...and has to help kill an abortion ban.
Rep. Rev. Steve Hickey is having a tough week. He saw two measures he sponsored defeated in committee, and he had to help kill a third that he decided was too risky to support.
This morning, amidst hard, emotional testimony, the Sioux Falls Republican saw House Bill 1183, his effort to repeal South Dakota's death penalty, killed in committee on a 7–6 vote. Rep. Hickey has publicly documented his conversion on capital punishment, contending that the death penalty is bad policy on retribution, deterrence, safety, closure, and economics.
Democrat Bernie Hunhoff supported Hickey, saying, "I just don't think you can kill enough people to make [South Dakota] a better place." Three Republicans—Lust, Munsterman, and Conzet—voted with Hunhoff and Dems Parsley and Killer (yes, irony) to move HB 1183 to the House floor, but Democrat Peggy Gibson voted with the slim and uncomfortable majority of Republicans to bury Hickey's repeal.
This defeat comes on the heels of Wednesday's firmer rejection of Rep. Hickey's HB 1255, his proposal to rein in payday lenders. Rep. Hickey thought he'd tempered his anti-usury politics into a compromise palatable to the payday-lending industry. He thought he had a deal with an industry that was just glad to see him back away from a threat to bring a crushing payday-lending interest cap to a public vote. He was wrong; payday lenders lined up to cry out against these reasonable regulations. House State Affairs killed HB 1255 11–2.
Fine, says Rep. Hickey. That's the way the usury industry wants to play? It's back to the ballot:
...Hickey said he’s done negotiating.
“This is a bunch of games. These people expressly told me to put this stuff in the bill, and now they’re here opposing it,” Hickey said. “They should have been in here supporting the bill. But instead they’re going to face a rate cap” [David Montgomery, "S.D. Ballot Fight Vowed on High-Interest Payday Loans," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.02.19].
I won't tease you too hard, Steve, for trusting payday lenders. Just hand me that petition when it comes.
To top it off, Rep. Hickey now has to come home and explain to District 9 voters why he voted against an abortion restriction.
Rep. Isaac Latterell (R-6/Tea) pitched House Bill 1240 to House Health and Human Services on Thursday. HB 1240 would have outlawed aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. In the ongoing dishonesty of anti-abortion crusaders, Rep. Latterell asked that we punish the doctors who perform such abortions but not the women who approve and pay for what Latterell and his fellow campaigners blithely call murder and genocide.
Opposition had little to do with Down Syndrome and everything to do with women's rights and abortion in general. NARAL and others testified against HB 1240, saying that it was really an effort to drive another wedge between women and their legal right to bodily autonomy. An emotional Rep. Kathy Tyler, who described herself as a Catholic pro-life Democrat, said she'd never urge anyone to have an abortion, said HB 1240 was unenforceable and would only promote lying (women just wouldn't tell doctors their reason for having an abortion).
Rep. Hickey said he agrees with everything in HB 1240. He said there is nothing more despicable to him than abortion. He said the "callous buzzards" in the legal department at Planned Parenthood were secretly rooting for this bill so they could challenge it in court. He called NARAL and the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families "wicked." He said he worried there was a case that could undermine the whole complex legal battle he and fellow anti-abortion crusaders are waging in South Dakota to overturn Roe v. Wade.
House Health and Human Services split on a motion to pass the bill, 6–6. The committee then banished the bill to the 41st day on an 8–4 vote. Rep. Steve Hickey voted both times against HB 1240.
Hickey has his reasons, but now he must march the campaign trail with a vote against an abortion ban on his scorecard.
South Dakota will continue to kill prisoners. South Dakota will continue to countenance exploitative lending practices. South Dakota will see religious crusaders continue to wage a complex, multi-pronged, and uncompromising campaign against women's rights. It's been a tough week in Pierre for Steve Hickey and for South Dakota.
Mr. Latterell: No woman "wants" an abortion. Every woman deserves her own choice. A grand example of the Republican conservative WAR ON WOMEN. Deny it again, Tea Party!
Rep. Hickey is being marginalized by his caucus because of his stand on executive clemency or commutation for Leonard Peltier. Anyone who believes that this legislature isn't a murder of Janklovian crows is delusional.
So combine all three bills. Force women that need an abortion to finance it through pay-day lenders or face the death penalty. Just when you think the depths of dumb have been reached,wingnuts in red-run states prove there is more where these came from.
