South Dakota Indian Tribe Will Open Abortion Business if Ban Becomes Law

Lifenews.com ^ | March 23, 2006 | Steven Ertelt

[sgent]

Pierre, SD (LifeNews.com) -- A South Dakota Indian tribe is throwing a monkey wrench into the state's plans to ban virtually all abortions in the state. Should the ban become law, one tribe says it will open up an abortion business on their tribal lands, which wouldn't be subjected to the abortion ban.

Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux tribe of South Dakota, says Sioux nation sovereignty means the new ban doesn't apply. As a result, she said she will lead an effort to build a Planned Parenthood abortion center at the Pine Ridge Reservation.

“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” she told Tim Giago who runs a web site called Indianz.com.

“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," Fire Thunder said.

A former nurse and health care worker, Fire Thunder is the first woman president of the Sioux nation.

[redpoll]

I agree. No HUD homes, no food stamps, no law enforcement. Speaking from a conservative perspective, it would actually be the most positive thing that could happen to Native Americans - people whom I am surrounded by right now, wearing Native pride baseball caps, playing with my son, and filling up my classroom. Soveriegnty is good for people.

I also taught on a reservation for a year. One of the Natives there told me that there were three generals who destroyed Native culture - General Custer, General Grant, and general assistance. Native people can easily rise to the occasion; I see it here, where Native people build a home by cutting down a tree and milling the lumber, not depending on welfare. Of course, some Natives do depend on welfare, and they are sad cases.

The Lakota people have a chunk of land that is equal in size to the Netherlands or Belgium. That's enough land for prosperity. The rest is their choice.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Should the ban become law, one tribe says it will open up an abortion business on their tribal lands, which wouldn't be subjected to the abortion ban."

Build a wall around these dirty-bags and abort them from SD. NO MORE WELFARE

[mad_as_he$$]

The Sioux resevrvation (Rosebud) is the poorest place in the country. Poorer than many 3rd world countries. IMHO this is nothing more than a $$$$ making venture. I don't think they care about what white eyes do to each other - and I don't blame them. I was on Rosebud last November it is a very sad place..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Giuliani: "...we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century."

Distinguished tradition? Bah!

"...And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government."

That's a surprisingly high number. I don't know if I believe that.

Thanks for posting his views.

[EternalVigilance]

Most welcome.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah, his numbers are hogwash.

Fact is, his abortion views are extreme even within the Democrat party. The majority of Dems oppose partial birth abortion, and Rudy supports it.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

The majority of Dems oppose partial birth abortion, and Rudy supports it.

I don't know if I believe that, either. I don't see why they would be opposed to it.

[EternalVigilance]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

Most Oppose Partial Birth Abortions

With control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it's expected the Republicans will move to ban "partial-birth" abortions, also known as dilation and extraction abortions. Congress has twice before passed such measures, both vetoed by then-President Clinton. President Bush has said he would sign the bill.

The 69 percent in this poll who say partial-birth abortions shouldn't be legal takes in majorities across demographic groups, including 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of liberals.

[EternalVigilance]

A huge new poll on abortion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601305/posts

[kittymyrib]

If one thin dime from the US Treasury is going to this tribe, I want to know why. If they are a separate entity, then they don't need US taxpayer funding.

[Potowmack]

I still don't expect to see any state that has set up guidelines against abortion, to simply allow an 'internal' 'nation' to circumvent the intent of their laws.

AFAIK, individual states have no power over the Indian Nations within their borders.

I'm not sure how this will play out, but I do expect to see some reaction from such states, which may include something along the lines of what I've mentioned.

A state has no power to ban you from travelling to another state or part of the US. Even if you are going to that other state to commit what is a crime in your home state (but not in the the target state).

Put another way, can California prevent you from travelling to Nevada to engage in (legal) prostitution?

[DoughtyOne]

Look, you can come up with a number of examples that will buttress your case. I'm not even saying you're wrong. What I am saying is that you will see states react in some manner to an attempt by an Indian nation to do an end run on their laws.

