Ah! Of course Annette Bosworth is a Republican. She and her husband want government to control women's reproductive choices:

How do I add the fact that women are at risk so long term birth control should be mandated [Chad Haber, "Protecting the Unborn," Half Wayish? 2012.12.14].

Half Wayish? is an appropriate name for Bosworth's husband's blog, because in all of his communications, he never seems to get closer than half way to expressing his thoughts clearly. Passive voice, lack of transition, lack of context or support....

But read that one line as written. The husband of a quasi-declared Republican Senate candidate says women should have to use long-term birth control. He links to Implanon, a birth control implant. Uff da: Tea Partiers freak out over the complete myth that President Obama is forcing everyone to have a microchip implant. But here the husband of a candidate who will need their vote is on the record, for real, advocating that every woman submit to a medical implant.

Submitting women's medical decisions to the state—yup! Annette Bosworth will fit well with the South Dakota GOP.

South Dakota's 2006 gay-marriage ban has coincided with a drop our marriage rate and an increase in the rate of births to unwed moms.

Nationally, the recession has coincided with another shift in family values. Pew Research finds that moms viewing full-time work as their ideal situation outnumber moms thinking full-time mom duty is best:

...a Pew Research Center survey conducted in November 2012 found that mothers’ views about whether and how much they would like to work had changed significantly since 2007 (before the recession officially began). The share of mothers saying their ideal situation would be to work full time increased from 20% in 2007 to 32% in 2012. And the share saying they would prefer not to work at all fell from 29% to 20% [Wendy Wang, Kim Parker, and Paul Taylor, "Breadwinner Moms," Pew Research, 2013.05.29].

Pew's April survey on this topic finds that working women are now the sole or primary breadwinners in 40% of American households. But some attitudes about women's work are lagging.

A slim majority (51%) still say kids are better off with Mom at home. But the percentage of folks who say the same about Dad (8%) is almost negligible. I can take the position that kids are better off with one parent at home to raise them through pre-school years and then greet them at the door with cookies when they come home from elementary school. But the overwhelming popular sentiment appears to be that Dad would just burn those cookies.

A strong majority of folks hold to the idea that the growing number of children born to single moms is a "big problem." But that majority has declined through the recession:

Pew also finds some significant splits in attitudes about single moms:

Note the age difference: only 42% of 18- to 29-year-olds see unmarried moms as a big problem, compared with 65% of the 30-49 crowd and 74% of grannies and grampies. It would be interesting to longitudinalize this survey and see if those young people carry that attitude shift into their older years or if becoming parents and grandparents will boost that concern. That higher concern among current old folks could be old-fashioned conservatism... but it could also be the fact that they get stuck babysitting their kids more!

My lucky experience of having both my wife and me home most of the time for our little one for four years while working online provided her with stimulation and stability that made her more ready for school. I'd like everyone in South Dakota to have the freedom to choose that arrangement or to send just one parent out to work while the other stays home to provide their children the best upbringing possible. Alas, with our low wages, most South Dakotans find that arrangement a luxury, not a reasonably practical choice. We need to focus on some serious economic reform first; then maybe we can get around to shifting our attitudes toward more gender equality.

But first, I'd better get my little one some breakfast.

My friend Jana is lit up over what Seth Tupper said. The Mitchell Daily Republic editor tells Stephanie Herseth Sandlin not to run in 2014, and Jana smells sexism.

Let's give Seth a close reading and run the sexism check.

Tupper says he doesn't like politicians who overuse family talk to hide their real motives. He takes SHS at her word when she says she loves her family. O.K., no foul for stating the obvious.

He interprets her other public statements ("...working moms deserve an effective voice in policymaking") and current "unofficial media tour" as signs that she still loves and is conflicted about balancing the two. O.K.

Tupper then critiques SHS for political "fence-sitting." That's nothing that harsher critics on both sides of the aisle haven't said, and that's nothing sexist. That's simply an honest assessment of the cautious center-conservative tendencies that make Lefties cranky and gave Righties a pass to vote for the clueless but more reliably crony-conservative Kristi Noem.

Tupper then praises SHS for positioning herself well for a comeback:

She’s lived and worked in the state. She’s spent time being a mom. All of that makes her more grounded and more qualified to serve, in my opinion [Seth Tupper, "Don't Run, Stephanie," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2013.05.09].

Jana's sexism critique isn't going there, but I'll ask: is it sexist to suggest that a woman is better qualified for public office because she's a mom? Is a mom of three a better Congresswoman than a mom of one? A bit more broadly, if all other things are equal, does a parent deserve your vote before a non-parent?

