)
</sarcasm>
Feel free to boycott Hot Springs, SD, we'll try to manage without you.
Sounds like Paradise!
Good Lord! They may have to cancel Gay Days at Mount Rushmore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.