Doesn't matter if they're a sovereign nation.

But if SD starts treating them as such......

"We just want to make sure that something is done for women who make that decision. All we can do is provide that to them, no questions asked. It's their choice. It's between her and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that."

Dosen't she know it's a fetus . . . a clump of cells . . . a nonviable tissue mass? She starts throwing around antichoice buzzwords like baby and pretty soon she'll be admitting that abortion involves a killing, and then where will the Peculiar Institution be?

The Native American population has always been small due to its culture of death. I belive their population it's at it's highest now due to so many of them becoming christian.

Throughout history, the American Indian has shown a striking ability to join the losing side. With the French vs. the English, the English vs. the colonists, the Engish vs. the U.S, the Confederacy vs. the Union, or just on their own vs. the U.S. Cavalry. This is just another example of their self-destructive and self-defeating tendencies.

Now that's entrepeneurialism.

A combination casino/resort hotel/abortion clinic would be unique, to say the least.

of course this decision will have no effect on the population of the tribe itself, just all those middle class college girls who want some tribal butcher providing them with a solution.

Uh, Sandy, this SD native firmly implores you "Don't Go There" when it comes to discussions on Native American sovereignty. You'll tie yourself in knots by ALL sides trying to have it their way on that issue.

BTW, SD couldn't do squat about the Oglala Sioux Tribe contracting with Planned Parenthood to set up a butcher shop, er, "reproductive health clinic." And one gets the impression SD government wouldn't totally be opposed to such a situation.

So instead of "abortion everywhere" or "abortion nowhere" decided by the Supreme Court, we let individual localities decide? What a concept! Why don't we call this exciting new principle "federalism" and think about putting it into the Constitution somewhere, maybe in the 10th Amendment...?

They are a separate nation - this is going to be tricky.

Of course, this can tie into assimilation.

So could Indians have slaves if they wanted to?

...or grow marijuana, medical or otherwise? The legality of peyote tea is based on "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment, not federalism. I suppose they could declare abortion a sacrament to keep it legal (I think it already is for some). The nuances of tribal "sovereignity" are beyond me.

b,

It's the sort of "sovereignty" that the feds allow you to have. Under their guidelines, of course. It's a bad way of paying tribute to those that you squashed like a bug earlier.

Though it would not surprise me to see the next attempt by the anti-abortion Republicans be an amendment to prevent Indian reservations from hosting abortuaries without "state treaty consent."

My Dad used to travel to Pine Ridge when he was working for the IHS. I'm sure he's glad he's missing this exciting new era for them.

Tobacco. Cocaine. Gambling. Abortion. Revenge is sweet. But some things take time to do right.

I've been saying for awhile that we're going to have to deal w/the Indian problem again.

Don't forget, a canuck tribe had talks w/an American tribe to provide drugs at canuck prices. I think they were going to dispense via a casino, but I could just be assuming.

hire the apaches to patrol the border, pay them by the scalp.