South Dakota Abortion Referendum (Remember That One?) Almost Too Close to Call

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

When South Dakotans overwhelmingly put a vote on their state’s “no exceptions for rape and incest” abortion ban (aka Supreme Court bait) on the November ballot, prochoicers allowed themselves a twinge of schadenfreude: For once, it seemed, prolifers had gone too far, committing themselves to a law that even the reddest of red-state voters couldn’t abide. Then, in June, came the first big letdown, with almost no national media attention: Four Republican state legislators who had voted against the law lost to more conservative primary challengers. Now–after a couple of months of campaigning, which, as the LA Times reports, features prolife ads with a “feminist” flair–the ban is down only 44 to 47 percent in a poll (commissioned by a prolife group, so grain of salt advised), which amounts to a statistical dead heat. Hard to believe the law will survive, especially if the GOP’s hard-core base stays home, but stranger things have happened. For a great primer on what’s really at stake here, check out Cynthia Gorney’s piece in the New Yorker, which alas is not online, though you get a flavor in this interview.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend