In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Paying to Overturn Roe

Well this is interesting.

A campaign to push the legislation through the U.S. court system up to the Supreme Court where South Dakotans can lead the charge to overturn Roe v. Wade, will cost over $1 million. South Dakota doesn’t have that kind of money. So Rounds is studying ways of accepting into the state treasury private funds with which to wage the battle in the name of the South Dakota citizenry. In short,the well-heeled opponents of abortion are going to hire the public state government to fight their battle.

Yeah, that’s right. South Dakotans, who are split on the abortion issue, are likely to be unhappy about the state exhausting its funds (their tax dollars) trying to overturn Roe. Enter the anti-choice establishment and its deep pockets:

The concern about how South Dakota’s voters really feel about the effort to outlaw abortion is reflected in Governor Rounds’s publicly affirmed reservation about the legal costs that the state will rack up defending this bill in the federal courts against the enjoinment that Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota reportedly plans to seek. Never fear, say pro-life groups, an anonymous donor or donors are waiting in the wings to pony up $1 million for the abortion ban’s legal fees.

When asked if the state will accept such legal gratuity, the Governor’s Press Secretary Mark Johnston answered, “There certainly has been discussion about that cost, and there does need to be provisions for receiving that money into the treasury,” and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader reported on Friday that a bill was being passed to set up such a special pro-life war chest in the state’s treasury. But when probed more specifically about the anonymous donation, Johnston checked himself, answering “I can’t think of whether [the Governor] has said that publicly, so I can’t answer that.”

So the anti-choicers are effectively purchasing the state government, and using it to take away our basic human rights. Outraged yet?


14 thoughts on Paying to Overturn Roe

  1. It is reassuring to see that people are thinking about this with seriousness. I am not surprised to see that the anti-choicers are finding unrespectable ways to forward thier agenda. Where are the pro-choicers on this one? Is it too optimistic to think that thier are pro-choicers out there ready to counter with equal money and involvement? Where is the resistance? I would love to know more about what I can do to help fight this.

  2. I’d weigh in on the illegal side of things, although I have a question. Can an anti-choicer with a lot of money claim to be an interested party? i.e. are those terms in the definitions terms of art or construed broadly?

  3. I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that the courts will dismiss the lawsuit, when it occurs, based on the three minor if not archaic offenses outlined on the blog. If barristry were truly an offense taken seriously then indeed all the mockers of the family judicial system who use the courts as a means to harrass their ex spouses would be repeatedly found criminally liable. But alas, they are not.

    Maintenance applies to ‘unsought and unwarranted’ assistance in a lawsuit. Unless the a body representing the citizens of South Dakota can claim that the financial assistance relegates to ‘unsolicited interference’ they don’t have a winner there either. The ProLifers I am sure have solicited for the assistance.

    Chamfrey seems to elude to some possible unenforceable financial agreement or gain based on the outcome should the outsider become a party to or give interference or assistance.

    What is defined as interference?

    And couldn’t this go all the way up to the grand old nine? Isn’t that what these people want anyway, to test to the new boys? Break them in?

    I don’t feel positive, no I don’t. We have to see women dying in emergency rooms, pregnant 12 year olds on the street and the rest before people wake up and maybe not even then.

  4. Hit submit too early.

    Because if they’re gonna outlaw abortion, shouldn’t they have thought about how much it’s gonna cost to convince everyone else how bad it is, too?

  5. This is almost too much to be believed.
    I can’t help but feel it has to be illegal.

    If not where are the private funds to fight in the other direction?

  6. If not where are the private funds to fight in the other direction?

    I think that’s where you guys come in.

    I was thinking about this today, and it seems to me that this is the type of thing that can be OK or not OK, depending on how it’s handled.

    For example, would it be OK for a friend of a plaintiff to buy them plane tickets, help them with babysitting on a court date, or give them money for a lawyer? Well, sure it would. So it would seem that help in that direction is fine, legally speaking.

    I’m not sure where the boundaries of acceptability are, though.

  7. Where are the private funds to fight in the other direction? Apparently they’re coming from Planned Parenthood, based on the second quoted paragraph.

    If South Dakota is going to do this (challenge Roe), wouldn’t you rather they do it on the godbags’ dime than their taxpayers’?

Comments are currently closed.