Following our extensive discussions of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, and amidst the heat and bother over Gordon Howie's statement that life begins before sperm meets egg, Larry Kurtz sent me an essay by the Guardian's Jessica Valenti arguing that we shouldn't use health reasons as an excuse to protect women's access to contraception. We defenders of women's rights facilitate the fundi-puritan narrative, Valenti says, when we shy away from stating the obvious: women deserve to enjoy sex without the fear of getting pregnant, just like men.

It's also OK – wonderful, even! – that women use birth control to have sex and not get pregnant. Even more wonderful: it works. The advent of contraception is arguably the most important liberatory discovery for women of all time. We're allowed to use it. And not just for our periods – but to have hot, sweaty, fantastic, fun, non-procreative sex. That doesn't make us "sluts"; it makes us human [Jessica Valenti, "Women Like Sex: Stop Making 'Health' Excuses for Why We Use Birth Control," The Guardian, 2014.07.08].

Dang—adopting Valenti's courageous stance means we all have to stop thinking sex naughty. (Uh oh: someone is going to unload on me for that one!)

Sioux Falls writer Dianna E. Anderson calls the "American evangelical purity culture" patently absurd. In a post on contraception and intentionality, Anderson writes that the crowd that cheers Hobby Lobby's anti-contraceptive discrimination against women thinks using birth control is worse than unplanned hookups:

The rules about keeping oneself pure end up creating a world where unsafe, “unintentional” sex is better than sex that you plan to have and embrace fully. Sex in the heat of the moment can be excused, written off as a good person getting caught up in emotion. But sex that you plan for, sex that you intend to be safe and protected? That evinces a moral failing of the person, as someone deliberately choosing to disobey God [Dianna E. Anderson, "Unlearning Purity Culture: Intentionality," blog, 2014.07.16].

Andersons sees stronger, healthier sexual ethics in taking control of one's sex life, talking about and planning what one does with one's partner, rather than viewing oneself as a "passive receiver" of that thing that just kinda happened. Sex based on intentionality means women experience less fear and more empowerment.

Less fear and more empowerment—I look at my wife and daughter and think, "What could be wrong with that?

24 comments

Chuck Clement finds a couple of honyockers preaching on the bypass in Madison. The basic gist of their bad theology: remarried divorcees are adulterers, women should shut up, and salvation depends on your action, not God's:

Two men who are working in South Dakota this summer paid a proselytizing visit to Madison on Tuesday. Wilbur Graybill and Ryan Luedeker, both Missouri residents, held signs displaying a few of the tenets held by the Church of Monett, a religious institution located in a southwestern Missouri community.

Holding one white placard with black lettering that announced "To be married to the divorced is adultery," Graybill said the sayings displayed on the hand-held sign followed Jesus Christ's teachings from the Sermon on the Mount. Other sayings on Graybill's signs included "True Christians don't use guns or lawyers against evil," "Christian women are meek, quiet and modestly dressed" and "You must change for Christ to accept you" [Chuck Clement, "Missouri Men Preach Along SD-34 Bypass," Madison Daily Leader, 2014.07.09].

I invite Deb Geelsdottir, about whose clothing I cannot pass judgment but who has struck me in the comment section as anything but meek and quiet, to offer a Lutheran explanation of the mechanism by which Christ "accepts" us. I also invite readers to share the Scripture where the Lord says, "Don't ever hire an attorney."

I also recommend these men be careful which Madison women they call un-Christian for not being meek and quiet... and I warn them to say no such thing to my daughter, whom my wife and I will continue to teach to resist such patriarchal oppression. They might also want to watch out for my Christian friends who've married fine people who happened to have bad marriages before who raise good kids and uphold Christian principles.

The Missouri preachers make a fair point that signs are an easy way to get attention and reach lots of people. But I hope they complement their public display with a willingness to engage in honest conversation face to face with the sinners whom they condemn... assuming they are willing to even entertain a conversation with a woman who disagrees with their preaching.

129 comments

South Dakota law requires women to wait 72 hoursand sometimes longer—to have an abortion. Only Utah forces women to delay their health care decisions that long.

Missouri tried to become the third state to impose a 72-hour abortion-waiting period on women. After years defending abortion restrictions and punting on his state legislature's war on women, Governor Jay Nixon finally drew the line and vetoed this abortion bill. Here's how Governor Nixon describes a 72-hour waiting period not quite as awful as South Dakota's:

[The bill] is a disrespectful measure that would unnecessarily prolong the suffering of rape and incest victims and jeopardize the health and wellbeing of women.

...I cannot condone the absence of an exceptoin for rape and incest in [the bill]. This glaring omission is wholly insensitive to women who find themselves in horrific circumstances, and demonstrates a callous disregard for their wellbeing. It victimizes these women by prolonging their grief and their nightmare [Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, veto message, 2014.07.02].

South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period includes no exception for rape or incest. It additionally requires women to talk about their unwanted pregnancy with antagonistic strangers at unreliable anti-abortion propaganda centers, a forced "counseling" session that  likely exacerbates the victimization Governor Nixon says no government should impose.

Governor Nixon also smells big-government sexism in this bill:

Underlying this bill, and the expansion of the governmental interference it would mandate, is a paternalistic presumption that rape and incest victims are somehow unable to grasp the horror that has befallen them, and that government must force them to take more time to come to grips with their plight. That misplaced paternalism defies logic [Nixon, 2014.07.02].

Such logic applies to all women, not just crime victims: South Dakota's 72-hour waiting period, plus extensions for weekends and holidays, assumes that all women are too stupid to make their own decisions. (Remember: South Dakota forces no man to wait for a medical procedure.)

Governor Nixon still tolerates Missouri's 24-hour government intrusion on women's autonomy, but he says extending that waiting period is nothing but insulting cruelty:

Lengthening the mandate to "at least" 72 hours serves no demonstrable purpose other than to create emotional and financial hardships for women who have undoubtedly already spent considerable time wrestling with perhaps the most difficult decision they may ever have to make [Nixon, 2014.07.02].

South Dakota imposes exactly that emotional and financial hardship on women seeking abortions, and not out of compassion.

Speaking of compassion, making women wait longer for abortions puts their health at greater risk:

A mandate that moves the procedure to a time later in a pregnancy increases the risk of complications. Lengthening the mandated delay is in contravention of sound medical advice and forces government even further into the relationship between the physician and the woman. A woman's health could be unnecessarily jeopardized by extending the mandatory delay [Nixon, 2014.07.02].

Governor Nixon's veto of a 72-hour waiting period for abortion neatly summarizes every point Susan Wismer, Corinna Robinson, and every other woman running for statewide office in South Dakota needs to make about the Republican war on women. South Dakota's abortion law insults women's intelligence, puts government between women and their doctors, and puts women at greater risk of injury and death.

25 comments

Julie Rovner follows up on a report she did for NPR in 2012 noting that Hobby Lobby and other corporations who want to deny women coverage for birth control are still discriminating on the basis of sex and pregnancy under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as determined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2000. Furthermore, 28 states require insurers to cover FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 20 of those states offer religious exemptions, just as the Affordable Care Act did before yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruling, but few if any go as far as saying private corporations can hold religious beliefs and get out of covering contraception.

South Dakota has no such independent contraceptive requirement for insurance policies. Rep. Joni Cutler tried to create one with House Bill 1156 in 2010, but the bill did not pass the House. Senator Ed Olson offered a more general defense of contraception in 2008 with Senate Bill 164:

...It is the public policy of this state that the interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions into the private lives of citizens, and specifically the right of consenting individuals to obtain and use safe and effective methods of contraception without interference by governmental entities, shall be safeguarded and that the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to recognize and protect these rights [2008 SB 164, Section 2(3)].

Senator Olson's bill also would have clarified that contraception is not governed by South Dakota's abortion statutes, including the statute that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they think those prescriptions will be used for abortions... the same false pretext under which Hobby Lobby won its battle in the war on women before the Supreme Court yesterday.

Worth noting: both Olson and Cutler are Republicans. They are no longer in the Legislature, but they demonstrate that when South Dakota Democrats blast the Hobby Lobby ruling and demand that health care decisions be made by women and their doctors, not their bosses, they can find a few allies and win a few votes across the aisle.

