Oct 27, 2008 - 06:59:18 CDT
BELCOURT (AP) - Questions are being raised about a Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa resolution banning abortions on tribal land. One tribal member says it was not legally adopted."We had no published agenda, no three-day notice. It's a clear violation of the tribal constitution," said tribal member Andy Laverdure, who is known as watchdog for tribal resolutions.
"If someone wants to propose or suggest a resolution of this type, it's got to be done in open session," Laverdure said. "It needs to be transparent, on the council's meeting agenda, so anybody who may want to discuss the issue can do so."
Laverdure also said the resolution runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted abortion rights.
"It's more or less forcing a religious preference on tribal members," he said. "That's really difficult to talk about. We do have a large Christian population, but we also have other people on our reservation that have different beliefs."
Harlene Davis, of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Turtle Mountain Agency office, said the office had no signed copy of the resolution as of last week.
"If it requires bureau approval, it's supposed to come within 10 days," she said.
Davis said the BIA office would have to check the resolution against federal law, and she was not sure if it would need bureau approval.
"If it doesn't, if it's law or not, I'm not sure," she said. "The first time I saw this, it was in the (local newspaper). What if someone is found guilty? There's no fines, no conditions. And then, they're guilty of what?"
The resolution was adopted by four tribal council members Sept. 17, the Grand Forks Herald reported, saying it got a copy of the resolution from the tribal headquarters.
The resolution says that "absolutely under no circumstances will abortions be performed and allowed within any private or public facility within the boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation and other lands under the jurisdiction of the tribe."
The resolution also says: "the Governing Body faithfully believes that life is sacred and begins at the moment of conception between a man and a woman and life to (sic) protected at all levels affirming natural law and reasoning;" and says "pro-life is a universal issue of common sense, moral righteousness for the common good of life."
Tribal Chairman David "Doc" Brien, who proposed the resolution, did not vote. The chairman votes only in the case of a tie.
Tribal councilman Ted Henry, who signed the resolution, referred questions to Brien, who did not return requests for an interview.
Besides the Turtle Mountain reservation, the resolution would affect the community of Trenton, on tribal trust land in northwestern North Dakota.
Belcourt has only one hospital and clinic: the Quentin N. Burdick Memorial Health Facility, which is run by Indian Health Services.
"In recent years, no abortions of any kind have been performed" there, said Ray Grandbois, associate area director of IHS in Aberdeen, S.D., in an e-mail to the Grand Forks Herald.
Grandbois said he could not say how the abortion resolution might affect the IHS facility in Belcourt. He said the IHS office had not received a copy of it from the tribe.
In general, the IHS is required to follow federal law, and federal facilities are not subject to tribal resolutions, Grandbois said. But the IHS also tries to accommodate tribal council resolutions when possible, he said.
TMRezkid wrote on Oct 27, 2008 3:35 PM:
And while we're at it let's take away the unborn child's right to CHOOSE to live.
The pro-choice crowd (and why aren't they honest and stop using sugar coded words like "choice", they are pro-abortion, pure and simple) talk all about a woman's right to choose, but what about a baby's right to be born, to live? They conveniently forget about their choice.
Nah, they aren't so much pro-choice as pro-murdering unborn children.
Doesn't sound as friendly and politically correct as "pro-choice", but that's what is is, they are in favor of killing unborn babies and making everyone pay for it, even people who are morally and ethically against killing unborn babies.
They are lucky their mothers CHOSE to let them live. "
Pro Choice wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:53 PM:
ljfrommin wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:44 PM:
TMRezkid wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:17 PM:
The Republican platform clearly states,"we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
The choice is clear.
Mathern claims to be pro-life in direct contradiction to the platform of his party. John Hoeven is not only pro-life, but is in complete agreement with his party. Will Mathern make a big deal of his alleged pro-life stance or will he keep quiet in order to please his Democrat masters? Or maybe he'll take the Pomeroy dishonest stance of claiming to be pro-life, but voting with his pro-abortion party time and time again, earning him a 16 out of a 100 Right-to-Life rating.
No, if you really are pro-life, you will vote for the pro-life party, the Republicans. If you think murdering unborn children is just swell, vote Democrat. "
Not so quick wrote on Oct 27, 2008 1:41 PM:
TMRezkid wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:36 AM:
If they feel so strongly about abortion, why didn't they do this out in the open? What are they afraid of? In any case, we don't have abortions being done here on the reservation anyway; this is just a "feel good" bit of nonsense so the chairman can continue to "appear" to be oh-so-holy, without really doing anything.
If they really want to oppose abortion, they should publicly support the Republican Party, which is the pro-life party, and publicly rebuke the Democrat Party, which is the pro-abortion party. But they won't risk all the $$$ handouts from Uncle Sugar by doing that, you know, actually taking a stand for what they allegedly believe in. "
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.