It must be wonderful to sit on a committee and feel so omnipotent that you will not even allow the whole legislature a vote on the death penalty. I wonder how it feels to play God? No, I don't, I wouldn't want that awesome responsibility on my shoulders, to say nothing of my conscience. The seven of you who voted not to allow the whole legislature a voice on this issue, to give the representatives of the entire state a voice on this issue, should be ashamed of yourselves.
Meanwhile, Colorado had to double what their previous expectations were for the taxes brought in from the legalization of recreational pot from fifty million to over 100 million. That money is already earmarked for dependency treatment centers.
I suspect that a lot of booz hounds will reap the benefits from the sale of that evil weed.
This is what can happen if a legislature listens to and works for the good of the people. Unfortunately we have that other kind, pretentious, bigoted, self serving, ideological, red necks with a personal agenda. It's a damn shame.
Are you listening Pine Ridge?
Fortunately Pine Ridge does not need or require Dithmer's opinion, one way or the other.
Tribal members alone will vote whether or not to legalize pot.
Fortunately Roger doesn't live or participate in life here on the Pine Ridge so his opinions compared to mine, a real citizen that lives and has lived here all my life doesn't mean squat.
Like it or not Roger I will have an influence on this vote. You on the other hand, not so much. Quite frankly Roger, you are on the outside looking in and I'm already communicating with the tribe in this matter.
Your hatrid of me will never silence my voice, it only makes it stronger.
Now, that is what is called white privilege, Dithmer.
Hickey, do you personally know anyone at Planned Parenthood or NARAL? Anyone? Even one person? I'm talking "personally", not professionally.
Yet you dare call them "evil, callous buzzards". Shame, shame on you Hickey!
You, who wants to treat women as juveniles, without full adulthood and the accompanying autonomy. For shame! You dare to refer to people whom you do not know, whose motives you are ignorant of, who are strangers to you - you, you of all people - you dare to call them names?! How ignorant and childish of you!
You are pro-birth, as are most of your constituents. That is your choice. Yet you vilify women and men who work to empower women as full and valuable adults. Regardless of how many times you have been told that women such as myself desire to enforce women's full humanity, you would refer to us as "evil, callous buzzards."
My hope is that you can understand why you have NO credibility with the majority of women.
"Old Testament Christians" is a complete contradiction. For shame Hickey.
I believe Rep Hickey is to be commended. Progressives may not agree with some of his views, language, or tactics...but he's doing a heck of a job fighting for underdogs in our state.
Roger do you really want to go there? I see in many places here on the streets of Madville where you Roger are a major proponent for the native right to not just vote, but make voting easier, something we can both agree on.
Yet you have the nerve to talk about "white privilege", l have lived in a country that refuses to let me vote because of the color of my skin my whole life. I take part in life here. I live by the rules of this country, The Pine Ridge Reservation, and have never committed a felony, yet I'm denied the right to vote because of the color of my skin.
Remember this is a sovereign nation we're talking about. Isn't what's good for the goose also supposed to be good for the gander? Don't you even see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?
Now, I know I'll never see the right to vote here. I've excepted that a long time ago. But if you are saying, and I think you are, "go to the back of the bus, set down, and shut up white boy," then you sir are no better then black haters from sixty years ago.
I will continue to use my voice to influence the causes I care about here on the Pine Ridge. Unless you are advocating the taking of my life there is no way to silence that voice so get used to it or move here and use your own influence against me.
I guess if that's "white privilege," then I've sure as help have it.
My father was a full blood Indian from another reservation, my mother was an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. My father lived, worked, and raised his family on the reservation, he died there after spending more than 50 years of his life among the Sioux.
In those 50+ years he spent there, he always recognized and accepted the fact that he was a visitor, he never asked for the privilege to vote because he was not a member of that sovereign nation. The only time he talked about the politics of the reservation was to defend the tribe against insults and assaults made toward the Oglala or other tribes.
His respect for the tribe was profound and valuable to me, as I am not a tribal member, but because of my mother's blood I have an interest in the tribe and their destiny.
I don't criticize them, I do what I can to defend them against verbal onslaughts and encourage them when they are doing good for the people. It is called respect, simple respect for their way of life.
For centuries the tribe has listened to and has often been forced to accept the white man's way of doing things and look what is has gotten them.
When you live in any jurisdiction of the country or states you can fully expect voter qualifications, on election day I can't go to Sioux Falls and expect to vote in their city elections. You made the choice to live on the reservation, you must honor and respect all their laws.
