Press "Enter" to skip to content

Judge Blocks South Dakota Anti-Abortion Law, Says Likely to Overturn

Last updated on 2013.02.13

Looks like my wife and several thousand South Dakota women like her do not lose autonomy over their medical decisions tomorrow after all! Today U.S. District Court Chief Judge Karen Schreier blocked the enactment of House Bill 1217, the South Dakota Legislature's latest misguided effort to make abortion unobtainable in our otherwise fair state. Judge Schreier finds that Planned Parenthood's lawsuit against the state to overturn HB 1217 is likely to succeed on all counts.

The Court's assessment of HB 1217 sounds awfully familiar:

Forcing a woman to divulge to a stranger at a pregnancy help center the fact that she has chosen to undergo an abortion humiliates and degrades her as a human being. The woman will feel degraded by the compulsive nature of the Pregnancy Help Center requirements, which suggest that she has made the "wrong" decision, has not really "thought" about her decision to undergo an abortion, or is "not intelligent enough" to make the decision with the advice of a physician. Furthermore, these women are forced into a hostile environment [Judge Karen Schreier, ruling on injunction against HB 1217, quoted in Planned Parenthood press release, 2011.06.30].

Forcing, humiliating, degrading... sounds like tyranny to me. My conservative friends should be cheering just like Sarah Stoesz of Planned Parenthood:

This law represents a blatant intrusion by politicians into difficult decisions women and families sometimes need to make.... We trust women and families in South Dakota to know and do what is best for them, without being coerced by the government. And we stand with them in our efforts to overturn this outrageous law [Planned Parenthood, 2011.06.30].

Keep after 'em, Sarah! We're gonna win!

* * *

p.s.: The situation is not so rosy in Kansas, where the state imposed new regulations on abortion clinic size, supplies, and even room temperature. Kansas gave clinics two weeks to comply. The intent, of course, is to make it impossible for abortion clinics to operate anywhere in the state. The law takes effect tomorrow. I suspect Roger Hunt alraedy has Harold Cassidy drafting a version for the 2012 South Dakota Legislature

pp.s.: KELO provides an online copy of Judge Schreier's ruling.


  1. Guy 2011.06.30

    I would also think this law denies a woman's right to privacy in such matters.

    [CAH: Judge Schreier agrees, although she phrases much of the argument in terms of "compelled speech"—i.e., forcing the woman to tell pregnancy health center staff things they don't want to tell them.]

  2. Guy 2011.06.30

    What I don't understand about this law, passed by the Legislature, is that they must have not listened to the 2006 Election Results when a majority of us voted against the Abortion Ban. I guess we could bring this whole issue to another vote in 2012, but, then again the Legislature will just wait a few years and do the same crap again and again and again as they refuse to listen the voters.

  3. Guy 2011.06.30

    Funny thing about the Republicans in this state, well, many of the ones who run Pierre: they do not seem to like decisions made by referendum. Why? Because look at the issue of abortion and look at the issue of this corporate welfare bill up for debate. The issue of abortion, when decided by voters in 2006, did not go the way most Republicans believed it should have gone. So, they meddled again behind legislative doors in Pierre, claiming as usual that they "speak for the people." But, they never want to allow "the people" a direct say or in this case a vote on that issue. Next up: the corporate welfare bill, another issue they think is a "distraction," and should only be handled by them instead of leaving it up to us to decide. I just love how Pierre thinks it is allright to speak for "all of us," while attempting to deny our voice by the ballot box.

  4. larry kurtz 2011.06.30

    Guy, you've been watching politics in the chemical toilet for a long time. This law wasn't so much a test of the will of the voters so much as a vehicle for Marty Jackley to defend it to the contributors to the Governor's Club that will back him in a run against Tim Johnson.

    Perfect, really. The SDGOP has banked a pile for its candidates very impressively while pushing the Dems even farther on to their heels. The next session will pass another brown christian pool floater just slightly stinkier and greasier than this one.

  5. Guy 2011.06.30

    Lol, Larry I hear you. Maybe this is not a good analogy, but, it is how I feel: the voters are the "wife to be kept in her place," and the Republicans running things in Pierre are the "husband," who always, always, always claims to speak for us, but, like the "wife kept in her place," we are not allowed to actually speak for ourselves and if we do, then, the "husband" (Pierre) always finds a manipulative way to make us think we are speaking up, but, making sure we are still kept in our place and things run "his" (Pierre's) way. I'm no woman, but, I've seen a few of those women who have had to deal with this crap all of their lives.

  6. Lorri 2011.06.30

    One of my favorite bumper stickers was spotted a few years ago in Madison: "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

  7. Bob Ellis 2011.06.30

    Apparenlty this "judge" has forgotten (or ignored) the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson concerning the entire reason we have government in the first place: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."

    This pro-abortion judicial activist excuse for a judge is worried about the humiliation and denigration of the mother, but apparently completely unconcerned about the slaughter of the mother's child. We call this woman a judge? What a joke! She is apparently so lacking in moral judgment that she shouldn't be trusted to fairly divide up a pack of Doritos between two kids.

    Ironically, it is the pro-abortionists who are so desperate to keep this money-machine and vehicle of sexual autonomy going, they think a woman lacks the intelligence to consider what both pro-life centers and pro-abortion centers tell her and then make an informed decision.

    Or is it that they are afraid she might be TOO intelligent, that if you get the woman away from the one-sided propaganda of Planned Parenthood, she will quickly see through the lies and realize that she really does have a human life growing inside her, a human life that deserves to CONTINUE living?

    Forcing women to make a decision about killing their own child without having all the facts? Being afraid that if she learns too much, that'll kill the Planned Parenthood cash cow...and dry up an avenue some women use to continue enabling their own sexual irresponsibility and that of their male partner?

    Yes that is pretty humiliating and denigrating. Treating women like pawns and dupes...and treating innocent children like throw-way garbage.

    I'd ask God to forgive us, if I remotely thought we might deserve it.

  8. larry kurtz 2011.06.30

    Her ethics; your morals, Bob. Wish in one hand and pass the plate with the other: see which one fills up first. Vehicle of sexual autonomy? Yeah, don't confuse that with liberty.

  9. Curtis Loesch 2011.06.30

    I say again, aware of the referendum defeats of anti-choice bills mentioned above, and speaking directly to perennial state government elections: If one more than half of voting South Dakotans had a brain, we would not keep electing these clowns. Maybe that's why most Republican legislators are such weak supporters of public education (especially the arts, especially the humanities). They want a poorly educated electorate that is easily entertained so they can keep power. D'ya thank?.

  10. Guy 2011.06.30

    Ah yes, "Father [Ellis] Knows Best." *yawn* Just like the Republicans running things in Pierre, "they know best," another *yawn*

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.06.30

    "Judge"? What are those quote marks supposed to mean? Karen Schreier is a duly sworn and qualified judge of the United States District Court. Shall I refer to "Mayor" Sam Kooiker, just because I don't like the alignment of his politics with yours, Bob?

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.06.30

    And notice, Bob's comment does nothing to address the fact that the state has no authority to impose Bob's morality on the rest of us. Sit down, Bob: you've lost this case.

  13. Guy 2011.06.30

    How dare you question the all-knowing Father Ellis! Who do you think you are?!? We are not allowed to think for ourselves in this state if it goes against Pierre. Haven't you figured out your "place" yet?

  14. Curtis Loesch 2011.06.30

    ...and remember children, every spoim is precious; no more vasectomies for mom and dad. Just think of all the lives that legal medical procedure ends prematurely.

  15. shane gerlach 2011.06.30

    Mr. Ellis,.how much money have you pocketed by riding the moral train? What doors has it opened that wouldn't have been were you not so adamantly against abortion? How have you profited?

    At least we are not commercializing God's word like so many others. Instead, we speak with sincerity in the Messiah's name, like people who are sent from God and are accountable to God.
    2 Corinthians 2:17

    Stare deeply into the mirror Mr Ellis and for once try listening to the silence.

  16. Curtis Loesch 2011.06.30

    Since no one has piled-on since my last comment (in which I did not intend to pile-on), I have to add and say to Bob "the energizer bunny" Ellis: I fundamentally but respectfully disagree with you on several issues. I grew up in a Missouri Synod Lutheran (that would rhyme with 'fundamental evangelical Christian and is pretty much the same as Roman Catholic) home and social environment, in an upbringing that taught me respect for LIFE and AWE for what I now consider as the concept of God. I still have respect and awe for life and that concept, even with, and partly attributable to a knowledge of science. I respect you, but as our differences now again have to be fought out politically, I will oppose your views, based upon the changes in my mind.

  17. Travis E 2011.07.01

    Republicans are pro-life right up to the moment the babies are born. Then they complain because they're a burden on the taxpayers.

  18. Curtis Loesch 2011.07.01

    Travis, I think you have insight into a psychology deep, dark, and horrible. Once the child is born, predominating Republican Party/'conservatism' social philosophy seems to be, "everyone for yourself," instead of, "all hands on deck." Talk about 'pro-life.' I sometimes become so disgusted and dismayed I can barely contain myself (like right now). This attitude is atavistic in character. I do not understand this embrace of degeneration. Higher (literally, metaphorically, spiritually) education is the key to opening the door to a better society.

  19. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Ellis, as usual misses the point. The first amendment gives him the right to say anything he wants to. AND it also protects us from having to listen to him if we don't want to.

    Doctors should not be forced by government to say things to their patients they neither believe nor support, and patients should not be forced by government to listen to someone's fundamentalist, evangelical, extremist religious arguments.

    That's Taliban stuff, Bob. It's not the American way, brother.

    [CAH: exactly Judge Schreier's point.]

  20. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Question for Ellis:

    Bob, do you have a life? Or does life have a you?

    Your knowing correct answer to that question could be all it takes for you to finally wake up and come to your senses on this subject.

  21. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Ellis appears to have spent his whole cognitive life denying what's so.

    He is here because he is.

    He wishes, and hopes, and fist-pounds, and browbeats in protest of that fundamental reality — trying to impose his delusion on everyone else, but it doesn't change a thing.

    The way he wants things to be is not in fact the truth about how it is. He should perhaps just face the music, roll with it, and move on.

    Or not.

    It doesn't make any difference.

    Perhaps at least he can at long last grasp that.

    Life goes on with him and without him.

    Mostly without him.

    Obladi, oblada.

  22. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Remarkable actually that both sides expected and are pleased with this ruling. Judge Schreier set herself up for yet another Eighth Circuit smackdown, point by point she contended this on the points we want the high court to consider, and now there is the opportunity to show the truckloads of evidence of coercion - Planned Parenthood is jeopardizing Roe v Wade by contesting this, and they know it. Happy Fourth Cory!! I'm assuming you are celebrating it despite what I read here... :-)

    [CAH: Dang! We Dems have some serious cultural renovation to do!]

  23. Eve Fisher 2011.07.01

    Travis is right on the money: and it's not just Republicans, but, apparently, most "Christian conservatives" who are pro-life until the child is born, and then abandon all interest in it. Otherwise, there would be unwavering support of things like day care; universal children's health care; public education; school breakfast and lunch programs; even mandatory seat-belt and helmet laws for children and (dare I say it!) restrictions on minor access to violent video games, movies, television, etc. But... no. And they see no inconsistency in this. My question, to Mr. Ellis and all others, is this: take a deep breath and do a hypothetical. If indeed abortion were completely outlawed in this country, today, what do you think should be the top priority in this country? Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? House the homeless? How about starting now?

  24. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    The high court debate that Mr. Hickey hankers after is one that should by all means be had.

    Our freedom from oppression and tyranny should be constantly reaffirmed.

    What is doubtful is whether or not he will be accepting of the result. He's not been satisfied with all the SCOTUS decisions on his issue to date, why should we think he'll be satisfied with the next one?

    It seems he'll only be satisfied when he can, as an agent of government dictate to Cory's wife and my daughters and grand daughters what and what they may or may not do with their uterus.

    I respectfully submit that he instead should mind his own business and let the women he presumes to own mind theirs.

  25. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Eve - We are feeding the hungry, paying peoples rent, giving away cars, free daycare, and funding adoptions, taking in foster kids, moms in crisis, etc, etc, etc. I mention these things when the media interviews me, but they never print it. They only mention I'm ANTI-abortion.

  26. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Bill - the high court has never considered the findings we have ready to present from South Dakota. All six presuppositions Roe v Wade was based on have since been proven false by the developments in science these last 40 years. Planned Parenthood is fighting too and nail to keep the best science away from their sacred right to kill established in Roe. True, it is a crap shoot these days with the SCOTUS, but there is reason to believe justice will prevail for the unborn due to the evidence our fine state has amassed. I continue to say, SD will be the undoing of Roe v. Wade and history will shame those who held the view that some biological humans are more human than other biological humans. Happy 4th to you as well!

    [CAH: Review Judge Schreier's ruling. This law has so many fundamental violations of constitutional rights that you'll never come close to an opportunity to question Roe v. Wade. This bad law is a terrible vehicle for the precedent reversal you want to pursue.]

  27. Erika 2011.07.01

    Mr. Hickey, if this is really about women who feel they were coerced into having an abortion, then let's find a way to confront that situation without resorting to more coercion. It's clear from your excitement at the prospect of jeopardizing Roe v Wade that helping these women is not your ultimate "smackdown" goal. Also, will every group that has a stake in this law have an opportunity to show their own truckloads of evidence? For starters, I would like to present all of the votes making it clear - twice - that the majority of your constituents want abortion to remain safe, legal, and obtainable in the state of South Dakota. I would then like to present all of the great families who would not exist today were it not for a difficult choice a woman had to make when, for her, terminating a pregnancy was not a bump in the road, but rather a turning point that led to her examining her life, learning how to recognize a good partner, and then creating a beautiful family. Can you look those children in the eyes and tell them that you care more about the fetus conceived by a monster, an addict, or a criminal than you care about them?

  28. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Well, I doubt if you are even that, Steve. I'm guessing you're most likely pro-choice. Care to do a little Q & A and find out?

  29. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    ...and exactly what "new science" do you have to present, Mr. Hickey?

  30. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    By the way, before you tell me, Steve, are you a biologist?

  31. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    ...are you a practicing scientist of any sort? Do you believe in evolution, for ecample?

  32. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Erika - I can't conceive of executing a capital punishment on the judicially innocent for the crime of their father. And, I marvel at how frequent this continues to come up... that SDn's twice voted and therefore want abortion to continue to be used as back up birth control. Not true. Here's a statement from me on that:

    And please, enough already with the bloviating about how "we South Dakotans have twice voted to leave the abortion issue alone, but that the Legislature doesn’t get the message." Those who persistently defend the indefensible can be often heard misinterpreting the results of our two recent state-wide attempts to ban abortion. Remarkably the debate in both those attempts focused solely on the exceptions (rape, incest, incompatible with life fetal anomalies) and can in no way be interpreted to mean South Dakotans are just fine with the present practice of using abortion as back-up birth control. My goodness, 46% of our state voted for a TOTAL ban on ALL abortions (except for life/health of mom) in 2006. In 2008, our initiated measure failed because those who sell abortions were successful at diverting all attention off abortion being used as birth control to a several month debate on how, if at all, the 2008 ban would, or would not, have affected one single pregnant mom in South Dakota, a mom with a rare twin-to-twin pregnancy. In other words, the 2008 ban became about ONE abortion in South Dakota, not all abortions in South Dakota. My point, the votes of 2006 and 2008 can not be construed to show a desire among South Dakotans to "leave the abortion issue alone."

    [CAH: First line: there is no crime here. Abortion is not illegal. Sex is not illegal.]

  33. David Newquist 2011.07.01

    Time was when the very notion that one could force people by law to submit to indoctrination by a sectarian organization would produce a chorus of derisive giggling among the sentient majority. While an appeals judge finds that unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has set sail on quite a different tack these days. (How's that for yoking a metaphor, Mr. Fleming?) It is declared that corporations possess all the attributes of full a person, but the ideological bent of the court majority comes from a set that has real problems with women in that regard. With the emerging right to carry arms laws, they do fear those bands of desperadoes roaming the country and trying to coerce pregnant women into aborting.

    Hate to throw conservative pee on anyone's parade (another one, Bill Fleming), but long after the Scopes trial, we are back to requiring that the campfire mythology of Genesis be given the same scientific status in our schools as evolution. And education is being controlled by testing the effects of operant conditioning by indoctrinators, bolstered by the withdrawal of funding for education that can actually inform and stimulate brain cells. According to this mythology, a woman ain't nothing but a hunk of male rib cage and a man can do with his body whatever he wants. (You ready to point out a little satiric thought to the indoctrinators, Mr. Fleming?)

  34. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Bill - first read the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion Report

    Only link I could find was from Ellis's site. I'm glad he scanned it in and has it there. It details some of the main scientific developments that relate to the Roe v Wade decision. As you perhaps know, science continues to recognize unborn human life and there have been no developments in science in the last 40 years that help Planned Parenthood make the case that this is a blob of tissue with no human rights. Bill, I have multiple degrees but does it take a biology degree to see what a five year old can recognize when seeing a 4D sonogram??... look mommy, a BABY.

    Evolution??? Bill do you subscribe to the view that only the fit should survive? My religion (worldview and values - btw, we all have some set of worldview and values/religion) compels me to have basic human compassion toward the helpless. Did you know a fetus feels pain at 8 weeks? You can see this when a child is poked.... they pull away, EVERYTIME. Yet we dismember them without anesthesia. We'd go to jail for cruelty to animals if we did that to a kitten or a bunny. Please tell me you don't think we need advanced degrees in science to confirm the obvious. Why can't we love them both, mom and baby?

    Doesn't Planned Parenthood's direct connection to the eugenics movement bother you?? They've never recanted their racist roots. My goodness even the Southern Baptists issued a public apology for their racist past. Read up on abortion and black genocide and less on evolutionary theory.

    Planned Parenthood hides crimes against women and give the perp a free pass to go do it again. It's wrong and this is why they are being defunded, one day they will be sued women all over America come forward and tell their story. It'll make the priest pedophilia settlements look like chump change. Justice, Bill, get over here on the side of justice for the innocent and the exploited.

    There is nothing coercive about adding an additional step prior to abortion. It is sad that it's even necessary but PP has demonstrated they don't do what real doctors do - explain every aspect of major medical procedures especially one that some studies show hurt 30% of women who have the procedure. Abortion remains the lowest form of anything that could even remotely be considered healthcare. Women deserve better. The state has an obligation to protect human life and yes this justifies government intrusion. It is no double standard for conservatives to talk about limited govt and want govt to protect innocent human life. There are legitimate functions of govt and this is definitely one of them. I'll shut up now. Obviously I haven't blogged in a while and thus the rant. Peace.

  35. Steve Sibson 2011.07.01

    You all are missing the most important point...the humans inside the wombs. Matriarchy was not suppose to work and it does not. The biggest problem facing America are the huge numbers of children who don't have fathers.

    [CAH: Um... I don't see how Judge Schreier's injunction establishes matriarchy... unless you're trying to suggest that any instance of women making rules is unacceptable.]

  36. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Splendid, Dr. Newquist, as usual.

    I will happily add a note of celebratory accent to any similar sublime pun or other clever literary device the brow beating proselytizers in our midst deign to proffer.

    Sadly though I have yet to see one quite up to the task.

    My theory is that while they use (or should I say abuse) language profusely, they typically fail to grasp the true nature and function of it — be it biblical or constitutional.

    Meanwhile, always a joy to read you, sir.

    Thank you for noticing that I noticed.

    And right now, I'm noticing the Mr. Hickey is dodging my questions about his science credentials as is his abiding wont.

  37. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    So is your argument scientific or not Mr. Hickey?

  38. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Here's a relevant question for you Bill, does a women going to the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood speak with any person with a scientific or medical background before she is scheduled for surgery?

    The answer is NO. In fact, the "doctor" they fly in said under oath she would not give a woman information on fetal development even if asked. So, I ask you ... is this really about healthcare for women?

    Bill, the argument draws in the scientific and legislators are giving consideration to current scientific consensus. And the argument touches a variety of other disciplines as well, one of which I do have advanced degrees in. You are playing games and dodging my questions like - do you believe only the fit should be allowed to survive?

  39. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    "...but does it take a biology degree to see what a five year old can recognize when seeing a 4D sonogram??… look mommy, a BABY."

    Steve. Yes. It does.

    "...look mommy, a BABY" is what my granddaughter says about her grandma's cabbage patch doll.

  40. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Steve, no, what I know (notice I didn't say "believe") is that the function of DNA is to make copies of itself. That's all it does. And it is very, very, very good at it. Are you trying to tell us that DNA is a person?

  41. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    LOL. We should listen to the children Bill, there's a reason Jesus said we need to become like them. What does the granddaughter do when grandma pulls the arms off the cabbage patch doll? I bet she screams in horror because she sees and recognizes human likeness and knows there is some living and sacred about it.

  42. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.01

    Bill - call a high school biology teacher to get a refresher on the difference between DNA and a human embryo. Remarkable. It's really sad to me that we have taught a whole generation of youth that they are nothing more than the next random mutation in an unguided evolutionary process.

  43. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Note to Steve: if you don't "believe in" the fact of evolution, you have no business whatsoever arguing from a biological, genetic, perspective.

    Before we go too far down this path that can ounly lead you your embarrassment, you might as well just admit that yours is a religious argument and get it over with.

    I'm sure none of us here will think any less of you for it.

    Certainly not me.

    At least you'll be telling the truth, which I always find refreshing.

  44. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Okay, if you insist, Steve, what's the difference between a fertilized human ovum and an unfertilized one?

  45. Steve Sibson 2011.07.01

    "Okay, if you insist, Steve, what’s the difference between a fertilized human ovum and an unfertilized one?"

    A man's sperm.

  46. Steve Sibson 2011.07.01

    "Note to Steve: if you don’t “believe in” the fact of evolution, you have no business whatsoever arguing from a biological, genetic, perspective.

    Bill, which evolution; macro or micro?

  47. larry kurtz 2011.07.01

    Getting far afield, fellers: could you bring it back to the case for us in the gerontocracy?

  48. Curtis Loesch 2011.07.01

    Steve, I'm not going to go on and on about it, but there is at least one good argument that the anti-personal choice law you guys passed is coercive to a woman. Others have made that argument over and over again.

    But did you know there grows a fern-like plant, genus, etc. I don't know and won't bother to find, I saw first in Thailand, now I find marketed on the internet and affectionately called a tickle-me, that withdraws every time it is poked? Am I comparing human life forms to plants? Possibly.

  49. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Hi Sibby, Let's start with micro. Although we could start with memes if you like, Steve, since that — more than anything else — is what this conversation is REALLY all about. Always has been. The evolution of a meme. Good to see you posting again, man. Long time.

    Larry, this happens every time these dudes want to talk about science. You get the big runaround.

  50. Anne 2011.07.01

    What is a real sin is for grown men (I presume, anyway) to have as much fun with language as Mssrs. Fleming and Newquist do.

  51. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    Anne, "grown" ain't the half of it, sister (at least in my case).

    Try "old as dirt.

  52. David Newquist 2011.07.01

    Not me. It's old as lava, before it eroded into dirt.

  53. Bill Fleming 2011.07.01

    New Quist = True Grit.

    (Post-modern heroic couplet disguised as math formula.)

  54. Roger Elgersma 2011.07.01

    No one feels degraded unless there is a little guilt from within themself. I have been accused of some rather horrible attitudes and situations when I went through divorce but since I knew they were lies, I was not degraded at all. I was quite disgusted that lies and assumptions could prevail. Some of these assumptions were that as a man I was not capable of being as good of a parent as the mother. I knew before I married her that I was a better parent but was going to be a farmer and knew I would be there for the kids. Now women think that my opinion on keeping kids alive is of no value.
    But when I talk to pro choice women they tell me that no one knows why they get an abortion as their argument against all reasons that the woman is wrong. If we do not know the reason they are simply not honest enough to admit the real reason. If they do not have a reason good enough to hold up, then why keep it legal.

  55. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.07.01

    No, Roger, I can't accept your trying to turn the blame back on all women. Our Legislature can insult women, take away their rights, very clearly degrade them, and you cannot excuse that by saying that women who feel degrade by such action must suffer some moral defect. We're not talking about keeping a positive mental attitude or pesonal sense of dignity. Women have every right to feel slighted and harmed by a government that does not respect their intellect and choice.

    And you cannot dismiss every pro-choice woman as dishonest. That itself is a dishonest argument, and far too abstract. My wife is a real woman. She is politically pro-choice. She feels degraded and disrespected by this law and the Legislature that passed it. The moral fault lies not within my wife, but in the bad law and bad lawmakers.

  56. Guy 2011.07.01

    Oh, Rep. Hickey, I believe you are jumping the gun and you will be wrong. Just be patient and time will prove you wrong.

  57. Douglas Wiken 2011.07.01

    Well, at least Steve has progressed beyond referring to every supporter of women's free choice as Nazi butchers. That is some progress.

    Abstinence and prolonged virginity may be good personal policies, but they make rotten government policy for a a mostly free society.

  58. Rep. Steve Hickey 2011.07.02

    Hey Wiken - Site the place I referred to every supporter of women's free choice as a Nazi butcher. No doubt I've written plenty on the abortion cartel and militant pro-abort activists and their nazi-like blatant disregard for innocent human life. Can't remember labeling every supporter of women's free choice that way.

  59. Bill Fleming 2011.07.02

    Hickey, Doug's not talking about you.

  60. Bill Fleming 2011.07.02

    "In the beginning, there was information. The word came later. - "The transition was achieved by the development of organisms with the capacity for selectively exploiting this information to survive and perpetuate their kind." — Fred Dretske, philosopher of mind and knowledge.

Comments are closed.