South Dakota's Top Paper Refuses To Editorialize On Abortion Ban

By: Joe Strupp Although the biggest abortion rights story in 33 years is taking place in its own backyard, South Dakota's largest newspaper will not editorialize on the controversial statewide abortion ban just recently approved by its legislature.

"Part of it was that we wouldn't change people's minds, and part of it, regardless of which side we came down on this, is that people would read into it things that are not true," Chuck Baldwin, editorial page editor of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D., told E&P. "People would think our coverage is tainted, and not just on abortion but on everything."

When asked if such a view could preclude editorials on virtually any controversial issue, Baldwin disagreed. "Abortion is different from other issues," he replied. "It is a hot-button issue at the core of everyone's soul. It will not change no matter what."

Baldwin's comments came three days after Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation that bans abortions throughout the state, except when a woman's life is in danger. It has drawn national attention to the quiet state and sparked new heated debates over limitations on a woman's right to choose, and even what the U.S. Supreme Court might do if the ban reaches its chambers.

But Baldwin and the paper's six-person editorial board contend that editorializing would not be the right decision because abortion is such an emotional issue. "It is not like endorsing a candidate or a bond measure," he said. "Not even like the death penalty or the war in Iraq....

"Rather than change anyone's mind, we would create another controversy," he said, adding that the daily is generally known as a liberal paper. "We take positions on other things and will."

Argus Leader Editor Randall Beck explained the decision to readers in a column on Sunday, a day before the governor's signing of the bill that had been the subject of weeks of legislative debate. Beck's contention was similar to Baldwin's - - that the issue was too divisive.

"What could we say..... that would contribute to public understanding of this troubling issue - arguably the most divisive of our time?" Beck asked in his column. "Should the bill contain exceptions for rape or incest - or more? Would it have been fairer to give all South Dakotans the opportunity consider an abortion ban, rather than merely the Legislature? Should the Legislature's obvious motive - to be the first in the nation to challenge Roe v. Wade - be considered political, moral or both? In the delicate balancing act between individual rights and moral standards, what is the right position? And, given the heartfelt emotions on either side of this complex issue, what would readers think?"

Beck revealed that the editorial board "agonized, we argued, we spoke passionately and personally. And at the end of two tortuous sessions, we concluded what you likely already know. Given the intractable divisions in our state and nation, nothing we could say on our editorial page would change anyone's mind - and it could well jeopardize the credibility we have worked long and hard to establish."

He also noted a sharp divide among residents, writing that a statewide poll two years ago by the paper and a local television station found that 34% believed abortion should be legal, 34% said it should be available in some specific circumstances - such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother - and 25%, he recalled, said it should be illegal under any circumstances.

"In the emotional and escalating debate over abortion, Americans find themselves bound to faith and conviction, a deeply felt sense of what is right. No editorial, no matter how deftly written, will change that," Beck added. "That means there will be none in the Argus Leader on this most profound of subjects, or on the legislation fashioned by the state's 81st legislative session."

Beck admitted that the decision had not drawn complete support, citing one letter from a reader who said "Your paper's silence is shameful.''

Ironically, the decision comes at the same time the Argus Leader is introducing several new options for readers to weigh in on issues, including a Web page where they can literally re-write editorials and see them posted along with the paper's own views (a so-called "wikitorial"). The paper also seeks online input from readers on future editorial topics. But since those options began, no feedback has mentioned the abortion ban, Baldwin said.

If the abortion ban becomes the subject of a ballot measure in November, which appears likely, the paper might weigh in, Baldwin said. But he believed it would take a lot of convincing. "It will provoke another editorial board discussion," he said about a potential voter initiative. "But I don't know if we'd change our minds."