To Madville readers, please accept my apologies for getting so seriously off topic.
Roger would you be saying the same thing "if" natives had never been given the right to vote? I think not. I'm not a visitor here, I live here. Why would you expect to vote in Sioux Falls if you didn't live there, that makes no sense.
I have always respected the laws here. Where did you get that from?
What part of you are not a member of the sovereign nation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe do you not understand?
I appreciate this post, Cory. And Karl's comments. It was a hard week but I'm doing fine. I've found it gets easier to do hard things.
Deb, others also took exception to my use of the word wicked with regard to the companies that front as health provider but exist to sell abortions. Abortions kill children and hurt women. Planned Parenthood has never renounced their racist founder- Sanger who put her clinics in poor black neighborhoods because she wanted get rid of human weeds and disgenic races. Those are her words and the result has been black genicide. For shame, to those who support these organizations that profit off dismembering living beings. It's simple human compassion. You wouldn't do that to a little bird but a million babies a year we are somehow callous to that-- I view these organizations as wicked.
Not sure why you reference Old Testament Christians but will direct you to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said he didn't come to do away with even one letter of it. The early church consider New Testament Only Christians to be a heresy, called the Marcion heresy. The two testaments are not in conflict as they complete each other.
Rep Hickey,tunnel vision is not an admirable trait for pols to have. You focus on the least service Planned Parenthood provides and yet that service is still a constitutionally protected right. The so called party of family values should champion the works that PP does to keep women healthy and families together. Would you disown the little lady because she can't boil water,even though she admirably takes care of the rest of her wifely duties?
Like it or not,some abortions are medically necessary and someone,somewhere has to be available and capable of performing such. You don't like abortions,great-don't have one. Ain't no one gonna force you to have one. You should respect another's decisions to have the proceedure done,simply because it is none of your damn business.
Why not focus on the living-kids need food and education and loving families. Their parents need good paying jobs and a stable economic environment,better roads. I sincerely doubt that being protected from Gays or abortions is high on their priorities lists.
Karl Kroger-wingnuts control the Governorship,both houses of congress and nearly all state jobs. How does that make them "underdogs"? They fight to keep equal rights from Gays,they take money away from education,they take food away from the poor and elderly and children. These are the real underdogs.
Oh please, Mike. You insinuate abortion is not the main thing they do. It is. Look at where their dollars are spent. They don't do mammograms like they say and they aren't doing a half a billion a year in condom distributions. It's about 3000 abortions a day. I'm going to leave it at that and just say again I appreciate Cory's post on the issues I contended for this week.
Rich women have full reproductive freedom while women at middle and lower income levels experience chilling effects on their rights. South Dakota's repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care is not only mean-spirited, it's discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
Progressives aren't mourning the population growth of American Indians, African-Americans, Asians, and Latinos who are producing offspring at higher rates than European-Americans are. To the contrary: evolution relies on diversity.
Rep. Hickey at least is consistent. He is against killing both henous criminals and innocent babies. Both build a mindset in the youth that killing someone that we do not like or that is in our way is OK.
And by the way, the constitution does not protect ones right to kill a separate biologically individual human being even if it is your own child. The court decided to allow abortion since it saw American children being raised in hippie communes by a bunch of groupies. It was a practical matter, not a constitutional matter. Grabbing the constitution to kill your baby may even be evil. So scorning the Rev. might be disgusting also. But if you have had an abortion you have lost some conscience and are having a hard time dealing with your own mistake that you in your heart say you do not want to do, but want to be able to anyways. That is a way to wreak your own consceince. Keep doing what you do not want to do and it will get worse.
Rep Hickey,PP does abortions. They represent 3% of the services conducted. They average less than 900 legal,constitutionally protected abortions every day of the year. Like I said,if you don't want one,don't have one. It is still none of your business who does what with her OWN decisions about her OWN body. I'm pretty sure I'll never have one and neither will you!
We live in District 9 and have never seen Rep. Hickey at the front door. (for that matter, we have never seen Rep Hawkes at the front door) So, just saying he won't have much explaining to do when he has a "built in" voting bloc in a church in his district (and "built in" campaigners) As far as the abortion bill, no bill will be brought for prolife in SD unless it is brought for those who BUY the legislators standing for PROLIFE. They know who they are. (they intend to keep their "hands on" any bills moving forward in SD and only those they initiate will pass) Honestly, you think these bloggers would get this???
