Randall Moody was registered Republican for over 50 years. He cast his first vote for Barry Goldwater for President. He says he is leaving his party because religious radicals have hijacked it in their drive for theocracy:
Along the way, I became aware that those traditional Republican values of limited government, freedom of choice and personal responsibility were under attack by the religious right, striving to use the party as a means to convert our democracy into a theocracy. Their goal is to use the power of the government to force their crabbed view of women and minorities on everyone else. I fought that change for decades from within [Randall Moody, “Here’s Why I’m Leaving the GOP After 50 Years,” Lincoln Journal Star, 2018.11.24].
Moody’s critique applies perfectly to Republican Governor-Elect Kristi Noem’s determination to expand government to push her anti-abortion crusade. It applies perfectly to Republican Senator Al Novstrup’s continued effort to wedge government into the doctor’s office and into women’s private parts.
Rather than surrendering to the misogynist absolutism about abortion that his old party uses to beat Democrats and other supporters of women’s rights into submission, new Democrat Moody says Planned Parenthood supports genuine Republican values:
I became a volunteer for Planned Parenthood in the late 1980s because I saw the political potential of this powerful reproductive rights organization as a counter to the misogynistic, religiously driven policies being advocated by the Republican leadership. I believe strongly that Planned Parenthood’s mission of empowering women to make their own reproductive choices without government interference is a real Republican value [Moody, 2018.11.24].
2020 Democrats, please, respond to the specious attacks of abortion absolutists with those two sentences. Republicans want to boss women around and punish women for having sex. Planned Parenthood wants to empower women to make their own decisions.
thank god that there is still a few who have guts enough to focus on real issues & courage to address them. i am not sure god has anything to do with it as we all have free will & don’t need jesus freaks telling us what to do!
Is there any benefit in switching parties that might help the Democratic party or advance those issues I support that other Republicans oppose?
I share many of Moody’s views on Planned Parenthood and other so-called progressive or liberal issues, as well as his history as a registered Republican, but I don’t see how switching voter registration from Republican to Democrat advances these views or benefits the Democratic party.
As a registered Republican I can: support the Democratic platform on points where I agree; vote for Democratic candidates who agree with my positions; contribute to the Democratic party, indivdual Democratic candidates and progressive/liberal groups I agree with; and actively advocate for any issue I support.
I understand my registration affects my ability to vote in primarys, might result in some Republican calling me names such as RINO or even “liberal/progressive,” or run for office as a Republican, but so what? My ability to vote in a SD primary appears to make more of a difference in the Republican primary where I can vote against the most offensive or unqualified Republican candidates (not that it mattered this year – think Jackley/Noem and Fitzgerald/Ravnsborg). And I can switch partys any time I want to run for office as a Democrat or vote in a primary that might advance any particular Democrat that I support.
So, what meaningful or rational reason is there to switch party registration in SD from Republican to Democrat, Independant or another party? I just don’t see the benefit.
I am still 90% sure EVERYONE should switch their registration to one of the parties (don’t care which one) so there are NO MORE political parties. Make people run as people with positions — not tribes.
bcb- the benefit, from my perspective, would be my conscience allowing me to sleep at night without knowing I was a complete hypocrite. But, I have a much narrower view of the situation than you.
mfi, is it your view that as a registered member of a party that one must support all of the party’s platform and a registered member who fails to do so is a hypocrite? I think that is the intent of the slur “RINO.” It is used to label those who don’t blindly support the most conservative aspects of the Republican platform as hypocrites.
bcb, I was only saying how I would feel. No generalities involved. People are free to do what they want within the rules of polite society.
Name recognition is important when changing your voter registration, it may help or hurt the party.
Every election cycle we see big name politicians and celebrities changing to one party or another, whether is helps or not I don’t know.
I know it would make a difference to me if it were a moral decision such as Planned Parenthood.
In the mean time, we need every Democrat we can get.
I think when people like Moody publicly leave the GOP they want to make a point and give permission to others to follow suit. Of course it’s more effective when the change is made by a public figure like, say, George Will.
I see your point BCB, and believe there is an effective case for being in the SDGOP. But. 😊 Yes, there is a but. You add to those heavily skewed numbers of voters. That’s probably very disappointing for Democrats.
I think your strategy, which others surely employ too, has pluses and minuses.
“religious right, striving to use the party”
I think it was very mutual. The GOP was plenty eager to use the Christian fanatics to add to their voter base. Over the years the GOP has become immensely talented at stringing the Christian fanatics along election after election. The 2 groups make unashamed use of each other to serve their ends. In truth, they should both be very ashamed, but lack the necessary human decency.