Tupper then "steps in it," as Jana says. He ties SHS's political fence-sitting to her trail-ballooning statements on I love family time but I love to serve, too. He tells her to pick which words she means more:

But I’m a little bothered by her use of the old “I want to spend time with my family” routine. If she’s going to say that, she’d better mean it. She owes that to her son, who will someday grow up to read her comments. If she now goes off to spend months campaigning and six years working a breakneck schedule as a senator, voters and her son are going to have a hard time believing her [Tupper, 2013.05.09].

Presumptuous, yes, presuming to speak for some possible future version of an adorable little boy. But sexist? Tupper's not blind to the possibility:

I know how sexist that sounds. If Herseth Sandlin’s husband, himself a former member of Congress, got back into politics, nobody would question his commitment to his family or his son. In a more equitable world, men would have to agonize over such things just as much as women.

But we don’t live in that world. We live in reality. And that’s why I say this to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Don’t run.

If time with your son and your family is really so important to you that you would consider forgoing a Senate race, show it by temporarily making a sacrifice on their behalf. When your son is a little older, you’ll still be a viable candidate, and you’ll be even more respected for having honored your family above your ambition.

Or, if you’ve already decided to run, stop talking so much about the importance of family time. It’ll look insincere later when you’re spending nearly every ounce of your time and energy trying to win an election.

Tupper walks on thin ice (and here I go out after him). I know anti-SHS Mitchell chauvinist piggery when I hear it... and I don't think Tupper's there. He does not base his critique on a personal belief that women are better off barefoot, pregnant, and fixing pot roast for us mighty hunters. He bases his critique on Herseth Sandlin's own words.

To test Tupper for sexism, imagine applying his words to Mr. Sandlin in the same situation, not just the hypothetical where he would up and run (and hey, there's a thought: get Max back in the game by bringing his political experience to bear on South Dakota office?), but the hypothetical where prior to running he would make prominent his talk about loving his family and wanting to spend lots of time with his son and not being sure if he can balance those desires with his urge to get back into politics. In that hypothetical, every word Tupper wrote would appear to apply just aptly to Mr. as to Mrs.

Tupper is really saying, "Poop or get off the pot." That advice may not be good, what with over ten months before any final decision is necessary. Herseth Sandlin, like every mom, has a lot on her plate. She is fully entitled to take her time weighing the pros and cons of running for any office in 2014, just as is any man.

And Tupper is entitled to question her public statements about that decision-making process, just as he would question any man making similar statements... right, Seth?

A South Dakota ex-pat friend cheers the Minnesota House's vote for marriage equality and says he's glad to call Minnesota home. I suggest that perhaps my ex-pat friend and Governor Dennis Daugaard's other targets should bring their respectful debate and celebration to the Governor's publicity stunt at the Mall of America on Monday, May 13, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., to ask him not only what jobs and paychecks are available in South Dakota but whether the Governor and the State of South Dakota will welcome same-sex couples and honor their love and commitment.

I consider expanding that exhortation to professional women in the Twin Cities who might want to ask the Governor whether South Dakota's commitment to minimal regulations extends to their uteri... or maybe just set up their own picket line next to Hot Topic to remind the women Governor Daugaard talks to that South Dakota doesn't think their brains work on weekends.

But then I remember there's a good reason the Governor takes his show to the Mall of America: you have to pay to speak there. The Mall of America, like private corporate property everywhere, is a no-First-Amendment zone. If anyone attempts to present a counter-message to Governor Daugaard's taxpayer-funded marketing pitch Monday, Mall of America security can hustle them out of microphone range and probably all the way to Eagan.

So we'll just have to trust Minnesotans to look past Governor Daugaard's cowboy-booted propaganda to the broader economic and political landscape—and the blogosphere!—and decide what's best for them and their families.

The Keystone XL pipeline poses all sorts of risks for South Dakotans to bear for the sake of private Canadian profits. Vi Waln points out that the man camps necessary to house the workers needed to build this pipeline across western South Dakota pose a risk to the safety of our women and children:

If President Obama signs the Presidential Permit approving TransCanada’s application to build their death project, there will most likely be a man camp established in the Colome, SD area with at least 600 roughnecks from all over the country staying there. They will be making good money to build the monster pipeline. We have tribal members living in this area.

...Those of us who choose to live here already know our Indian Reservations are extreme poverty areas. We have vulnerable women and children. What do you think is going to happen when we have an influx of wealthy strangers who lack integrity?

If you research the areas where man camps are established you will find they have a whole lot of horrid side effects – prostitution, drug activity, disappearances and even unsolved murders of women. Would you want your mother, aunt, sister, daughter, granddaughter or other women relatives spending time with men who are staying in these camps? [Vi Waln, "Tribes Must Be More Aggressive to Stop Tar Sands Pipeline," Sicangu Scribbler, 2013.04.30]

President Obama delivered a great victory to our Indian neighbors when he signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in March. It would be a shame to see him undo some of that good by allowing Keystone XL to drag its ills across western South Dakota.

