by
Suzanne Sunshower
all-out ban on abortion, with NO provision for rape or incest, a bill which the Governor has indicated
he will sign into law. Due to this recent turn of events, I am reprinting this longer version of an article
that I wrote which was originally published (under the same title) in the well-known radical feminist
journal Rain and Thunder in fall 2005.
This article was researched and written two years ago; it gives background information on the oddly
misogynistic environment of South Dakota, which is important for those in the Choice movement
outside the state to know in order to understand how difficult the battle for Choice has been in this
state. Without this background information, most Choicers do not understand the depth of the
horrors women have withstood in this state - with little help from outside its borders, nor will they
know how to fight the myriad of horrors that are surely to come once the abortion ban bill is signed.
Please pay special attention to the words of Ms. Charon Asetoyer, Director of the Native American
Women's Health Education Resource Center, in the interview segment, as she explains some of the
particular injustices that have been visited upon American Indian women, thwarting their efforts to
exercise reproductive freedom. Ms. Asetoyer is explicit in her assertions about what methods have
worked in the past to fight the South Dakota legislature, and which ones will not be effective (should a
ban bill pass), in the state's uniquely racist and misogynist climate. Perhaps if Choicers outside the
state had paid more attention to such women's voices within the state in the past, the legislature would
have felt less free about dooming all of the state's women to certain misery.
My hope is that everyone who reads this article will redouble her or his commitment to the fight for
women's lives and freedom, and will let South Dakota's bizarrely misguided, and misogynist,
legislators and governor know that their blatant, anti-woman stance will not be tolerated. Write
emails, boycott South Dakota and its products - and, above all, be loud about it!
In 2004, one million women returned to their homes, jobs, and towns with a lingering high from the
"Women's March" on D.C. for reproductive freedom. I returned to South Dakota, the most
dangerously repressive state in the U.S. in which a woman can become pregnant.
.
With a population hovering just above 750,000, South Dakota averages about 7 residents per square
mile, which recent studies reveal is fewer than during frontier times. The ethnic breakdown is about
7% Native American, next to a Caucasian population towering near 90%. The rural landscape is
relentless and isolating, giving rise to a parochial world view uniformly present in each tiny,
disconnected South Dakota town. This parochialism - an abject refusal to accept influence from the
outside world - fired by omnipresent evangelicalism, fuels the rabidly anti-Choice mentality here.
Religiousness is only part of it. As an independent woman living here, I can tell you that it is how
women fit into the social construct here that is the barrier to social progress in South Dakota. While a
South Dakota fetus enjoys more rights than its mother, the air here is thick with fear that women may
gain personhood one day, too.
[Although not outlawed until the governor signs the new bill in July 2006,] access to abortion remains
difficult to obtain even by private means, and the procedure is still unlikely to be performed unless the
woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. Ensuring this, the Catholic Church bought two of the
three largest public hospitals in the state and runs their satellite health clinics in the small towns.
Newly transplanted from Detroit to rural South Dakota I had been shocked when, on the 30th
anniversary of Roe v. Wade, South Dakota lawmakers used tax paid Session time to attend an anti-
abortion candlelight vigil inside the state Capitol. The ceremony was held in the rotunda - the
symbolic foyer to the world of government, and the very spot where legislative duty and public
interest meet. I was appalled that no one in South Dakota seemed to find this behavior highly
inappropriate, let alone downright odd. The ceremony was reported by local media as if the
legislature was taking an elaborate break from the daily grind inside the Capitol.
An outright ban was dodged in March 2005, when the South Dakota legislature passed a bill
requiring that physicians secure a signed waiver from any woman seeking an abortion that states that
the woman understands she is terminating the life of "a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
It’s not as though there are no women in the state Senate or House. South Dakota’s illogical
backward dance down the social evolutionary scale is not the fault of males alone. There are 14
women listed on the House roster, out of 69 members; 4 women out of 35 members listed on the
Senate roster. In this state with an abbreviated legislative calendar of (roughly) 36 days per Session,
representatives must hold other jobs in order to make their living.
Curious as to what those jobs might be for the women representatives, I randomly reviewed one
public profile of a female House member. The female I chose represents the most populated region of
the state - the population center that is Sioux Falls. At 120,000 people, Sioux Falls is the only true city-
center in the state. In this Representative’s profile, listed next to Full-Time Occupation, were the
words: Stay at Home Mother.