Where do you live RA? I'll stop by. I haven't even come close to knocking on every door in the district. BTW my church isn't in District 9 and only 15 or so from the church are in my district. I don't tap them for campaign work.
Hickey, you are skilled at spouting the anti-women, anti-choice rhetoric. Your claims about Planned Parenthood are lies , regardless of how many times they've been repeated. I repeat my statement. Shame on you to utter such terrible slurs against fine people whom you do not know.
Operating from a position of extremism while trying to clothe yourself in a cloak of righteousness is shameful. You have unloaded a mass of untrue generalizations about a woman's right to control her own body that the murderers of health care providers like Dr. Teller, murdered as he attended worship in his church, would be happy to chime in on.
You are skilled at using the right wing inflammatory, but untrue lingo. No, that blastocyst/zygote/fetus is not an "unborn baby". There is no scientific definition of such a term. But it suits your purpose of demonizing those who disagree with you. For shame!
Old Testament "Christians" accept the description of marital relations and woman's position in the home. She is under the practical ownership of her husband and must accept his dictates. If/when he dies and she is widowed, all property and possessions go to the sons and she has nothing. Or she is married to one of her brother-in-laws. Her life is never her own. She is ruled by her father/brother/husband/other male relative, or she is an outcast.
One of your lies Hickey, is that women who have abortions forever after struggle with mental health issues like guilt, loss, depression, etc. It's simply not true. Evidence does not support your assertions.
Hickey, if you want millions of women to believe that these anti-women laws are not just that, write a bill and heavily promote it. Give it everything you've got. I'm talking about a bill that restricts male sexual behavior. Males commit 95% of all child sexual abuse. Write a law that says such men will receive regular castration injections, in addition to prison time. Same for rapists, for their lifetimes. If you want women and girls to be stuck with a rape caused pregnancy, go after the rapists hard.
I am telling you, and anyone who is reading this: When you put as much effort into controlling male sexuality as you do female, I really will believe that this is about limiting abortions, rather than controlling women.
Another thing you can do to put some real meat behind your words - work hard for universal access to birth control.
Hickey, if you're not willing to do either or both of those, then shut up and hang your head.
When I grow up I wanna be like you,Deb.
I know several women that have had abortions, some of them have had more than one abortion, and have never known them to have suffered depression or regretted it. I am sure there are women out there who have regretted their decision, though. Instead of ostracizing women for aborting, let's raise our sons to be better boyfriends and husbands.
Nice of you to say that Mike. Thank you.
What Jenny said.
I have no doubt that some women have regretted having abortions. How does it help their psyche to have people on the right constantly remind them that what they did was murder an unborn child? Talk about brainwashing someone. You did wrong and we aren't gonna let you forget it for one minute,Missy. Like Deb says-shut up. If wingnut's god can forgive wingnut affairs,then he can forgive others as well.
Deb and Jenny,
What is consistently absent in the religious and political war on women launched by Republicans is the role and responsibility of men. Why is it so easy for them to disregard and exempt the men that plant the seeds?
When the self-righteous Christians like Rev. Hickey start taking responsibility and proposing legislation that hold men accountable for abortions, maybe then he might be worth listening to.
Hickey and his ilk can throw out percentages all they want, they can make psychological clinical diagnosis of women, they can rant and rave and tell lies about Planned Parenthood, they can demean women to their hearts content and continually try to legislate women's bodies, but here's the thing.
A two bit inconsequential Republican state representative will not be able to overturn Roe vs Wade. Women, and men that believe in them, will continue to fight for the complete rights of all people, what the Hickey's in this country fail to realize is that this not just a "war on women", it is a war on Americans, all Americans.
Outlawing abortion will not eliminate or reduce the number of abortions, it will just drive them underground.
What will reduce the number of abortions is widespread sex education that includes information on and easy access to contraceptives.
Sex education > immaculate contraception
By your logic, we should just legalize teen drinking, heroin, pedophilia because outlawing just pushes it underground. Or, there shouldn't be an increase in pot smoking in Colorado now that it is legal. Just in the open.
Yes, you are very wise. I mean, look at the success of the prohibition of alcohol, which was considered on of the prime moral issues of its time. The consumption of alcohol was legal, and when we amended the constitution to outlaw it, nothing bad happened at all. And your logic is incredible with your cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Excellent toss in of pedophilia also. Because that has been legal during American history, right?
That is possibly the most illogical and irresponsible comment I have ever read.
On the other hand, knowing the illogical Republican state legislature we have, it would not surprise me if they did legalize teenage drinking, heroin, or pedophilia.
Actually, easing up some on drug convictions would be a good thing, since so many of them don't get the treatment needed when they're sitting in jail.
Lanny, I certainly would like to have heard the full House and the full Senate debate HB 1183. I'm disappointed that House State Affairs denied us that debate... but I can't really indict the committee process for killing a bill I like when I cheer committees for killing bills I don't like.
Yes, but are the other bills a matter of life and death, and possibly a matter of spending eternity in hell?
I agree. I was just using Nick's logic. Pretty stupid huh.
I must be stupid Troy, please explain why sex ed and wide spread use and availability of contraceptives is a stupid way to reduce the incidence of abortion?
Mike's on top of things. I thought we'd sufficiently debunked the whole "Planned Parenthood–nothing but abortions" propaganda:
You said "outlawing abortion will not eliminate or REDUCE (emphasis added) the number of abortions. . ."
Outlawing war will not eliminate or reduce the number of Bushes.
Outlawing the Church of the HRKD will not eliminate or reduce the numbers of Paul Swains or John Nienstedts.
As the youngsters would say, "that was a pretty lame excuse" to Nick's comments.
Nick is on target, whenever you ban or make something illegal it will likely go underground, whether it be abortions, heroin, pedophilia or teenage drinking. If women are denied the right to choose what to do with their bodies, that men say are illegal, they will do what they have done in the past, go underground to get what they choose.
Troy do you have a problem with sex education and the use of contraceptives, by both men and women, to help reduce the number of abortions?
My only comment was related to the claim that making abortion illegal wouldn't lessen abortions. For a general audience here who wants to regulate everything to lessen its occurrence, it was as hilarious as it was stupid.
Troy, both Roger and Nick have asked you a specific question about sex education and contraception. I'm interested in your response. Will you answer them?
Lol. Rather than people here saying "yes, what Nick said was stupid" you want to try to change the subject to me. You intellectually protect your own even when they say nonsense.
Sex education and contraceptives will reduce the intrinsically evil murdering of humans yet born.
Thank you for your answer Troy. I'm not sure I follow the rest of your comment.
Do you resent the question I asked you to respond to? Who are you talking to? Or are you simply expressing a sense of frustration because you're not getting the response you want?
I made a narrow comment because Nicks first statement was false. Making most anything illegal will reduce its occurance and that false premise was then used to justify another assertion for sex ed and contraception.
Intellectually, even supporters of these matters should repel fallacious arguments if they are intellectually honest. And, it is noted nobody said "Nick, bad argument."
Mr. Nemec's argument is neither stupid nor false. That is why no one except Troy chose to label it as such. After looking for some evidence of a sound premise and coherent, respectful thought in Troy's comments, it becomes apparent that he is the last person who should present himself as an arbiter of logic and prnciple. His comments are sheer petulance.
I would go so far as to say my second statement, widespread sex ed and contraceptive availability and use reducing the incidence of abortion, is a self evident truth.
The first clause of my first statement, outlawing abortions will not eliminate abortions, is also a self evident truth. Quibbling with the second clause of my first statement, outlawing will not reduce the incidence of abortion, is just an attempt to dismiss the the most effective method we have to reduce the number of abortions. Many pro-life people are also anti-contraception, I argue which is the greater evil? An abortion or a pregnancy that never was because of effective use of contraception? Care to discuss the real issue Troy? Care to answer my question and show that outlawing abortion would reduce the number of abortions? Who's plan to stop abortions would would result in fewer abortions, yours to outlaw them abortions or mine to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy?
And as to your apparent only objection to my post that I overstated the ineffectiveness of abortion bans, maybe I did. But, if South Dakota banned
abortion, they would just move underground or across the state line. Maybe some South Dakota woman who would not otherwise carry her pregnancy to term would now have a term delivery but there is also the very real possibility that some young woman would die because of a botched illegal abortion.
If I withdraw the second clause of my first statement, will you agree to the first clause of my first statement and my second statement?
My best guess is outlawing abortion will have some effect in the near term only. After that, it is just a matter of time before the demand overcomes the restrictions and we return to pre-Roe days of back alley enterprises and untenable numbers of women dying and/or being mangled to appease white,male fantasies of having supreme CONTROL over the female of the species.
I have a better idea. Let's outlaw religion and disabuse wingnuts of the notion that whatever galls women is good for them,body and soul.