According to the Big Push for Midwives campaign, South Dakota remains one of 23 states in which government stands interferes in women's health care decisions by overly restricting the practice of midwifery.

Midwives attend only 5% of U.S. births, compared to nearly half of all births in the Netherlands. America's reliance on doctors and hospitals to bring the vast majority of us into the world must have some practical advantages, right?

Well, we're not saving lives...

Despite spending more than any other nation on childbirth, the outcomes we get are awful relative to other countries, and they are getting worse. The United States ranks 41st in neonatal mortality and 50th in maternal mortality, and the maternal mortality rate in our country has doubled since 1987 from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 15. So far the dominant policy response to these outcomes seems to be more medical intervention, more technology and fancier neonatal intensive-care units. That's probably precisely the wrong prescription. All those fancy tools and facilities have to be paid for, and so the pressure to use them is strong. And it's hard to turn your back on the profit motive. One of the more prominent ob-gyns in Kansas City is said to have a nice boat on the Lake of the Ozarks named Sea-Section [Mark Funkhouser, "Our Dangerous, Expensive System of Childbirth," Governing, 2013.04.18].

...and, as with our overhyped, overpriced health care system as a whole, we're not saving money:

It's certainly a lot more expensive to have a baby in a hospital. The average cost for a vaginal birth at a birthing center is $2,277. The cost at a hospital is $10,166, and the cost of a Caesarian delivery is $17,056, according to the Transforming Maternity Care Partnership. Not only are hospitals expensive, but they also can be dangerous places, and one reason for the better outcomes for my wife and for [midwife and activist Ina May] Gaskin is probably related to that fact. In hospital births, a doula advocates for the mother and supports the couple as they deal with the seemingly inexorable pressure for medical interventions. In Gaskin's case, the explanation is simpler: She does home births. In the Netherlands, 30 percent of all births take place in the home, and that country's rate of maternal mortality is 6 per 100,000 live births, a lower rate than has ever been achieved in the United States. Holland's neonatal mortality rate is 3.73 per 1,000 live births, compared to a U.S. rate of 6 [Funkhouser, 2013.04.18].

My mostly conservative Legislative friends took another stab at expanding midwifery in South Dakota this year; House Health and Human Services killed that bill, HB 1065, early in the session.

If Governor Daugaard wants to fight South Dakota's high infant mortality rate, he might want to ask the 2014 Legislature to revisit the midwife issue.

In good news, Pat Powers reports the misogynist Rep. Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) will quit the job District 25 elected him to do and enroll in law school this fall. (Governor Dennis Daugaard's logical choice for a replacement: District 25 third-place vote-getter Bill Laird, right?)

Powers wonders if Hansen was enticed away from Pierre to pursue a mostly useless degree by Senate Bill 218, the rural lawyer recruitment bill that failed to pass the Senate this year. The Legislature passed a Northern Exposure tuition reimbursement for four new lawyers a year in House Bill 1096. But I think we have laws that prevent legislators from benefiting financially from laws they've recently voted for... or at least we ought to!

It is more likely that Hansen was enticed by New Jersey lawyer Harold Cassidy, who brought his out-of-state lobbying to South Dakota in support of Rep. Hansen's insulting extension of South Dakota's authority to force women seeking abortions to submit to lies and propaganda before exercising their constitutional rights. You mean I could make money oppressing women all over the country instead of just my South Dakota neighbors? Rep. Hansen likely thought. Sign me up!

Ladies, you did a fine job of protesting Hansen's misogyny this session on his Facebook page. Now keep an eye out for him on a law school campus near you... and feel free to walk up to him and offer him your warmest welcome... and an encouragement to study his constitutional law really, really hard.

In 2011, Rep. Kristi Noem introduced legislation to repeal National Labor Relations Board jurisdiction over Indian reservations. Her plan would have helped reservation bosses bust unions under the convenient guise of Native sovereignty. Her plan went nowhere.

Now Rep. Noem is back with H.R. 1226, introduced Friday to "clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act." The Library of Congress doesn't have the bill text online yet, but it's likely Rep. Noem will again be trying to undermine the rights of workers under the pretext of Native sovereignty.

Keep in mind that Rep. Noem did not support Native sovereignty when she voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which authorizes tribal courts to prosecute white men who assault Indian women. In Rep. Noem's book, sovereignty is good for protecting capitalist exploitation but bad for protecting her fellow women from rape and abuse.

Have fun rebranding that, Reince.