At first glance, thinking with my Detroit brain, it didn’t compute. How could she be a legislator and a
Stay at Home Mother? If you come from a state where none of the women in legislature could
possibly be Stay at Home Mothers, you might subconsciously skip-over the seeming incongruity
altogether and register the thought that a full-time Mom in state legislature would be a good thing -
she’d have great ideas for laws that would help women. Think again.
A legislator who lists Stay at Home Mother as her Full-Time Occupation, is a part-time legislator. She
is bringing a very different set of values to the legislature than the woman who is a full-time legislator
and is juggling a family, too. The House member profile clearly states the job for which this female
legislator receives the most social recognition. In South Dakota, motherhood rules - even over and
above ruling, itself.
True enough, this particular female House member was a sponsor of a 2004 abortion ban bill.
The limiting social construct by which the male South Dakota legislators gauge women is similar to
how they view their livestock, in that heifers - breed cows - are prized. It is also how the female
legislators have been socialized to see themselves, and other women, as well. Generally speaking,
women who are independent of men or children are viewed with the utmost suspicion here as an
extremely serious threat to South Dakota’s social order.
South Dakotans grow up in tiny towns from which they rarely stray far; few go on to college, and
many I’ve met do not travel outside the state. Almost without exception, they marry at eighteen, and
many women have five children in the home by age twenty-five. Sex roles are absolutely rigid.
Women here are socialized to fear independent living, thinking, and acting. It is evident that the men
fear it from them.
After rebuilding the front porch of my house by myself, even townspeople who watched me struggle
everyday for weeks - hauling lumber alone and running my power tools - still asked me who the
carpenter was that built my porch. One woman gazed at my porch, and then commented in awe,
“You’re handy. Just like a man.”
Women whose own minds are not free from a self-limiting and self-defeating self-image will not help
in liberating other women. They simply cannot. This is how it comes to be that, in South Dakota,
women help men twist the garrote around the throat of women’s Choice
reproductive rights of Native women are being further manipulated and eroded to an abominable
degree. For Native American women dependent upon the federal government for reproductive health
care, Choice has been virtually non-existent for many years. Ensured they will not find remedy
within the state health care system, Native women truly have nowhere left to turn.
Listening to Public Radio one day - my daily link to civilization when the signal isn't blown out by the
obnoxious prairie wind - I heard a report about the Indian Health Service, citing the number of
abortions undergone by Native American woman in its care to be 25. I assumed the statistic was
from South Dakota, a reflection of the fervent anti-abortion climate, but I discovered it was a national
statistic for all Indian Health Service (IHS) units reporting in the country. Not twenty-five hundred
abortions nationwide, but yes, only twenty five! In 21 years of statistics keeping.
This was particularly stunning in light of the high incidences of reported rape on reservations where
IHS units are located. According to American Indians and Crime 1996, 7 per 1000 Native women
were victims of rape, compared with 2 per 1000 white women, which is a disparity in crime victim
likelihood that is well-known.
So, why the low abortion rate for Native women? Turns out, the low rate is due to an unequal
application of the notorious Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, which limits access to public-funded
abortions for low income women. However, all IHS units are required to provide the minimal access
to abortion services that Hyde dictates. In Hyde's current (1997) incarnation, abortion services are to
be provided in cases of rape, incest, and the mother's physical endangerment. The unbelievable
statistic of 25 abortions is not a reflection of any one state's anti abortion climate, nor is it an accurate
reflection of organic Native thinking about reproductive choices, it was found that IHS units are
simply arbitrarily ignoring the provisions of the Hyde Amendment.
Meanwhile, Native women are being routinely denied their own treaty guaranteed health care,
through gross systemic abuse. This is shameful and unlawful; another treaty violation, one for which
women are paying with their health and well-being. Also paying, surely, are the unwanted children
these women are forced to bear.
I was angered to learn of this willful breaking of federal law by federally funded clinics. What we
have seen time and again in the abortion fight, as with other social issues, is that first the rights of low
income women of color disappear. When no one stands up for them, and their cries are history, the
pathway is clear to oppress others.
I knew that, given the Bush administration's evangelical taint to legislation out of D.C., what was
happening in South Dakota, and what the government was already doing to Native women, could be
the future for all U.S. women. I tracked down a co-author of the report I'd heard on the radio, Ms.
Charon Asetoyer, Executive Director of the Native American Women's Health Education Resource
Center in Lake Andes, South Dakota, and made an appointment to visit the Center to discuss the
issue of Hyde Amendment non-compliance.
There are no expressways in South Dakota; the sixty mile drive to Lake Andes was over country
roads, through the maddening wind. The town of Lake Andes, pop. 800, is 60% Native American,
and has an almost tangibly oppressive feel to it. The dingy business section has a deserted Old West
meets Contemporary Urban Poverty look that is prevalent in many of South Dakota's economically
depressed small towns. Ironically, abandoned storefronts create a 'ghetto' look that makes driving
through these utterly rural communities a surreal experience.
On this day, there was a carnival staked out in the 'downtown' area, yet I saw more residents heading
through the door of the town saloon than toward the amusement locale. The ferris wheel and other
welcoming rides circled round and round - empty.
On a residential street, I was buoyed to see the sign for the Native American Women's Health
Education Center (NAWHERC) hanging out front of a pleasant, brick bungalow. Inside, Ms.
Asetoyer met me with a wary handshake and a curious look, which I get a lot out here. People are
surprised to find out I moved here from a metropolis, and even more surprised to see that I am Black.
There aren't too many lone Black women in South Dakota.
Charon (pronounced: Sharon) Asetoyer, is a tall, purposeful woman, who was looking a tad tired
when we met because she'd already spent a full day interviewing candidates for a job opening at the
Center. Charon founded the NAWHERC in 1988, after having spent 8 years serving on the National
Women's Health Network Board. As we sat down to talk in the airy conference room, I could clearly
see that the NAWHERC, and its mission, is a labor of love for its busy Director.
Interview
Q Are you aware of a change in attitude toward abortion, among Native Americans, because of the
influence of Christianity?
A Oh, jeez! It's a major hurdle. The Catholic Church has a stronghold on almost every reservation in
the U.S. An historical stronghold, what with the boarding school history, it's still a major influence on
many families. It’s hard to make people understand they have to respect other people’s choices.
Traditionally, women elders have told us, we had medicines to make our periods come and to keep us
healthy...there was no word for abortion, but basically it was to terminate a pregnancy. Reasons
might be failed birth control, famine, wars, or we had to move camp...decisions were made based on
issues other than what they are today, they were based on survival. Birth control was the business of
women and not open to scrutiny in the political arena.
Q How many IHS units are there in South Dakota, and who works at them? Are they federal employees?
A There are 11 units; with federal employees; a mix of Native and white. The least resistant you are,
the higher you climb in that bureaucratic system...if you're not an advocate for our people, you'll do
well. If you're someone who's trying to fight the reneging of their [IHS] trust responsibility of
providing healthcare for us, you're not going to last.
Q If there's no standard protocol for abortion counseling at IHS units, isn't it conceivable that,
especially in South Dakota, the person 'counseling' a woman could be anti abortion?
A Very much! They just wouldn't be doing any counseling; you're just not provided any
information. In this state, if the pharmacist in your community doesn't want to carry contraceptives,
they don't have to. The next town over from here is like that. There is a movement within the Federal
government, even for federal employees, not to provide abortion services under any circumstances,
and that's what's so dangerous.
Q 17 states have expanded options outside of Hyde, within their Medicaid system. South Dakota does
not. Since all Native women are eligible for IHS, but not all Native women are eligible for Medicaid, IHS
is the first logical place for a Native woman to turn for health care unless she has private insurance. Are
we talking about low income women?
A Yes. But you have to understand, for Indigenous people within this country, health care is not a
privilege, it's a treaty right! It's a privilege for everyone else, but we are supposed to be guaranteed
health care through the IHS, regardless of means.
Q As South Dakota law becomes more restrictive, is there still abortion funding after rape and incest for
Native women? I'm asking you what's really going on.
A Within South Dakota, there is a very poor track record of IHS providing that information, and
providing abortion, because they [IHS] don't provide abortions within their facilities; they contract it
out. For instance, one weekend on Pine Ridge reservation there were over 50 reported rapes, and you
can rest assured some pregnancies occurred with that, but was IHS there to say 'You have the right to
an abortion...or how about the morning after pill'? No! You have to fight for that!
