South Dakota took the lead last month when Gov. Mike Rounds signed a law, to go into effect July 1, banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother. A CNN article reported,

The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise "reasonable medical efforts" to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.

Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance -- even in a case of rape or incest -- can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.

In his statement, however, Rounds pointed out that the bill does not prohibit doctors from prescribing contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in a rape or incest case.

In April, Massachusetts innovated in another direction, with laws mandating a form of universal healthcare in the state. The Washington Post reported,

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

As simple as the idea sounds -- buy insurance or else -- the proposal is complex and, in some cases, still unfinished. For instance, it leaves the task of determining exactly how much some low-income residents will pay for their new, more affordable policies to a new agency that would serve as a liaison between the government, policyholders and private insurance companies.

The South got into the act on April 17, when Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act. In a press release outlining the act, he made this point:

“This bill makes it clear that Georgia is a welcoming state that wants to treat our guests with Southern hospitality,” said Governor Sonny Perdue. “But we cannot tolerate activity that distracts us from our ability to embrace those who come here legally.”

(I'm waiting for my governor, M. Jodi Rell, to start talking about that renowned "Connecticut hospitality.")
An AP story provided this round-up of the key points and the law's historic nature:

The law requires verification that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of employees.

The law also requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest.

The measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Georgia's sanctions against employers is a reverse version of the "Banana Solution" idea floated at Kesher Talk earlier this month.

These three examples show that some states are feeling confident in their ability to tackle controversial issues. Agree or disagree, they're showing they are the laboratory of democracy. Perhaps citizens will vote with their feet, with South Dakotans moving to Massachusetts to enjoy healthcare and abortion, while others move to South Dakota to enjoy the rarified pro-life air.

State profiles could sharpen further if libertarians and Christians have their way. For example, the Free State Project seeks to relocate 20,000 liberty-minded individuals to New Hampshire "where they will work towards a society in which government's maximum role is protecting life, liberty, and property."

So far, FSP has had 100 people move to the Granite State and it hopes 1,000 will make the trek by 2008. Dare we say that New Hampshire could become the national beacon of AAA (Abortion, Ammo, and Acid)? Time will tell. The impact to date:

Several early movers have run for office and some have won! Other early movers have been appointed to offices on school, budget, and planning committees/boards. The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, founded by FSP participants, produces an annual report card on our Representatives. They also aim to screen every new bill before the legislature for it's stance and impact on freedom, something not done in any other legislative body in the world. Another early mover founded a scholarship fund to help families escape the public school system and try private schooling or homeschooling. Several instances of civil disobedience have been staged to bring to light overbearing state controls And several public gatherings related to social security card abuse, and eminent domain have been held.

It's worth noting that New Hampshire is the site of the great turning-the-tables political actions of our era, the "Lost Liberty Hotel" project that sought to seize the property of Supreme Court Justice David Souter via eminent domain after Souter voted with the majority in the Kelo v. New London case.

Farther down the Eastern Seaboard, a group called Christian Exodus wants to create its own haven in South Carolina. Its concerns parallel some, but by no means all, of the issues dear to libertarians. Indeed, founder Cory Burnell, described as a "neo-Confederate" in this article, considered joining FSP before he adopted FSP's strategy, if not its politics, for Christian Exodus. Like the libertarians, Christian Exodus sees the value of concentrating its membership in one area. The group even has a well-defined timetable aimed at moving 50,000 members to the state:

The first move of ChristianExodus.org members has commenced. Our research committee selected two city/county combinations for Phase One. We believe we can reestablish constitutionally limited government in these two counties with the relocation of 500 Christians to one and 2,000 to the other. That number of activist émigrés, when combined with the present Christian electorate, will enable constitutionalists to win the city council, the county council, elected law enforcement positions, and elected judgeships. We will then be able to protect our God-given and constitutionally protected rights within our local community.

Initial goals:

1. 2,500 members in our Phase One counties by September 30, 2006.
2. Work several local political campaigns in 2006 (election goals set at that time).
3. Move thousands more members into South Carolina by September 30, 2008.
4. Complete Phase One by end of 2008.

However, Christian Exodus severely overplays its hand with an ultimate agenda that views states' rights through the philosophical prism of South Carolina's own Ft. Sumter. Its website says,

South Carolina can secure the rights of her citizens by interposing her authority under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government operates outside its delegated powers in the areas of education, religion, abortion, domestic behavior, intrastate communication, intrastate commerce, taxation, welfare, healthcare, gun regulation, and a host of other subjects. Most powers concerning these topics are reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, we will see to it that South Carolina resumes her governmental authority in these matters and that our counties and State ignore federal directives in violation of the 10th Amendment.

"Ignore federal directives:" that doesn't sound too smart to me. The Christian Exodus movement is off to a slower start than the Free State Project; this article says that five families had relocated to South Carolina as of last November.

Whatever their differences, the Free State Project and Christian Exodus both acknowledge the trend toward political ferment at the state level. My bet: the next big state initiatives will involve energy conservation.