86 comments

Subversion and hooch afoot! Unapologetic liberals are gathering for libations at Wiley's Tavern at 330 North Main in Sioux Falls after work today, 5 p.m., as they reconstitute the Sioux Falls chapter of Drinking Liberally. Among topics that may stir conversation:

The National Partnership for Women and Families finds South Dakota is one of the crappiest places to be a working mom:

NPWF grades for working mom conditions June 2014

Grades by state for legal protections for working mothers, based on state laws on family leave, sick leave, and other family issues. Data from National Partnership for Women and Families; map from Bloomberg Businessweek.

Hmm... probably won't see Governor Daugaard plastering that map on a banner ad for South Dakota in the Minneapolis airport... where NPWF finds much better conditions for working moms.

The Affordable Care Act still hasn't caught the United States up with other countries in terms of quality health care. For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. ranks last in the Commonwealth Fund's scoring of eleven industrialized nations' health care systems.

health-ranking 2013

(Click to embiggen!)

Continuing a long-standing trend (compare the numbers from 2010), the United States continues to spend far more (50% more than extravagant Switzerland, 88% more than colder Canada, 150% more than clammier Great Britain) per capita on health care than any of our industrialized counterparts. Interestingly, many of those countries also drink more alcohol per capita than we do. Hmm... Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, what can you do about that?

Of course we know poor working-parent policy, inefficient health care, and all of our other problems are caused by irrational, ignorant, unempathetic conservatives... or are they? Discuss, tonight, Willy's Tavern, 5 p.m.!

32 comments

Readers have asked where Democratic gubernatorial candidates Joe Lowe and Susan Wismer stand on women's reproductive rights. Bob Mercer gives us some insight on that issue by asking Lowe and Wismer what one abortion-related law they would pass, repeal, or change. Their answers:

Joe Lowe: I would repeal the need for pregnancy help centers and a waiting period. Men and women are smart enough to make family decisions for themselves — without government telling them what to do with their private lives.

Susan Wismer: I would propose legislation that encourages safe and healthy family planning for all South Dakotans. Women, their doctors and their families are able to make the best decisions for the future of their families without intrusion by our state government [Bob Mercer, "Lowe, Wismer Vie for Dem Nomination for Governor," Aberdeen American News, 2014.06.01].

Note that once again, Lowe beats Wismer on specifics, directly attacking South Dakota's most recent and offensive restrictions on women's autonomy and equal citizenship. But remember: in 2011, Rep. Wismer voted against HB 1217, the bill that brought us that offense. We can assume from Wismer's statement about state government intrusion that she would vote that way again... but Lowe doesn't leave us assuming.

(Note also Mercer's editorial choice, placing the abortion question first. Line that prioritization up with his May 21 coverage of the Brookings forum, in which he deemed the choice of Lieutenant Governor and positions on the death penalty. Given all the issues with which a governor deals, are those three questions really the headliners?)

80 comments

Bosworth grafitti presser not evil 20140527Legal team, clean-up on Aisle 1....

Let's begin with the pretense that I'm not evil.

—Annette Bosworth, press conference, Sioux Falls, SD, 2014.05.27, timestamp 07:15.

On June 4, Attorney General Marty Jackley will feel free to indict fifth-place primary finisher Annette Bosworth on perjury and any other crimes that have come to his attention. In Bosworth's attempt to exploit the press furor over the Isla Vista shootings, the fake U.S. Senate candidate signaled the two prongs of her legal defense.

Bosworth grafitti presser brooding 20140527

...because campaign signs are much more effective spray-painted and tacked up in a dark office than placed out on the highway.

First, Bosworth apparently plans to say that Attorney General Jackley and reporter David Montgomery (yes, she attacks him from the mic, around 14:15) and anyone else who questions her are all misogynists. Bosworth has apparently been paying attention to Kathy Scott, the former Corinna Robinson campaign volunteer who blames me and my misogyny for her sloppy work.

For the record, the majority of sources who have helped me tell the story of the crime and corruption of Annette Bosworth and her husband Chad Haber are women. The two people taking Bosworth to court right now for unpaid wages are women. The person who told the press that Bosworth forced her family onto food stamps by not paying wages is a woman. In the Channette world where everything is a scam and everyone is out to get someone, it is more likely that AG Jackley and I are simply the weak-willed dupes of some persuasive Amazons out to destroy a fellow warrior princess.

Bosworth grafitti presser clueless 20140527

Don't be fooled by this paper. I'm making this up as I go along.

