I strongly urge pro-choicers to make their own ban--don't visit states that overturn legal abortion. I'm guessing tourism is a huge part of South Dakota's economy, and we can hit them where it hurts.

Yes, what I'm advocating assumes that one doesn't already live in South Dakota. But since only ~770,000 people live there, there's millions of us who can enact a ban.

And yes, a trickle-down theory of economics could suggest that a tourist ban would eventually hurt women, but I'm not going to willingly give my tourist dollars to a state that makes such harmful legislation. They can use their own tax dollars for that.

In addition to such a ban, I think it is important to figure out how to help the women of South Dakota (and the other states that will soon follow) get the type of health care they need.

Start up a collection to help relocate all the women in South Dakota who have the nerve to believe that their reproductive systems don't belong to the state.

A man rapes a woman. She has no lawful alternative but to deiver the child. What is the legal status of the rapist? Can he assume custody of the child? Is his permission required to give the child up for adoption? Is he obligated to pay child support? What about shared custody?

My head is spinning.

Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that I am thoroughly pro-choice; I have no moral opposition to abortion, even late-term, as I realize it is employed only in the most extreme circumstances.

However, I'm always a little disquieted when someone protests a law like this by pointing out there are "no exceptions for cases of rape and incest." If a woman seeks an abortion, the pregnancy is unwanted, no matter what the nature of its origin. If one makes the case that victims of rape and/or incest have an even stronger case to abort above women whose unwanted pregnancies resulted from consensual sex, then one essentially argues that a child of rape is something like sub-human. It would be just as outrageous to say "no exceptions for cases where the fetus has down syndrome."

Although I disagree with the law, at least it is logically consistent from a "pro-life" perspective. For those of us who are pro-choice, it would best serve the cause to unilaterally oppose all restrictions on abortion. When we make these distinctions, it serves no real good. A human life is a human life; where we differ with the anti-choicers is where, exactly, that independent life begins, not its worth based on the circumstances of its creation.

Then it will become a problem for the right to lifers since those rights will have to be paid for by their precious holy tax dollars. We'll see the definition change so that life begins at the age of your first W-2.

(Assuming of course they don't repeal that drop off law too and people take to exposing unwanted infants to death, on hillsides, like the Spartans.)

...to rescue low-income, pro-choice women from the slave state that used to be South Dakota.

Here's a solution to South Dakota's abortion ban: go to South Dakota with 10,000 of your friends and get arrested. Fill South Dakota's jails with so many people that it's impossible to prosecute doctors for performing abortions.

A nationwide abortion ban would not be easy to lift with a series of civil disobediences, but there have to be 10,000 people, nationwide, willing to travel to South Dakota around the time the Supreme Court will rule on the state's abortion ban. South Dakota is small enough (in terms of population) that I should think it would be possible to bankrupt the state's courts (which would take more than 10,000 people), if you so desired.

I'll do it. If NARAL can get 10,000 other people committed, I'll go to South Dakota (from Connecticut!) to get peacefully arrested the day the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade.

I live in South Dakota & I won't have to wait for a 'trickle down effect' on the economy to be hurt by a boycott. I'm a single mother working in the food service industry. Yep, we absolutely depend on those tourist dollars & I would feel the effects of any boycott immediately.

You know what? DO IT! Please, I'm begging all of you. Mike Rounds signed that bill in defiance of the wishes of most South Dakotans; when the economy tanks over it I want him to get the blame! And trust me, come election time, I will be working hard to remind the voters of how we've all been betrayed.

Another somewhat related source of state revenue is hunting: if anyone here hunts or has influence over a hunter...Hey! the hunting's great in Wyoming too!

Now, any suggestions on how the hell I can get out of Gilead?