We want to defund PP because they do abortions. I want to defund defense spending because they kill people. I'm guessing we could save much more dinero by taking half a trillion from defense than we could save taking half a billion from Planned Parenthood.
Republicans aren't pro life: they're anti civil rights. Religious freedom = christofascism.
Ditto, Mike. I don't mind paying for soldier's healthcare and benefits, but as for unneeded, ruthless wars that injure and kill people - NO WAY. The politicians that vote for wars should send THEIR sons and daughters, nephews, nieces and grandchildren to war. You know how fast they would vote against it then. We have a whole generation of vets with PTSD, thanks to Bush, Cheney and company.
Careful there Jenny, You can no longer blame this just on Bush and Cheney, as I used to do. It is a culture that pervades our entire government, which is owned by defense, finance and healthcare industries. Both of our Democrat Senators voted to go to war with Iraq. President Obama, who was against the war in Iraq, when he was a legislator in Illinois, but had no qualms about keeping our troops in Afghanistan, once he was President, and allowed the attacks on Libya and back door funded the terrorists who are fighting in Syria. There is no one in DC with clean hands when it comes to war, unless it is Freedom Fries Jones from SC, who after supporting the war in Iraq, has come full circle and tried to stop our support of that war and has tried to stop the madness that we have in this country of being like John McCain, who never saw a war that he didn't like.
Lanny-was there ever a straight up or down vote to invade Iraq? My memory is that the vote gave dumb bass dubya all options to defend America,not carte blanche to attack a soverign nation that did not threaten us first. I also remember that administration telling the world that every American soldier volunteered to go to Iraq,which I believe is a twisted way of saying we have an all volunteer army. Jenny is 100% right to lay the blame at the feet of d a dubya,not only for the casualties we know of now,but for the healthcare costs in the future for cancers and ptsd problems that haven't showed up,yet.
Well, I can proudly say that my MN senators at the time - the Late Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton voted AGAINST the wars.
You are right mike from Iowa, there was never an up or down vote on Iraq, although the vote taken in October of 2002, gave President Bush carte blanche to do just that. It is easy for Congress to keep saying that we didn't authorize that, as in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the attack on Iraq, but they IMHO have abdicated the most solemn responsibility they have taken upon themselves when they take the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. You can cut the cake however you like as, like I said in my previous post, I used to. But it is more than this or that President, or political party, it is a culture that has pervaded our country and until the American people admit that, and demand that it change, it will stay the same.
And by the way, mike from Iowa, that PTSD is already pretty bad, as our veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 22 per day or 660 per month which is higher than the death toll in Iraq or Afghanistan for any month. And when we tried to pass a bill here in SD, in 2005 and 2006 that would have mandated testing for Depleted Uranium exposure for all of our troops who had been in a theatre of operation where DU was used, former Governor Rounds opposed that bill at the behest of the US military through their influence on the National Guard, and it was defeated.
Thanks Nick. Unlike a lot of posters, you are person of leadership and influence so I held you to a higher standard. Right or wrong.
Outlawing abortion will not eliminate abortion just as laws against pedophilia or drunk driving doesn't eliminate that conduct. And sound sex education and proper use of contraceptives will also reduce pregnancies in situations where the mother contemplates abortion.
If my words appear nuanced, they are. In my mind, we link these two matters too closely. The human dignity of the unborn child is of such over-reaching value, I am careful not concede that sex education or contraceptives is "the answer" to abortion. It begins first with acknowledgement of that human dignity. Until we discuss that, I'm hesitant to get into the discussion of sex education and contraceptives lest we think "we have done enough."
An analogy (don't beat me up on the analogy, it is an analogy). We want to reduce littering so we have more education on putting garbage in trash cans and we make trash cans more accessible but we don't outlaw throwing trash in the street. Education and trash cans might lessen litter but without littering it won't eliminate littering. So, sometimes the first thing to do to reduce incidence of something is to make it illegal.
I agree with you about the pervasive culture,but I will never let dumb bass off the hook until he is tried as the war criminal he is and summarily executed and left for the carrion crows to nibble on. Idiots in this country bailed out criminal banks and Wall Street crooks who screwed us over,and then we turn around and deny or cut necessary services for the vets who fight so crooks can rob us all. I am on record as being against the death penalty,but will eagerly make exceptions for Neocons.