Q Have you gotten information that women have requested abortions and been denied?
A Oh, yeah! Women have! Without even emergency contraception, you just have the baby... it's a
very, very serious situation that we have. We're entitled to, at least, the provisions of the Hyde
Amendment, and we're being denied abortion at that basic level. There are cases of women in South
Dakota being denied abortion even in life endangerment situations, they were denied. When it's rape,
incest, or life endangerment - life endangerment - and you're being told 'No', then there's something
seriously wrong with that! It's contradictory to the mission of the Indian Health Service. They're
supposed to be there to help us, to provide medical service for us, and it's not.
Q What about current legislation?[a ban bill was introduced in 2004]
A They [2004 legislature] just tried to pass a bill excluding even rape and incest...but it didn't get
through. It got to the Governor's desk, but he didn't sign it. It'll probably come up again next year.
Years ago, an anti abortion bill came up, and Native women spoke at the state capitol, and the
legislators were very touched by their testimony. That time, it never got out of Committee; that bill to
ban abortion stopped there.
I told Planned Parenthood they blew it with their strategy. Their response was 'We needed to raise
funds to get rural women there from different communities to stay a week and lobby, etc. If the bill
passes, we'll just take them [the state] to court.' But then the state's response was, 'If we have to spend
a million dollars to fight against abortion, we will.'
Well, where's that million dollars going to come from? Planned Parenthood doesn't give a crap that
it's going to come out of Medicaid, food stamps, shelter programs...programs that service low income
women. It's a lose-lose situation, for us. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is doing mail drops to
generate income off the situation. Fighting in court, after it becomes law, is a very dangerous political
game for these large non-profits. They keep themselves in business off of our misery. Just think,
where's the state going to get the money to fight in court, but from programs that serve women of
color, and low income Indigenous people - we know it!
Q If 85% of nationally surveyed IHS units weren't in compliance with Hyde, can I assume that 100%
of South Dakota IHS clinics were or are not?
A [Smiles] You got it.
Q Do you feel national IHS headquarters was stonewalling giving you the statistics you needed for your
report, because they knew it would be proof of non-compliance?
A Oh! We got shuffled from department after department after department, and still never got these
statistics from them. We had to get hold of our Congressional representative, Senator Tom Daschle.
His office requested them, and it still took months.
Q Your report indicates that the percentage of Native women in South Dakota who sought abortions
(10.6%) in 2000 was 145% higher than the total percentage of Native Americans in the state (7.3%).
Please explain.
A It means we are disproportionately represented...it breaks the myth that Native American women
don't believe in abortion.
Q Ah. That’s like the myth that Black women don't have abortions, but the numbers prove otherwise...
A Exactly. Native women have to pay for those abortions; we have to scrounge up the money, or
leave the state...whatever it takes. Those stats tell us 'Yes, there is a need for abortion', which is not
being met by our primary health care provider, the Indian Health Service.
Q What about Stephanie Herseth getting elected [first woman sent to D.C. from S. D.]? Her opponent
made a big deal about where her money was coming from [Emily's List; NOW] and her Pro Choice
stance.
A I really don't think that'll make a difference. The Catholic Church is buying up all the clinics
here... the largest hospital in the state doesn't even do tubal ligations. Why is abortion in the political
arena anyway? A lot of the right wing movement in this state is driven by white males. It's all
controlled by men, trying to control our bodies and the decisions that we make. They have no right
and no business to do that; decisions shouldn't be made by these men who don't even bear children.
In Conclusion
While it appears that women in South Dakota dodged a bullet in 2004, abortion is far from being a
readily available procedure in women’s health care, and women’s lives are still in danger.
All eyes must remain on South Dakota, and all women freedom fighters must pay attention!
Side Bar
To purchase reports concerning Indigenous women's reproductive rights and Hyde Amendment non
compliance, contact:
The Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center
P.O. Box 572, Lake Andes, South Dakota 57356-0572
(type 1215 into bill # slot)
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/index.aspx
Rain and Thunder: A Radical Feminist Journal of Discussion and Activism
Contact Archives Home