But this isn't the Channette world. Annette Bosworth is simply full of cowcrap. (I wouldn't want to say bullcrap, because that's probably patriarchal.)

The second legal defense gets more specific. Recall that the charges Bosworth and Haber will face most likely include perjury for signing a false oath. Bosworth and Haber submitted nominating petition sheets with their names at the bottom as circulators. Some of those sheets included signatures dated when Bosworth and Haber were in the Philippines.

Amidst great dancing to avoid answering direct questions from multiple reporters, Bosworth said sure, she was in the Philippines when the voters in question, including her sister, signed her petition back here in South Dakota. She says sure, she signed the circulator's oath "at the end of the campaign." She says her signature on the circulator's oath certified that she recognized her sister's signature. She says... well, see what she says in this exchange with reporter David Montgomery:

Bosworth: Did I know the people that signed the petition? Yes. Are they South Dakotans? Yes. Do they support me? Yes.

Montgomery: But you didn't directly circulate that petition?

Bosworth: Let's take the one of my sister, which sat there in my office. And she signed it. And I affirmed, thank you for signing my petition, that it was dated the night before they were due, that I signed that [Annette Bosworth press conference, Sioux Falls, SD, 2014.05.27, timestamp 10:27].

Bosworth grafitti presser mug 20140527

Nothing says "I'm your next Senator!" like standing in front naughty words with your hands full of mics and a mug.

Actually, as I review the petition sheets in question, I find that Annette signed one of them the night before they were due, March 24, but the circulator's oaths on the other sheets in question were signed on January 20, February 11, and March 25. In other words, Annette can't even keep her cowcrap straight, let alone the truth.

But more to the point is that, just as Annette isn't answering the reporters' questions, she answering the question of law. What does a circulator's oath affirm?

I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration [emphasis mine; SDAR 05:02:08:00.03].

South Dakota law does not ask petition circulators to affirm that they know the signers. It does not ask them to affirm that the signers support them. It does not ask them to thank signers. South Dakota law requires that circulators walk around with those petitions in their hands and eyeball every single signer as he or she signs it.

The filthy words in front of which Bosworth posed today have nothing to do with the wording of the law. The law is clear. Bosworth and Haber broke the law. No manipulation of language or martyrish shouting of misogyny! will change that fact or stop the court from declaring them guilty... assuming AG Jackley gets around to bringing them to court.

*   *   *

Watch the full presser below, if you can bear it. The best part is the first 90 seconds, where we can't hear anything Bosworth is saying.

136 comments

Because Rebecca Leas is an outspoken critic of Powertech/Azarga's plan to pollute the Black Hills and use up our water to help the Chinese get rich off our uranium, Pat Powers portrays her as an out-of-touch feminist. Don't ask for logic; for Pat, it's just personal.

Leas spoke to the Rapid City Council last night to speak up against the objectification of women inherent in a comment made by Rapid City economic development honcho Benjamin Snow two weeks ago at an energy conference explaining an advantage the Black Hills could leverage to draw residents and business from the Bakken oil fields:

But Ben Snow, president of Rapid City Economic Development Center, said at an energy conference Thursday that the region has another, less obvious but hugely important enticement for oil and gas companies: the fact half the city's population is female.

"Here's another advantage I love to give these guys (in North Dakota) a hard time about: We have a one-to-one ratio of male to females here," Snow said to a chorus of laughter at the ninth annual New Horizons Oil and Gas Conference, which was held Thursday afternoon at the Black Hills Learning Center. "We think that's a good thing."

It was intended as a joke, but it was also a part of Snow's overall argument that the quality of life in Rapid City is superior to northwestern North Dakota and Montana, where much of the oil and gas resources are located. And having more women may be a big deal for workers who live in so-called man camps and get lonely for female companionship [Scott Feldman, "Rapid City Courts Energy Industry by Touting Female Demographic," AP via Casper Star Tribune, 2014.04.27].

Rebecca Leas finds the objectification of women as an economic development resource and the laughter greeting it "disturbing."

So does Karen Pettigrew of Rapid City:

It was really mindless and offensive of Ben Snow to offer an adequate supply of women for energy-industry workers in his bid to lure energy-related business to the "Rushmore Region." While he may consider a 1:1 ratio of women to men provides a high quality of life inducement, many will find that an influx of male workers in search of female companionship is a concerning situation that can lead to exploitation of vulnerable women in a community.