That governors would give the authority for a 'corrections' official to go to Tulsa and pay cash to a compounding pharmacy to kill a man or hand a million dollar check to a suicidal man while assailing a black president for purported abuse of his authority speaks volumes about South Dakota's priorities.
I go with the greater evil theory Troy, which is the greater evil an abortion or a pregnancy prevented because of contraception? Pro-life zealots need to realize, but they never will realize, that their efforts of the last 40+ years have been in vain. A woman's right to her own body and right to decide what to do with her body is guaranteed by the Constitution and that includes the decision to have an abortion. Outlawing abortion is a fools errand. If all the money, tears and sweat spent trying to outlaw abortion over the last 40 years had been spent reducing the need for abortion we would be much further down the road to an abortion free society. But I am not so naive as to think widespread contraceptive use and sex ed will eliminate abortion, I just wish the pro-life people would acknowledge their efforts are futile.
Lanny-Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless. That decision was made before the activist wingnut Scotus annointed Bush Potus. You'd think after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution,Congress would know enough not to trust a war mongering Potus. Look what the Raygun Admin. did in regards to the Boland Congressional Amendment that prohibited any American funds from being used to fund Contra guerillas in Nicaragua. Raygun,North,Casey at CIA all completely ignored the will of Congress because as both Ollie North and Fawn Hall said,there are higher laws to follow than Congress. The Congress could be charged with complicity in the illegal war in Iraq,if only Americans had the stomach to prosecute someone other than Bill Clinton's zippers.
Well, as likely a zealot by your definition, I don't worry so much of the fruits of my effort, just that I make the effort. And, as much omniscience you and some Supreme Court Justices have, I don't see the right to kill an innocent human guarantee in the Constitution. If defending the most defenseless is a fool's errand in your mind, so be it.
Ninth Amendment, Troy.
Troy, I'm only concerned about reducing the incidence of abortion. I argue my way will do a better job of that than the way of some others, especially those who oppose contraception and sex ed.
Well, it appears Troy will not answer my question about contraception or the responsibility men have in reducing the number of abortions. These type choose to condemn women and attempt of pass the most intrusive legislation that can be placed on woman.
By their silence, they choose to have no responsibility with what men do with their bodies, pregnancies don't just happen by themselves, you know.
They offer weak support of contraceptives and sex-education and nothing more, and absolutely no accountability. Even the Mormon Church is attempting to ban male masturbation, will South Dakota follow Utah? It must have something to do with privilege
Roger, I answered your question. Regarding men, I would support significant financial and potentially criminal penalties. In addition to exposing them to financial obligations commensurate with getting a divorce (obligations for child support and potentially an alimony payment), a man who habitually impregnates could serve time just as repeat drunk drivers. I am not soft on impregnators.
Thanks for your response, you may well be on to something.
For forty plus years South Dakota and many other states have been fighting to overturn Roe vs. Wade or to somehow compromise the law like we have seen in this year's legislature.
Is it a safe assumption to believe that most Christian men that are opposed to abortion think as you do in holding men responsible for their role in unwanted pregnancies?
If so, where is the legislation that would criminalize man's irresponsibility. Has there ever been, in the history of Roe vs. Wade, any such legislation in any state or in our own congress? If not, why not?
I am not soft on impregnators: priceless.
How if missed that I don't know.
"soft" on impregnators. Should be a bumper sticker.
I knew Larry would see it and join me in a snickerfest.
That "impregnators" line is just too funny.
Troy, have you contacted your legislator urging strict laws to control men's bodies, especially their sexual behavior? Have you put any time or effort into that?
Many times I've seen your comments opposing a woman's right to control her own body. I've yet to read a single comment you've written advocating any control of a man's body. When I see that you are actively proposing laws that seriously limit men's sexual behavior, I'll believe you truly are not "soft on impregnators".
One Virginia GOPer has given birth to a new term for women who are pregnant...they are now a "host." Of course he has the right to make that choice of words.
That makes attitudes pretty clear, right Jana?
The zygote/blastocyst/fetus is an "unborn baby," but the mother, the fully fledged human being, is merely a "host." Like a dead rodent is a "host" for maggots.
Really profane language ought to be placed right about here.
From what I remember of 7th grade physical science-if the Mommy is a "host',then the nasty little critter inside the womb would be termed a "parasite". Take that you quick acting,slow thinking Troglodytes. You just made your crusade that much harder. "Oh dear,are you preggers?" "Not really,I'm just hosting a parasite for 9 months." EEEEEWWWWWW!!!!