Pootiepublicans have become such a party of hate and rot, it boggles the mind.
They openly hate POC and want to rid the USA of them.
They’d like to return women to the status of possession stripped of rights.
And they collude with enemy nations while destroying our democratic nature. They’ve become our enemies.
We need Nuremberg (Mueller) Trials of Pootiepublicans. I’d like to see a 3 judge panel of utterly loyal Americans– RBG, Kagan and Sotomayor.
Roger, bcb, Debbo, anyone know what happened to Bill Fleming, used to post regularly and had a wicked sense of humor and didn’t seem to appreciate Grudzilla ior Sibson?
Oh, right. I remember Bill. My Rapid City connection is no more, so I can’t say. It would be great if he was commenting here, along with his pal, forensic accountant Don Frankenfeld. I’ve met both gentlemen and they’re nice guys, funny too.
Roger?
Name recognition and modeling for others seems a rational and important reason for disassociating oneself with a particular party when that party has adopted an objectionable platform. For an unknown like myself, however, that rationale doesn’t gain much traction.
mfi, I respect your viewpoint on party affiliation (as well as your opinions on all of the issues that you have commented on here on DFP), although I don’t really understand why you might feel that way, hence my question.
Another factor, besides primary voting, that seems to support staying in party after an objectionable change in a platform, might be that by retaining a party affiliation one may gain some credibility with other members of that party in discussions about whether to maintain particular policies or voting on issues. These days there seems a tendancy to thoughtlessly reject or summarily dismiss arguments of members of an opposite party. Meanwhile, perhaps one might be more inclined to listen to reason on policy ideas or pending issues if an argument comes from someone sharing party affiliation.
Changing the party from within. Hmmm. I take your point.
The necessary assumption is that the party you are attempting to influence is not heavily corrupted by outside influence and money. In addition there is that SDGOP pledge to the leadership and their money ahead of the state constitution and constituents.
Even in that setting, change from within is not impossible, but I think it’s improbable.
Debbo and mfi, I haven’t heard much from Bill Flemming either. He’s on Facebook once in awhile, but nothing political, mostly he posts his graphic arts.
My uncle was a life long republican, one of the few that exist.
The GOP always liked him and hoped he could be an influential voice in Indian country
When the 2008 election campaign tuned racist and hateful, he could no longer tolerate the situation and left the republican party for good.
I wonder if my uncle could see Donald Trump as the future of GOP. My uncle now writes critical articles of Trump on Facebook and other publications.
Cory writes:
America’s founding document says we’re all endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life. It also says that’s one of the rights governments are instituted to secure. I’d agree that our governor-elect has some theocratic tendencies, but there’s nothing inherently theocratic about using government to secure the God-given right to life.
Some probably do. Most probably don’t.
Millions of women will never make their own decisions because Planned Parenthood has killed millions of female fetuses in their mothers’ wombs.
bcb, to be totally honest, I have never really given it any serious thought. No one tha I respect had ever asked me before. I should have begged off until I had a chance to consider the subject.
Kurt, you do realize that a female fetus is incapable of making any decisions for itself, including years after forced birth?
You knew right away the fetus safe space belongs to its Mother. That might be called progress.
secure the God-given right to life.
Who says you have the right to life given to you by god? god is not recognized in the Constitution. You cannot find that specific word anywhere in that document.
Thanks Roger and Deb for the assist.
“mike from iowa” asks:
No, I don’t realize that.
You apparently knew right away that a female fetus ought to be “safe” in her mother’s womb. That might also be called progress.
Among others, the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence.
The Founding Fathers dated the Constitution in the 12th year of our independence and the 1787th year of Jesus Christ, whom they identified as “our Lord”:
https://twitter.com/KurtEvans2018/status/986828347643760641
The Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that “our Lord” Jesus Christ is one with God the Father, but the Founding Fathers who signed it were clearly recognizing Him as such.
The Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that “our Lord” Jesus Christ is one with God the Father, but the Founding Fathers who signed it were clearly recognizing Him as such.
Except the ones that weren’t.
You apparently knew right away that a female fetus ought to be “safe” in her mother’s womb. That might also be called progress.
That the fetus is safe in Mother’s womb is not a decision the fetus makes. It belongs solely to the owner of that womb.
but the Founding Fathers who signed it were clearly recognizing Him as such.
and you know this, how?
And why wasn’t the word god sprinkled through the constitution if everyone was so in favor of god?
Kurt, you’re welcome to your religious beliefs, and you may hold them as fervently as you wish. You may not, under any circumstances, force anyone else to live their lives according to your religious beliefs. Nor may anyone else.
