Now that the ban is defeated (for now--it'll be back next time with exceptions and unfortunately it looks like it will pass then), I can say: no love to the Women's Medical Fund of Wisconsin, which first tried to organize its own campaign against the ban inside S.D., as if those of us who actually live here were too dumb or too oppressed or something to do it ourselves. The Campaign for Healthy Families has certainly proven that wrong. After WMF was told in no uncertain terms that we didn't need it meddling in our affairs, its next childish tactic was to call for a boycott of South Dakota and many of its major industries. Mind you, the ban never went into effect--at this time it had merely been passed by the chicken-hearted legislature and signed by the governor. Meanwhile, feminists across the state were working hard to collect enough signatures to have the ban put to a referendum. WMF chose to overlook this effort and preferred to believe that this state is such a conservative backwater that only economic threats would work. They obviously never dreamed that over half of the people whose livelihoods they were threatening were in fact on the same side as they were. I for one was very offended at their haughty declaration that "no self-respecting feminist will want to vacation or do business" in my state--neither I nor the rest of the 55% of South Dakotans who agree with me can very well avoid doing those things, can we? When it became clear that the boycott was having no economic effect anyway, WMF dug its hole even deeper by insisting to the newspaper that they knew S.D. had to be hurting due to their fabulous idea, but just wouldn't admit it. I can't link to that story because it's now in a paid archive, but their tone was both whiny and patronizing. As far as I'm concerned, WMF gives feminists a bad name and should stay OUT of South Dakota politics.

If you happen to live in SD, you can find information about other ways to help--particularly by soliciting petition signatures at the moment--here.