To answer your question: I have expressed my view proactively to legislators with whom I have a personal relationship. I have also talked about how we need a more proactive adoption promotion opportunities.
The reason you haven't seen these comments is probably three-fold:
1). You aren't in my social circle where these views of mine are known.
2). You probably only see my remarks here where I usually try to narrow my remarks to the issue at hand. As a conservative Republican, broad responses seem to get pulled in tangents (as it did here when I tried to just stay on the point that prohibition doesn't impact incidence). I also do not always have time to come back and respond, as one of the few conservative posters here I then get five questions that I often don't have time to respond, I then get accused of avoiding the question as I did here.
3). I don't remember being asked this here. I have said all these points at SDWC over the years.
But, to answer your last question, one of the reasons you have not seen legislation on the civil penalty side is this opens up some hard questions with regard to implied contract law and enforcement. I really don't have time to go through it all as I need to get to work.
At the same time, I will concede Pro-Life activists are so focused on the child that they have given insufficient focus on the father, both as putting pressure for an abortion and/or abandoning his obligations post-conception. That said, this is not just a pro-life problem. For example, environmentalists are so focused on pristine environment, they don't think about the unintended consequences on employment.
Too often, what we consider debate is really just talking points passing through the night.
Part of my response is in response to Roger. Forgot to put his name in there.
Troy: this isn't a debate. It's us telling you that you are wrong.
Dominion over the female of the species using racial profiling. How.......rethuglican.
Hopefully, the Rev. Hickey is following this discussion and will have something to contribute. Republicans are fond of pushing personal responsibility, it would seem likely that their passion will include men that are responsible for unwanted pregnancies.
The "civil penalty side of this opens up some hard questions with regard to implied contract law and enforcement", is a discussion and debate that we need to have.
Implied contract law and enforcement have already been happening with the ongoing anti-abortion laws or attempts at various levels to circumvent Roe vs Wade.
What pro-lifers are hesitant to discuss, or include in any legislation, is civil or criminal liability for the choices women make. Supposedly, laws that are broken, have consequences. It maybe that Republican lawmakers choose not to go into the area of male responsibility for fear it may one day be applied to them.
When was the last time a woman was arrested and prosecuted for breaking a state abortion law? How are abortion laws enforced, or are they?
It would be my contention that a law that lacks enforcement and consequences, is not a law at all.
You people do get me thinking....
Troy said above that the human dignity of the unborn human is of "overarching" value. He says (tell me if I'm improperly eliding), "...the answer to abortion... begins with an acknowledgment of that human dignity."
I agree to the latter statement. I disagree with the former. Maybe the answer is above, and I apologize if I've missed it, but why does the human dignity of the unborn "overarch" the human dignity of the mother charged with bearing that unborn entity?
Dang, Larry: you just made me realize how important the Ninth Amendment is. Thank you.
Here's a test. Maybe you've heard it before.
You're holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish with an embryo in the other.
You're about to drop one. Which one do you drop?
If you really truly believe an embryo is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide.
You can't flip a coin to decide because your hands are full, that's how impossible the decision should be.
I'm guessing you saved the baby from falling because you are aware there is a difference.
I appreciate your response Troy.
Will you share the activities the SDGOP is working on to force men to be responsible for their impregnations? What laws and penalties, including fines, prison time, and loss of sexual autonomy for men, are under consideration? What are you urging your legislators to do to control men's bodies?
Why aren't the women impregnated standing up and taking a little personal responsibility themselfs, Ms. Geelsdottir/? I say, castration is in order, don't you?
You lost me Grudz. "Women standing up, . . . responsibility. . . ?" And then, "castration"?
Will you say a little more? Help me out Grudz?
Here is a short lesson in reproduction,Grudz. Why do you suppose the act itself is called getting "laid"? I won't attempt to insult women by telling them what to feel,but from personal experience being "stood up" is not the most pleasurable experience for anyone. Chances of getting preggers from being stood up are slim to none,for the original party of two. OTOH,guys can always look forward to a late night fling with Rosie Palm and her five ugly sisters. Can't swear there is no guilt involved,but Rosie will never sue for alimony or child support.
Made me laugh, Mike. Wasn't there once a band named something like Rosie and Her Sisters?
Thanks,Deb. The closest I can come for a band is Rosie and the Originals,from the early 6os. Had a song called Angel Baby.Not real familiar.
I don't remember the band, but I remember the song.
Comments are closed.