You really twist up the operation of PP in a way that suits your religious beliefs, so in that sense, I suppose what you say about that fine organization rings absolutely true — in your ears and those who think like you do.
BTW Kurt, enough members of the GOP want to “boss women around” that they continue to elect politicians who promise to do their best to control our bodies and lives. So apparently, most probably do, including you.
Mr. Evans knows that abortion is and always has been available to women of means, no back alley procedures for them. What Planned Parenthood stands for is working women’s health and well being, their rights to make their own choices. Mr. Evans knows this as do all the rest of the shill’s who continue to endanger working women’s lives. He knows that he will be able to fleece a little money from the wealthy patrons to keep working women down while genuflecting to the rich who fear their independence.
I can’t help but shake my head at y’all calling the SD GOP misogynistic, when they just elected the first female Governor in SD’s history.
While being pro-life certainly has roots in religion for some, I know people who recognize the life inside a mother as someone who needs protecting without recognizing any God, such as the people at https://www.newwavefeminists.com/
Cory recognizes the inherent dignity of humans outside the womb, without to resorting to any religious ideology. If he can do that, I see no reason to stop him from extending that dignity to humans inside the womb (without being misogynistic).
Ah, but that doesn’t fit the narrative of D’s calling R’s wingnuts and women-haters, and Rs calling Ds baby-killers and socialists.
“mike from iowa” writes:
The safety of the fetus usually depends on the decisions of many others besides the mother.
I’d written:
“mike from iowa” asks:
Mainly through common sense. The word lord refers to someone with power and authority over others. Unless Christ is divine, it’s difficult to imagine how He could have been the “Lord” of Americans more than 1750 years after He was publicly executed.
Probably because they were establishing a democratic republic and not a theocracy.
Deb Geelsdottir writes to me:
So far all I’ve said here about Planned Parenthood is that it’s killed millions of female fetuses. Are you denying this, Deb?
I’m not a Republican, and the desire to secure the right to life isn’t necessarily motivated by any desire to boss women around.
“jerry” writes:
I don’t know any of the things you’re claiming I know.
Kurt states:
Indeed, uninterpreted language of the Declaration of Independence includes this idea. Yet, from the founders’ perspective the meaning of the plain language was narrowly interpreted so that a legally protectable right to life was limited to a specific group of favored individuals, rather than all people in the United States.
Slavery seems the most clear example. If I recall my history, a slave did not have an inalienable right to life. Indeed, our government did not protect any slave’s, whether man, woman, or child, right to life. And the founder given credit for drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, owned many slaves himself. In addition, Native Americans were apparently pretty much unprotected by this language.
The behavior of our founders and the laws enacted pursuant to founding documents seem to be powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to include “all” in this statement of a right to life. Apparently, their perception of the Creator’s intent excluded quite a few human beings when it endowed this right.
And as even more relevant here, the Creator’s mandate apparently was not interpreted by the founders to cover the unborn. Abortion was not made illegal under federal law, nor in most states in 1776, nor for many years that followed. Hence, the founders acted as if a fetus had no right to life. The evidence seems conclusive that the governments of the United States and most individual states were not instituted to protect the lives of the unborn.
Unfortunately, women also had fewer rights than the male caucasian founders involved in drafting and executing the Declaration of Independence. A woman’s “right to life” often depended on the whims of the husband, as although killing her wasn’t necessarily approved, beating her until near death was not a problem for a husband. And married woman had no right to own property independent of the husband.
And just as the founders treated slaves, Natives and women much differently than white men, the essence of the argument Kurt describes is women today should be treated as second class people, with fewer rights than the entity using her body for its own needs – women should be subjected forcibly by the law to be used by another, from zygote to fetus. Men aren’t forced to give their transplant needing children an organ and the argument Kurt describes doesn’t even begin to go there.
In any event, the premise of that argument is simply incorrect, as the Declaration of Indepence simply was not interpreted to mean in any way that every person or human being has the right to life nor that our government was instituted to protect all lives. Instead, neither slaves nor the unborn nor Natives could look to the law to protect their lives – their lives were legally alienable, and women were treated as second class persons, without the same inalienable rights of white men. Instead they were subjected to whatever violence the husband choose to impose, short of intentional murder.
I can see where Kurt’s (and others’) anti-abortion stance comes from: a strong protect life at all coasts stance. I get how “bossing women around” is the price to pay for that stance. I only wish that this pro-life stance took the same forceful stance for the protection of all life and raising up of social institutions that protect life postpartum. Why cower from the tough advocacy when facing the pro-wealth, or anti-social safety net crowd when you can demand that subjugation of choice from expecting mothers?