Mr. Snow is obviously ignorant of the efforts of Rep. Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, Family Heritage Alliance and law enforcement officials to raise public awareness of the existence of human/sex trafficking that already occurs in South Dakota.

Using women as bait does nothing to enhance the image of our region, and insults our women [Karen Pettigrew, letter to the editor, Rapid City Journal, 2014.05.01].

So does Karen Goulet of Hot Springs:

Women of the Black Hills, rise up in protest! Do you want to be looked upon as “female companionship” for workers who live in man camps? Do you want your daughters used for “economic development” in the area? According to Ben Snow in the front-page article of the April 25 Journal, you are welcome as one of the lures to get the oil and gas workers to open industry in Rapid City.

...It is time for hard choices. We may have economic development, but at what price?

Women and men who care about your wives, daughters and sisters and our beautiful Black Hills, it is time to be heard. If not now, it may be too late [Mary Goulet, letter to the editor, Rapid City Journal, 2014.04.30].

So does Jim Kent of Hot Springs, who puts Snow's brutish comment in proper historical and social context:

I have to admit to being pretty stunned when I read the story. I mean, it’s hard to believe in this day and age... that anyone—especially in a leadership role—would present the women of their community as an enticement to bring in male workers, regardless of the industry they’re a part of.

Of course, I realize there are many fans of the “Deadwood” TV series who see a certain charm in Ian McShane’s portrayal of Al Swearengen. But the reality is that Al’s Gem Saloon was a brothel, and he treated the women who worked there like dirt—behavior no community should aspire to.

...Saddest of all is Snow’s apparent unawareness of, or insensitivity to, the female population in a town that’s already been cited as the nation’s “Rape Capital.” You’re right, that was “years ago.” So, let’s move forward a bit to the February 2014 CNN report listing South Dakota as No. 2 in the country for incidents of rape [links mine; Jim Kent, "Come for Women Joke Falls Flat," Rapid City Journal, 2014.05.01].

Sex trafficking is a major problem in the Bakken oil fields. To joke about marketing South Dakota as a place where Bakken oil men can find females demonstrates ignorance of or insensitivity toward a culture of misogyny bred by the Bakken oil rush. To protest such misogynist thickheadedness, as Leas, Pettigrew, Goulet, and Kent do, is not, as Powers tries to characterize it, making it a crime for men to like women. It's actually a call for men to like and respect women much more than Snow's comment suggests he does.

Related: Leas's protest came in the midst of a Rapid City Council meeting in which many church-going citizens advocated stricter rules against Rapid City's only remaining strip club. Ben Snow was not there, but would he say such regulation will hinder local economic development?

32 comments

Poll: SDLP A.G. Nomination

Lib AG: H H or 0
If no one else runs, whom should the SD Libertarian Party nominate for attorney general?

Recent Comments

  • Kurt Evans on "God Under Attack! Us...": Deb Geelsdottir wrote: >"So Kurt, you're agree...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "God Under Attack! Us...": I've listened to many people describing contact wi...
  • Kurt Evans on "God Under Attack! Us...": Roger Cornelius wrote: >"Did [God] email, text...
  • Deb Geelsdottir on "God Under Attack! Us...": So Kurt, you're agreeing with me that the type of ...
  • Bob Newland on "Chad Haber: "The Hai...": If Janklow showed up at the SDLP convention, even ...
  • Kurt Evans on "God Under Attack! Us...": I'd written: >"As I studied what the Bible say...
  • Roger Cornelius on "God Under Attack! Us...": How and when did God tell you "No, God tells me He...
  • Kurt Evans on "God Under Attack! Us...": "Bearcreekbat" asks: >"I wonder if Jesus might...
  • JeniW on "God Under Attack! Us...": Mike from Iowa, it is okay for you to have your op...
  • Kurt Evans on "God Under Attack! Us...": Cory Heidelberger wrote: >"Kurt, I was sprinkl...

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

Hot off the Press

Subscribe

Enter your email to subscribe to future updates

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

Visit These Sponsors

Conversation and Lunch with Democrats!
Join Stan Adelstein's conversation about South Dakota's past and future
Mike Myers, Independent Candidate for South Dakota Governor
Come learn with us at Rutland School

SBS Blogroll

South Dakota Media

Madville Monthly

Meta