BTW, prostitution isn't exactly a good example when compared to the destruction of an unborn child.

[Potowmack]

What I am saying is that you will see states react in some manner to an attempt by an Indian nation to do an end run on their laws.

Perhaps. But that misses the point- states can only take actions allowed by the Constitution. Banning travel is not such a power.

BTW, prostitution isn't exactly a good example when compared to the destruction of an unborn child.

Sure it is. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, some States would ban abortion, and others wouldn't. So, if abortion was legal in Illinois, but illegal in Kansas, Kansas would have no power to prevent its citizens from travelling to Illinois to obtain abortions.

[BlackElk]

Good to hear that you are less enthusiastic for abortion than sometimes seems to be the case. Whether "safe or legal or rare," however, infanticide is still the unwarranted killing of an innocent human being.

Truth on such matters does not change over time. Are there reasons why you believe that outlawing abortion "in today's world" as opposed to, say, in 1950s world, would be a "big mistake."

I would also reiterate that a person who says that he or she is "pro-choice" (this is not now said in reference to you), cannot reasonably mean that he or she is in favor of legalizing a woman's decision to bear a child. That has never been challenged by any law in our country. If some, many or all women were told that they would not be allowed by government to bear ANY children for whatever public policy reasons, I trust that you would join pro-lifers on the barricades to resist such a policy and I would join any feminists with the courage to resist such a policy on their barricades.

"Pro-choice" can only mean favoring the legal status of each woman and her doctor to terminate the life of an innocent preborn child in some circumstances of her choosing or in all circumstances of her choosing. That is the only "choice" that needed legalizing of the "choice between birth and abortion.

I am convinced to a moral certainty that the term "pro-choice" is the product of focus groups experiments by Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg who is married to Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Hers is the district where I lived until a few years ago. Stanley taught at Yale and at Southern CT State University before becoming one of the most brilliant operatives of the Democrat Party. He has a daughter by a previous wife who also seems to be as brilliant and will carry on after Stanley retires. If you can obtain his "Middle Class Dreams" written in the pre-Clinton era about Democrat woes in the Reagan era, I think you will agree that he is one of their best. His wife successfully tested "Pro-choice" as a term in the 1990 campaign when she was elected by a razor thin margin. She was previously Executive Director of Emily's List (which funds only non-incumbent pro-abortion female left Democrat candidates for Congress). Rosa recently was the issuer of a letter signed by 55 alleged "Catholic" Democrat Congress members claiming to be seamless garment pro-lifers (i.e. pro-life socialists) including such as Cynthia McKinney and other notoriosos who are no more pro-life than John Kerry (with about three exceptions like James Oberstar).

Whatever our differences, may God bless you and yours. Your post was written with respect. Please accept this post as being respectful as well.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the additional comments. I understand your arguement. I still see a state vs an internal nation differently that I see a neighbor state or an international border, on the order of Canada.

If I had just tried to cut the number of abortions conducted in my state, and an indian nation tried to assure my constituents that they would step up and kill those my state wouldn't, I wouldn't be to keen about it.

I don't think this state's officals are going to be much different. I suspect they are going to find a way to convey that to the indian nation in question.

Your arguements are not out of line as they apply to the constituion. I just don't think the indian nation announcement is going to be the end of this.

[chalkfarmer]

I used to live and work on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the early 80's. I have a hard time believing that the grandmas will think this is a good thing. They have already tried unsuccessfully to get rid of Cecelia Fire Thunder once...

[JCEccles]

Have you ever not cheered for the abortionists?

[Hildy]

I'm NOT cheering...believe me...I'm just being realistic.

[Mr. Silverback]

Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux tribe of South Dakota, says Sioux nation sovereignty means the new ban doesn't apply.

Well that's just dandy, Cece baby! Hey, guess what? Sioux sovereignty also means that there will be no more federal or state support for you reservation, in the form of welfare, fire and police, schools, etc. Do it on your own. Oh, and bTW, we'll be needing to see a passport and a visa if you want to leave the reservation.

Two can play at this game, baby.