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Are you arguing that because government hasn’t consistently secured the right to life for slaves, fetuses and Native Americans, no such right exists?
bearcreekbat’s point of context is well taken; when Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” His use of “men” equated to white, male, land owners.
You know this full well Mr. Evans, as that has always been the republican playbook of which you subscribe. Working women must not be allowed to govern their bodies by allowing healthcare and birth control for their needs. Rich women have no problems in getting their healthcare and their birth control or if needed, abortions. Planned Parenthood provides the needed information and health care for working women. Let the rich take care of themselves, they will always find a way and it will not be with a coat hanger or some back alley procedure.
No one likes abortion. Let’s get that out. I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. We could argue until the sun comes up regarding when life actually begins. What I do know..PP provides critical preventative medical care for women and yep, even men who couldnt afford it otherwise. PP provides contraception/birth control, as well as support and education/family planning.
Could not agree more RJ, Planned Parenthood is not about abortion, it is about healthcare for working women and as you note, poor men.
Well, again just skimming but I get the gist of Kurt Evens’ assessment of his desire to control women. Mr. (I am assuming Kurt is a man) Evans, have you not seen the stats of states’ decreased abortions (CO being a prime example) where PP is active in birth control and education? How in anyone’s imagination would one want to dump on PP when they are indeed preventing unwanted pregnancies that can (and do)b result in ABs? Why is it christians always, ALWAYS, thump on their bible and pull out the passages that suit them? I just want to scream at the hypocrisy. Mr. Evans, do you have skin in this game? If so, tell me about your uterus. Don’t have one? Then STFU.
Healthcare for working women in the United States is critical. Working women cannot go to Go Fund Me for their birth control needs. Thankfully there is Planned Parenthood to provide healthcare services to working women. As long as healthcare remains a for profit racket, Planned Parenthood needs to be an oasis for working women’s healthcare needs.
“Fundraisers for medical bills and accompanying expenses account for a third of campaigns on GoFundMe, the crowdsourcing website’s CEO Rob Solomon told MPR News.
The site has become a go-to option for individuals who need help paying their physicians. According to GoFundMe, the site hosts 250,000-plus medical campaigns each year, with more than $650 million raised across those campaigns.
Some examples of GoFundMe campaigns reviewed by MPR News include an uninsured man from Charleston, S.C., with prostate cancer who sought $50,000 to pay mounting bills. He has collected more than $85,000. In another instance, the family of a 3-year-old from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., who is susceptible to bone breaks raised $30,000 of their $40,000 target.”
Planned Parenthood helps in finding cancer in working women with early check ups and follow ups.
“The researchers identified about 9.5 million new cancer diagnoses from 2000-2012. Of those newly diagnosed patients, about 7.3 million had follow-up data after two years, and about 6.5 million had follow up data after four years.
The researchers determined that about 42.4% of patients had spent all of their money during the first two years of treatment. After four years, the researchers found 38.2% of patients had depleted their life’s assets. The researchers estimated patients’ average net worth fell by $92,098 after two years and by $51,882 after four years.”
Of course rich women like our newly elected governor, are clueless to the healthcare needs of working women. So yeah, we elected a wealthy woman to be governor, good for us. That still does not mean she could possibly understand what working women have to deal with for their healthcare needs.
Kris writes:
Speaking of hypocrisy, you apparently have no problem with telling me to shut up. Do you have any firsthand knowledge of how difficult it is for a man to shut up?
#Hypocrisy
Kurt, no, that isn’t my argument. I am simply pointing out that the founders did not believe in, nor impose, the right to life for all by the language they used in the Declaration of Independence. The argument that “America’s founding document says we’re all endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life” somehow should mean abortions ought to be outlawed is simply flawed. It incorrectly gives a different meaning to the Declaration’s language than was intended by Jefferson and the founders. Hence such an argument when used to oppose abortion should be rejected as factually inaccurate.
See how it works with Mr. Evans regarding women? Now imagine working women’s healthcare and then you get to the core of Evans think. All about denying that lifesaving healthcare coverage because he thinks that to allow that would empower working women into something uncontrollable.
Yes, I do. I’m married.
Well, at least you got 2 percent of the vote, Kurt.
Kris had written to me:
I’d replied:
Kris writes:
I said firsthand knowledge. Would you allow a man to defend the right to life if he’s married?
“bearcreekbat” writes:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
The Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 of the Founding Fathers. How do you claim to know what they believed and intended?
Mr. Evans: You asked if I knew how hard it was to shut a man up. I responded.
Now, you are asking something else. Maybe I should give you a little hx. I was a labor and delivery nurse for a couple of decades. I have seen a lot. Most good, some not. New life is beautiful. I think everyone can agree with that. But when you have to tell a young new mom to turn off the cartoons so she can learn about infant care, you know the outcome. I floated to peds and indeed saw the outcome. Birth control is the saving grace for those young moms and PP provides that, like it or not. Babies always pay the price in those circumstances. Is that firsthand knowledge? And allowing a man to defend the right to those lives? Buddy, they were seldom around.
Kris, you’re my newest hero! 😁👏😁👏😁
What people like Kurt don’t get is that his intentions are irrelevant. He says he has no desire to control women. So what?!? That’s what you’re doing if you are going to make decisions about our bodies for us.
Speaking of misogyny, yeah. When you believe that you have a right or need, god given or otherwise, to steal my adult human autonomy because I am a woman capable of pregnancy, but you have NOTHING to say about the male whose participation is mandatory to create that pregnancy– You, Kurt and any other person, are a full scale misogynist. Period.
Kris writes:
No, I asked whether you had any firsthand knowledge of how difficult it is for a man to shut himself up. Would you allow a man to defend the right to life if he’s married?
Deb writes:
Why would your autonomy be so much more important than that of your offspring, Deb?
Debbo, I responded to your post positively but I guess the s— word can’t be used. I’m new here! :-) And Kurt, kinda seeing that learning or reasoning isn’t your forte’. Your mind is made up … PERIOD. I am blue in a red state and my brain is concussed from banging my head against a wall so I’m pretty much done.
Kris writes:
It’s hard to reason with someone who won’t answer a straightforward yes-or-no question.
Kris had written:
Do they always die? Would killing them solve the problem? Should we legalize abortion up to age two?
The existing person’s rights always take precedence.
Now, Mr. Misogynist, what are you going to do to control the sexual behavior of the impregnating males? Had that even occurred to you? How about a national registry of every male’s DNA? Then it would be easy to ID the irresponsible impregnator.
Kris, stick around. It’s a good blog, fairly moderated. You’ve noticed though, no profanity.
Kurt, you ask: “How do you claim to know what they believed and intended?”
By their actions in the new independent country after signing the Declaration of Independence. As I mentioned earlier, I look to the laws and failure of the state to protect the right to life of all, including the unborn. These actions are pretty good evidence of what the founders as a group thought and intended for the new country. Protecting the lives of the unborn was not a high priority based on the criminal codes and common law at the time. And clearly, protecting the lives of slaves and Natives was also not of interest. Hence your quote from the Declaration fails to support the argument you and some others have made in an effort to justify using laws to suppress women’s agency and autonomy contrary to their current constitutional right of privacy and bodily integrity in matters of procreation.
Killing an unborn child is the grossest act any person can commit. It may be legal, today, but that does not change the fact that for someone to specifically kill a child that has not even had the opportunity to be born is the most uncivilized act a human can commit.
Do you realize if abortion was not legal in the United States we would have no National debt, free health care and no illegal immigration problem? The CDC reports there have been 44.3 million abortions here in the United States. Those 44.3 million could have been the wage earning, tax paying supporters for all you fools on public assistance but instead you supported killing them. Stupid does as stupid is.
Planned Parenthood prevents abortion by providing healthcare to working women. The rich women can always get whatever services they want, working women cannot. Protect and fund Planned Parenthood fully and honestly and you will see less abortions among working women.
Planned Parenthood: hard core racism and genocide. Makes me sick Cory that you refuse to see this for what it is. It’s not about reproduction or rights.
BCB: You raise a reasonable point about the practical effect of a typical South Dakotan’s registration with a specific political party. I agree that one’s party affiliation has little if any effect on practical activities one can undertake to promote certain values and public goods. Even in terms of political campaigns, there’s nothing stopping a Republican from volunteering for a Democrat. I don’t think Brown County Dems were carding volunteers at the door.
For you in particular, BCB, as an individual who does not appear to seek any sort of public profile, party affiliation is practically meaningless. However, for a relatively public figure like Moody, partisan affiliation is an opportunity to send a signal and persuade others of the merits of one party over another. Of course, one could make the argument that Moody would get more ongoing press by remaining a Republican as he supports Planned Parenthood.
Note: you could have used your Republican primary vote to affect the Noem/Jackley outcome, but to affect the Ravnsborg/Fitzgerald/Russell race, you had to be a delegate to the SDGOP convention, meaning you probably needed to be a Republican in good and relatively long standing in your local county party.
No, Steve: hardcore racism characterizes the Trump electorate. And Ben Carson, who called Planned Parenthood racist, is dumb and wrong.
I’m wrestling with O’s suggestion that we all register with a single party to bring the party system to an end.
We can’t get rid of political parties any more than we can get rid of Greenpeace, the NRA, the Masons, the ELCA, or any other group of freely associating Americans who want to work together toward some shared goal.
I suspect the vast majority of Americans registered with a specific party belong in name only to their party. Beyond voting for candidates of their party, most Americans do not actively participate in or support political party activities (although, surprisingly, Pew says the percentage of Americans who donate to political parties has risen from 4% in 1992 to 9% in 2016).
Tribal identification with a political label leads to the choice of inferior candidates (Exhibits #1 and #2: Kristi Noem and Jason Ravnsborg). But how do erase the impulse toward that identification?
As Debbo notes, one can connect to more resources and more voters as a member of the SDGOP, and obviously, many SD pols have recognized and chosen to pursue those added opportunities… but as Mike says, one also must deal with one’s conscience.
BCB acknowledges that he’s not a public figure and that his party affiliation doesn’t do much to persuade others. But is the merit of contributing one anonymous registration to the SDDP similar to the merit of contributing one anonymous vote to Billie Sutton: sure, you’re not making a difference all by yourself, but you’re taking an action that, when replicated by thousands of others, sends an encouraging message of Democratic strength?
Joe Nelson, the reason I don’t extend that absolute human dignity to inside the womb is that doing so means sacrificing the dignity-via-autonomy of the woman who controls that womb. I cannot use force of the state to compel a woman to sacrifice her body to the service of a future human being growing inside her.
The election of Kristi Noem affirms misogyny. Republicans have elected a figurehead beauty queen to front for the ministrations of Matt McCaulley and other backroom good-old-boy string-pullers.
Anti-abortion absolutist Republicans (and independent Libertarians like Kurt Evans) miss Moody’s point: one could use all sorts of means other than government force to persuade women to avoid having abortions. Planned Parenthood does that by educating women and providing them access to affordable birth control.
The misogyny of the anti-abortion people is proven with the fact they reduce human women to the status of breeding livestock. Don’t believe me? What other group of beings have reproductive decisions IMPOSED upon them? And no, telling women their choice is made when they have sexual relations is not the answer here. Because nature does not care if the the meeting of ovum and sperm happens with or without a woman’s consent to that sexual encounter.
Noem is a woman. But she is also a collaborator of the patriarchy. Meaning among other things she is just as misogynist as any other anti-abortionist.
Kurt Evans has asked this question a couple of times here: Would you allow a man to defend the right to life if he’s married?
Mr. Evans, do you understand that no man – married or not – will ever face the risk to personal health and well-being and life that women face in each and every pregnancy? That this biological fact is the basis for some women deciding that if you don’t have a uterus you have no right to an opinion on the matter of the contents of one? or are you suggesting that because you are married you do own the uterus of your wife? It is incredibly easy to assign and impose risks on other human beings that you will never face. I think it is a cowardly abuse of authority – governmental or otherwise.
OldSarge, how many of those abortions could have been avoided by direct and free access to birth control?
“collaborator of the patriarchy”—that’s the phrase I was looking for. :-)
o~ that isn’t the point. It doesn’t mater if it was free or otherwise as abortions are not free. Yes, even PP requires payment so, if one can afford an abortion, they must have been able to afford birth control. By the way, the majority of abortions are not done because people do not have the financial means to support a child but rather because the person sees a child as an inconvenience. That is was makes it so especially gross on the part of the person having the abortion.
Could you imagine the hell the person that makes a career out of killing babies must be going through in their mind? “Deranged” does not even come close.
I spent over 40 years in public safety. Abortion was readily available long before Roe V Wade. In the 1960s I lived in a state south of SD that is sometimes called the “buckle of the bible belt”. The poor may have gone the “back alley or coat hanger” route but those with the right connections and a little money had the procedure done in local hospitals including one that was run by a major international anti abortion, anti birth control religious order. The medical record would show a legitimate procedure to correct a female problem.
I have been present at far too many suicides (one is too many) of teenage females who thought they might be pregnant. Some had been told that taking massive doses of a popular over the counter pain killer would initiate an abortion. They were often suffering severe abdominal pain because the overdose of the pain killer can cause severe liver damage. I know of several cases of death because the damage was so severe that the patient required a liver transplant and none was available on short notice. The survival rate of a fetus (if there was one) is basically zero.
Counselling should be available to all regardless of status and all options should be explained. Abortion rates are declining and will probably continue to do so.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/national/abortion-rates-in-us-reach-a-decade-low-cdc-reports
I have never met a woman that had an abortion who treated it lightly. There are many reasons from health concerns to domestic abuse that factor into a women’s choice. The state should only be involved is making sure clinics are licensed and are presenting information that covers all legal options.
Hickey once again raises the non issue of abortion. The real issue is healthcare for women and their education in how to prevent abortion in the first place, Planned Parenthood lives up to it’s name as a provider. W R Old Guy make some strong and valid points that put Hickey, Mr. Evans and the Russian from Saint Petersburg back under the rocks from whence they came. These three are women haters and men who only want to kill women as brutally as possible. Working women need healthcare, women of means (wealthy women) already have all the avenues needed for all their needs.
Accusing Planned Parenthood of ” hard core racism and genocide” is lie fabricated solely out of malice. They were there when young women in difficulty were offered only persecution and abuse at a time when “an estimated 1.5 million unwed mothers in the United States who were forced to have their babies and give them up for adoption in the two decades before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973, according to Ann Fessler’s book “The Girls Who Went Away.” Mostly white, middle-class teens and young women were systematically shamed, hidden in maternity homes and then coerced into handing over their children to adoption agencies without being informed of their legal rights.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/11/19/maternity-homes-where-mind-control-was-used-teen-moms-give-up-their-babies/?utm_term=.8108a6d3cd21
As usual OldSarg makes misleading factual claims without citing sources and that are inconsistent with actual research. For example, he tells o that “. . . the majority of abortions are not done because people do not have the financial means to support a child but rather because the person sees a child as an inconvenience.” This is a gross misstatement.
Anyone interested in knowing what research actually shows can start with Guttmacher Institute research, which indicates, among many other facts about abortion, that:
I saw no indication in the research
results that even implied anyone said she wanted an abortion because she saw “a child as an inconvenience.” Such an unsupported and demonizing assertion seems to be yet another attempt by OldSarg to make unsubstantiated statements in an effort to inflict pain or guilt on those that disagree with his particular views on a topic. Don’t buy it.
Here’s the link that the quote is from:
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
bearcreek~ My statement: “the majority of abortions are not done because people do not have the financial means to support a child but rather because the person sees a child as an inconvenience.”
Your statement: “having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents” in fact your statement is the definition of “inconvenience.
Inconvenience: something that causes trouble or difficulty and is annoying but not serious, or the condition of being in such an annoying situation: Does interference with work kill anyone? No, thus Inconvenience. Does interference with school kill anyone? No, thus inconvenience. Does interference with ability to care for dependents kill anyone? No, thus inconvenience.
You have proven my point and killing an unborn child is the ultimate in betrayal which is probably the worst sin against humanity that can be committed. Abortion is the denial of love. Here, an unborn child with total trust in their mother, is betrayed and killed. If one were to read Inferno you would learn that Dante addresses betrayal in the ninth circle ad saw it as the most grievous sin in being the remorseless dead center of ice. Abortion is the cold hell for the perpetrator.
Planned Parenthood gives working women the information they need about many things. One thing for certain, working women know the cost of another mouth to feed in America. They know what it costs for another room, another bed more more more. Planned Parenthood works to prevent abortion a helluva lot better than the quackery of clergy and Russian trolls.
OldSarg, I didn’t see anything about killing in your definition of inconvenience, but you are welcome to argue that it is not a “serious” situation for a woman to lose her employment, her education, or her ability to care for loved ones that depend on her, such as other children or elderly parents. In my view these life changing events are in fact serious, but if some other definition of serious confirms your existing bias against the needs of individual women, such that you will twist the meaning, then it is your option to do so. My point is not to change your mind, as I have learned that such a goal is fruitless. I only want to respond so that people reading your comment will see the factual problems with your claim.
bear, my point is when you argue it would be best to know the definitions of the words you read or use. I used the word “inconvenience”. You do not understand the meaning of the word. I gave you the definition. You are better for it now. You can go ahead and thank.
OldSarge (et. al.), if abortions are happing for “inconvenience” then it seems like you, I, and Planned Parenthood (or any organization who can provide effective birth control) ought to be on the same side here. Let’s make not getting pregnant convenient through easy access to birth control. How is it that we cannot universally come together on easy and convenient access to birth control for all? Reducing unwanted pregnancies HAS to reduce abortion rates.
OldSarg, I agree that definitions help advance a discussion. You gave a definition of “inconvenience” and then asserted that since the listed reasons for abortion in the survey didn’t kill anyone, these reasons were mere inconveniences. But your definition didn’t mention not killing anyone as a criteria, rather it stated something to be inconvenient if it was “not serious” – again, the very definition you gave in your comment.
In my opinion, the reasons given by women for their decisions that were identified in the research are serious reasons deserving of respect and deference. You obviously disagree. I will leave it up to our readers to decide whether they believe these reasons are serious reasons or “not serious” as you stated in your definition – you’re welcome.
“Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh was 16 in the fall of 1965 when she got pregnant by her steady boyfriend. Terrified and in denial, she hid her growing body under an oversized sweater for five months. When she could no longer hide the pregnancy, she finally told her parents.
They shipped her off to a maternity home without telling her where she was going.
Janet Mason Ellerby, who grew up in California, was also 16 in 1965 and was so naive she didn’t realize she had had sex with her boyfriend. Three months later, her mother figured out Ellerby was pregnant.
“She packed all of my clothes and put me on a plane to Ohio,” Ellerby said.” Washington Post 11/19/2018
The past speaks volumes about why the need for Planned Parenthood, not only for working women’s healthcare but for education to prevent abortion and maternity houses.
If pubs Are so against abortion, why don’t they ever try educating young men and women on how easy it is to not get pregnant with all of the available and very affordable and even free birth control options out there.
Focus your time on birth control education instead of condemning women’s choices.
OS claims to find abortion horrifying. Hickey reruns his usual misogynistic lines. Others make smart, helpful comments. But it’s so weird . . . . .
Did y’all forget that the participation of males is REQUIRED to create a pregnancy? Yeah, really. I wouldn’t kid about a thing like that.
Modern medicine can control male fertility so let’s do it. There are drugs that cause impotence so let’s mandate that for every sex offender, domestic abuser, unmarried or not legally partnered male, deadbeat dad, male over the age of 45 or under the age of 25, child abuser, illegal drug user, alcoholic, etc.
Second, let’s have a national database of male DNA, collected at birth, so if any male impregnates the wrong woman, it won’t be difficult for law enforcement to discover which male it was. Of course that will have been made a crime punishable by prison time and years on the impotence drug.
You boys who are so torn up about abortions will see an enormous drop in their number, plus a likewise reduction in single parenting and sex crimes.
Don’t think for a moment that I’m kidding. My proposals are at least as reasonable as the good old boy legislators who want to force vaginal ultra sounds, penalize various women’s health options and make her into a murderer. Plus there’s always that part about murdering doctors who work at PP and other repro health centers.
Jenny, they don’t like birth control either. The goal is white women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, churning out babies ASAP till finally it kills them. In the meantime, families of 15-16 children each will keep the numbers of white supremacists ahead of the terrifying brown hordes!
Jenny, I would add to your list of reasonable questions why the GOP and allies have worked so hard to strip birth control from the ACA.
If we take Debbo’s premise to the logical conclusion, would the abortion debate be mute if women had 100% control of pregnancy — if pregnancy required 100% consent of women, would that render the abortion discussion mute?
Setting the practicality aside, would our distinguished colleagues on the right object to giving women 100% control over pregnancy?
Good heavens: “moot” not “mute.” That one was embarrassing.
Excellent questions O.
O, I don’t think “distinguished colleagues on the right” want women to have 100% control of anything. (I’d really like to be wrong.)
Cory,
RE: “collaborator of the patriarchy”—that’s the phrase I was looking for. :-)
That turn of phrase is not original to me. But I too find it perfectly apt in describing a certain subset of women.
Here’s a worthwhile bit about a college lecture on the ethics of abortion, from FB:
https://www.facebook.com/541548164/posts/10156233462238165/
Great piece!
JN: “y’all” just also elected a completely inexperienced AG over a life of specifically experienced democratic USA. And a party hack frat boy who introduced SD to Maria Butina, over a democratic judge with similar lifetime career of specific experience. Keep patting your self on the back. Kristi is a shill, nothing more, who will quit when the job gets too inconvenient. Ann Coulter doesn’t know what misogyny means either.
Sarge for decades a RC abortion provider was a compassionate MD who most of us knew. He did not live his life in Hell as only you can seem to imagine his public service brought him.
His son later was Mayor of RC.
“Go peddle crazy somewhere else.” Where the hell were u from b4 saving the nation? ND jokes used to abound, perhaps for a reason. Perhaps u shouldn’t be allowed to vote here as an out of stater :)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-restaurant-workers-sexual-health-care_us_5c1a7690e4b0446830f95b5c
Texas is a nightmare for female restaurant workers and health insurance.
Texas cut its family planning budget by two thirds and you’ll never, in a million years, guess teens got pregnant more often and teen abortion rates climbed.
Too bad PP can’t abort certain states. I’d chip in a dollar for that procedure.