Rapid City Journal – March 26, 2006:
Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakota’s new abortion ban goes into effect.
“We’re working on it,” Fire Thunder said in a telephone interview Friday. “This is a free-choice issue. If I were in that situation, I’d want somewhere to go where I’d be taken care of.”
The new South Dakota law bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother — with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Fire Thunder said the state law would not apply to the reservation. “We’re a sovereign nation,” she said.
Rapid City attorney Charlie Abourezk, who has experience in Indian law and who has represented tribes and President Fire Thunder, said Indian doctors might be immune from the new state law if abortions were done on a reservation — whether the woman was Indian or non-Indian.
they are a sovereign nation…..but under Federal jurisdiction and there is no way this administration will allow it.
It might take special legislation to outlaw it though – and the GOP does not have a filibuster-proof majority on abortion issues.
Way to go Cheif! Stick it to the man and twist the knife.
Good deal, get rid of all those nasty indian babies.
It would be interesting to see how Tribal police would handle the protesters outside the clinic…
Does the sovereign nation of the Oglala Sioux allow peacable assembly on tribal lands by people who are not members of the tribe?
The tribe has a good case. Indian Reservation’s are sovereign independent nations. The comment about “the administration” never allowing it may be correct as the United States has often disregarded its treaty’s with Indian Nations when it suits the interest of the United States. However, I would imagine a US District Court Judge will act first in declaring this law unconstitutional the day it becomes law (if it is not declared unconstitutional before the date set for it to become law). As long as the US Supreme Court allows Row v. Wade to stand this state law is unconstitutional. It is called precedent or Stare Decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases).
The purpose of these laws was specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade. They know they’re in direct contradiction to it and wouldn’t be upheld otherwise. They want the Supreme Court to revisit it and see if it can be overturned now that Roberts and Alito are there.
It wasn’t that long ago that our forefathers protected their babies from Indians. Now we will pay Indians to kill them. Look who got that the last laugh.
I say good for the Sioux Nation! I don’t care much about the abortion issue, but am happy at the idea they could make money off of us and thumb their nose at the US Government.
As a brit I didn’t realise that Indian Reservations are sovereign nations.
Also I don’t want to make light of a serious matter (so moderator please feel free to drop this) but, does that mean they could enter a team in the Olympics for instance? or have a seat at the UN? What are the limits of their sovreignity
I thought Indians are trying to get rid of that nasty old stereotype of being “savages”, how is telling people that they can kill their children on their land helping that?
The child has no choice!
Interesting that all the “kill their children” people that posted here are all men. Probably men afraid of losing their power…perhaps even needing medical “help” in the bedroom.
You tell them! Them women folk don’t own their bodies! We own them! And ain’t no injun gonna tell us different! Now get back into the kitchen and have them babies….and don’t worry your pretty little heads about it.
I thought Indians are trying to get rid of that nasty old stereotype of being “savages”, how is telling people that they can kill their children on their land helping that?
Adam, perhaps in your distorted view, you would care to enlighten the world how the Indians are considered savages? I saw nothing in this story about the Sioux Nation killing babies. The article was focused upon the legal right of terminating a pregnancy. I read nothing about infantcide.
Are you one of those people who thinks the law applies to everyone EXCEPT YOU ? Much like bush and his minions. Are you more interested in imposing your values (whether good or bad) on others because you have seen the light and therefore know what is best?
Treaties were negotiated to define sovereign relationships. For example, federal excise taxes aren’t collected by tribes; so, folks will drive 20 miles to buy gasoline or cigarettes.
For those of you having trouble with this:
Fetus ≠ Child; Abortion is applied to fetuses (fetii?). Therefore Abortion ≠ Killing Children.
However, more often than not, Religious Nuts = Imbeciles. Imbeciles talk nonsense. As an exercise, I’ll let you figure out that conclusion.
Fusion, I actually agree with you. (I know, it’s a shock 😉 ).
I would like to see more limitations put on abortion, but I definitley want adult women to have the choice. South Dakota is creating controversy for controversy’s sake and going about thing completely bass-ackwards. The Sioux Nation is trying to balance things by restoring choice.
>>However, more often than not, Religious Nuts = Imbeciles.
Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly right. The right-wing neocon snake-handling kooks have given real personal beliefs a bad name.
As to the Sioux, more power to them. South Dakota seems to be in the clutches of the snake-handling crowd, and if it takes American Indians to give women in that state their reproductive rights back, good for them, and bad for the Big Gummint of South Dakota.
I bet they sell their scalps, too.
>>Fetus ≠ Child
Well that is absolutely incorrect. A fetus is defined as “offspring; a young one; unborn baby; unborn child” Multiple definitions taken from google search “define:fetus”, (and not just from the red state sources).
Since “unborn” is a descriptor to the noun “child”, then Fetus=Child.
That has little to do with the argument of whether abortion should be legal or not, so please don’t bastardize the language– it only weakens the argument.
“bastardize”! — pretty funny.
It may be tough for some of the spookier types to rely on the very medicine they rush to when they’re in need themselves; but, the first 8 weeks of that group of developing cells is defined by the word “embryo”.
A physician doesn’t start to use any other term until after that time period.
Either flavor, the majority of folks in our land support the right to choose — as they have for the past 30 years. No matter how much some folks would turn the clock back to medieval understanding, biblical rights.
Wow. The Sioux are falling prey to the vices of the white man? Or is this a plot to kill white babies? I’m not racist or anything, but logically if I had a nation of people that was almost wiped out to the brink of exctinction my first reaction would not be providing a place or my people to kill our offspring. You’d think the more the merrier. Methinks there is alterior motives at work here. The Sioux involved in this decision are either very brainwahed or very conniving. Lets hope we don’t find out which is which though.
Hmm, no tomahawk chop jokes? Well, if after this any Indian tribes complain about the Atlanta Braves, I don’t wanna hear about it.
The choice between being a Religous Nut and being a Baby Killer is a simple one.
Please post a link proving people have Free Will, and I will use my Free Will to post the links you are requesting. Otherwise, what you seemingly request cannot be done.
call me when pocahontas starts looking like that feathered bird you’re showing, as for abortions I think minority groups are being pushed to adopt these measures which are uncharacteristic of their traditions. Oh well, as yankees push them on the brink guess who will suffer most? Babyphobic yankee dontwannabe mamas who will no doubt
make sure that their unborns get the tomahawk maltreatment for their moment of pleasure.
mmm … if fetus = child and abortion = murder, howcome the maximum penalty for violating the South Dakota law is 5 years in the pen? I imagine that the penalty in S.D. for murdering a child is substantially higher than that.
This is a good idea. For one thing, people should get the right to choose. Second thing, the country and World are overpopulated. Next, Indian reservations tend to pop out ‘a figgin lot’ of kids. I know, I live 5 miles from one in ND. I hope they get to do it, because they need to slow down the Vodka and Budweiser intake on the so called “dry reservations”. Flame me for my views, but you don’t see it every day.
First I am greatly saddened by the racist comments made on this page.At the age of 54, for many years I have prayed that the human being would evolve.It seems some are having great proplems with this. I am so glad that the free will God bestowed on us, I have used to surround myself with good people who know we are all created by God, thus we are all related.
Much is explained by these comments on the state of our goverment, our enviroment etc.So sad.
Free will=free choice
Christy