314
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

To Summarize:

The article discusses the efforts of reproductive rights activists to get abortion-rights amendments on ballots in various states, particularly focusing on South Dakota. Despite recent trends favoring abortion rights supporters in ballot initiatives across states, South Dakota Republicans are attempting to thwart these efforts. Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill allowing people to revoke their signatures from ballot initiative petitions, which directly impacts an abortion-rights initiative being pursued by a group called Dakotans for Health. The article highlights the tactics employed by Republicans, including claims of misleading petition signatures and the passing of a law with an emergency clause to take immediate effect. Despite criticisms of the proposed abortion-rights amendment in South Dakota for its limitations, such as only allowing abortion in the first trimester and restrictions in the second trimester, the initiative continues to gain support. However, challenges persist as Republicans attempt to undermine the initiative, raising questions about the respect for voter will and the potential impact on the success of the campaign.

this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
314 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18888 readers
3920 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS