Press "Enter" to skip to content

Roger Hunt Still Hates Women, Tries Again to Ban Surrogate Mother Agreements

Rep. Roger Hunt (R-10/Brandon) continues his crusade to enact into law his conviction that women are stupid creatures who require constant correction and protection by the state. His bill to enhance South Dakota's anti-abortion coercive counseling law passed the House yesterday by far too large a margin (I'm looking at you, Patty, Frank, Bernie...).

But that's not the only atrocity Rep. Hunt is revisiting. Last year the Brandon misogynist floated a bill to ban surrogate mother agreements in South Dakota. With an unthinking ideologue's arrogance, he asserted on the record that men know more about surrogacy than the women who make such agreements and bear such children. House Judiciary killed Hunt's 2011 surrogacy ban, but he's trying again this year with HB 1255. And this year, Hunt's abuse of women's rights squeaked out of House Judiciary on a 7-5 vote.

Let's review: a woman can provide a vital service to a couple who can't conceive a child. All parties involved are able to come to a rational agreement about the value of that vital, wholly moral service. They sign a contract protecting the interests of all parties involved.

Roger Hunt can make only two justifications for interfering in such an agreement, both equally foul:

  1. The woman offering to carry the child, or maybe just women in general, are incapable of rational thought.
  2. Once there's a well-joined sperm and egg in a woman's body, she no longer controls her destiny. Her womb is a vessel of the state over which she has no authority.

Today is crossover day in the Legislature: bills must pass their house of origin by the end of the day, or they're done. HB 1255 thus should come before the full House today. Please call your legislators and ask them why they would want to wage war on women who want to become moms and other noble women who want to help them attain that blessed goal.

Or just skip the rhetorical questions and tell them to kill this misogynist bill.


  1. Troy Jones 2012.02.14

    Roger no more hates women than you Cory.

  2. Joseph Nelson 2012.02.14

    I disagree with this being a vital, wholly moral service. Just as it is illegal and immoral for me to sell my kidney, or as it is illegal and immoral to sell the services of my body for sexual exercises, surrogate pregnancy is illegal (at least in 5 states) and immoral. I read the bill, which I see as an endorsement of the already working adoption system, as well as a protection for the woman actually carrying the child, so that no amount of money or other coercive factors can influence her into relinquishing parental rights prior to giving birth to the baby. It would still appear that if my spouse and I cannot conceive on our own, we can still seek out a pregnant female and agree to pay/reimburse her for medical and hospital expenses, as part of an adoption process. I do not think this bill is calling women irrational or incapable of rational thought. There are consumer protection agencies that exist, does that mean consumers are incapable of rational thought? This bill at least looks like it would prevent women from being seen as commodities (although I just had a great idea for a T-Shirt that reads "Womb for Rent" on the front and "Just $599 a month, plus medical expenses!" on the back.)

  3. larry kurtz 2012.02.14

    "It will yet be the proud boast of women that they didn't contribute a line to the Bible. All religions die of the same disease - that of being found out. Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death." #Atheism

    Devlin @fasterthanli9ht

  4. larry kurtz 2012.02.14

    David Montgomery @rcjMontgomery:

    "Interesting how a generic "any religious code" bill does far better than one that singles out a specific religious code like Sharia law."

  5. larry kurtz 2012.02.14

    Boycott South Dakota: House lawmakers ban abortion from subsidized health care plans. @larry_kurtz

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.02.14

    Troy, Roger's legislative record speaks loudly of a fundamental distrust of women. He thinks women need him to take care of them. He thinks they are either too weak or too stupid or too immoral to be trusted to do what's best for themselves. And he masquerades as a Republican seeing it his duty to send government in to make decisions for women. Appalling.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.02.14

    Joseph, who says you seek out a pregnant female to buy her child? Can a couple and a young woman not make a deal before conception? Can the insemination not be completed without any selling of sexual services? At that point, is a woman not capable of deciding whether or not she wants to undergo the very serious commitment of carrying a child for another couple? And do she and the couple not then deserve to form a contract to protect their respective rights?

  8. Joseph Nelson 2012.02.15

    Cory, this bill only outlaws commercial surrogacy; non-commercial surrogacy (done the adoption route) would still be legal, even if the agreement is made prior to insemination. This bill seeks to clarify and define whose rights are whose, specifically protecting the birth mother from signing away her parental rights (unless done the adoption route, and even then has up to six months after the birth to make a decision). This bill is specifically looking to outlaw "buying of children" to a certain degree, so that answers your first question. A deal can be made prior to insemination: "Surrogacy," an arrangement, whether or not embodied in a formal written contract, entered into by two or more persons, including the birth mother or surrogate, and any intended rearing parent, who agrees prior to insemination, or in the case of an implanted embryo, prior to implantation, to participate in the creation of a child, with the intention that the child be reared as the child of one or more of the intended rearing parents, who is not the birth mother. So that answers your second and third question. As for your forth question, I have known many a woman in a pregnant situation, and I would say that for the majority of the woman I have known, pregnancy affects them emotionally and causes them to act irrationally at times (but not all the time). I have also witnessed the immense bond that develops with the even yet unborn baby, and then the awesome bond that forms with the newborn baby. To allow a woman who has not had the chance to not have those bonding experience with the child, sign away her rights to that child, is foolish, and too many complications come up (what if the the unborn baby has a genetic condition, and the would-be parents decide that they no longer want the child...should a clause be allowed in the contract that would force the woman to get an abortion? Too many complications with a lot of selling away rights to the woman's body that I portend. As to your final question, the bill appears to lay out what the rights of the birth mother are, but is bit silent as to what the rights of the would-be parents are, perhaps an amendment is need to protect their rights in the situation?

  9. Bill Dithmer 2012.02.15

    First I haven't seen the bill. I have to assume that the language in the bill goes both ways if protecting the surrogate is the driving force. If the woman who is the surrogate wants to back out of the agreement shouldn’t there also be protections for those “other two people”? If she can back out at any time my guess is that they should have the same rights as she has.

    Our legislature has just downgraded the contract to a zero risk agreement. Shouldn’t there be language about reimbursement of monies spent before the child is born to the after birth parents if the contract is voided by the surrogate? Shouldn’t that money include interest unless otherwise agreed to by both parties? Are we talking about the buying and selling of babies here or about a service?

    Shouldn’t the protection go both ways?

    The Blindman

  10. 196thlightinfantry 2012.02.15

    I dunno about Hunt hating women, but I would say he fears them first. I see this with all of the men who pass these anti-women laws or try too. To Hunt and his pals, there is nothing more dangerous than women, and in particular smart women, because they have these guys number and they know it. Most know that if Hunt and his pals were just haters, they would come out and tell all who finances them, but as the spooky cats they are, they just stay fearful.

  11. larry kurtz 2012.02.15

    The virtual sexual assault of Angie Buhl at the War Toilet borders on the defamatory especially in the shadow of its deletion of ip's indictment of Rep. Nelson.


  12. larry kurtz 2012.02.15

    "Nun to walk Academy Awards red carpet in habit” @_MaryJohnson: met her once- very sweet/tough lady..." D Gregory Smith @Dgsma

    Allahu akbar.

  13. larry kurtz 2012.02.16

    Jesus' General: "It's hard to be a white Christian hetero man in America today. We are persecuted at every step. All we have left is the Senate, the House, the corporate boards, and those hogger shows on cable teevee. Who knows how long that'll last."

  14. larry kurtz 2012.02.16

    "Maher: Santorum believes ‘life begins at erection’"

Comments are closed.