Press "Enter" to skip to content

Nelson Drafts Bill to Force Docs to Provide Medically Unnecessary Fetal Images and Audio

South Dakota requires doctors who provide abortion services to “offer[…] the pregnant woman an opportunity to view a sonogram of her unborn child.”

Dr. Stace Nelson wants Dr. Kristi Noem to sign an order directing their fellow physicians to display the sonogram images and play an audible (thus, amplified, thus exaggerated and inaccurate) version of output from the fetal heart auscultation.

Wait—doctors? Nelson and Noem aren’t doctors; they’re self-professed small-government Republicans who’ve never been to med school but who think they know how to tell doctors to practice their craft.

Anyway, here’s an early draft of the sonogram mandate Senator Nelson (R-19/Fulton) may throw in the hopper:

Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 1.
Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 1.
Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 2.
Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 2.
Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 3.
Sen. Stace Nelson, draft sonogram/auscultation bill, 2018.11.29, p. 3.

Because sonograms are not medically necessary in first-trimester abortions, sonograms  are often not covered by insurance (see Aetna’s plain statement that it won’t cover ultrasounds done solely to provide parents with a view and photograph of the fetus). Legislation like the above draft thus adds hundreds of dollars of unnecessary cost for women seeking abortions.

The FDA says ultrasound devices “should only be used by trained health care providers when medically necessary.” The FDA does not say ultrasound devices should be used by untrained politicians for political purposes.

Scott Walker signed a bill like this into law in Wisconsin in 2013. Research prior to passage of the Wisconsin forced-sonogram bill showed viewing such medically unnecessary data had no clear impact on women’s reproductive decisions. A 2017 study conducted at an abortion facility in Wisconsin found the law “caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates.” However, in interviews with 23 patients, 19 of whom chose to view the government-mandated images, the researchers found that only eight of the women reported that the viewing had an effect on them, and five of those eight said the viewing firmed up their decision to abort:

Eight respondents, however, did report that viewing had an effect on them. Perhaps unexpectedly, for five of these eight, viewing solidified their decision to have an abortion. One explained:

I said, “Yeah, I want to see it.” And then, I looked at it, and it’s just a sac, that’s it. And here it is right here. And then, yeah, that was it. That’s how I knew I was ready [to have the abortion.] And I realized when I saw it, I wasn’t emotionally connected to that as a child yet, so I was able to know from that point when I looked at the ultrasound I didn’t feel bad. I was like, that’s—you know—people—I was okay with it. So, I do think that was a positive experience that I was well enough to look at it and say, “Yeah, I want to see it, and yeah, I’m not having it.”

Later in the interview, she summed up the effect of viewing, saying, “I just feel like looking helped me kind of accept, you know, be certain [about choosing abortion]” [Usham Upadhyay, Katrina Kimport, Elise Belusa, Nicole Johns, Douglas Laube, and Sarah Roberts, “Evaluating the Impact of a Mandatory Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Viewing Law: A Mixed Methods Study,” PLoS One, 2017.07.26].

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that government mandates of certain care and counseling “can drive a wedge between a patient and her health care provider.” Mandating sonograms and auscultations violates the ethical principles of respect for patient autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence.

But who cares about medical ethics? South Dakota Republicans love fetuses… or at least the money they can raise campaigning for them. Expect Governor-Elect Noem to leap loudly on this LIFE!™ bill if it hits the hopper, and expect South Dakota Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, and the other usual Handmaid’s Talers in Pierre to call us all baby-killers if we don’t get behind this tougher forced sonogram bill.

192 Comments

  1. jerry 2018-12-09 08:57

    Nelson moonlighting for the insurance companies to raise premiums? Grifting is a normal thing for grifters and what a better state to do that in but South Dakota. Starting to rank right up there with EB5, Gear-Up and Veteran Holiday Destination Extravaganza’s in Hot Springs! The old gang that funded Roger Hunt will now have a place to put their money down. Sweet!

  2. Richard Schriever 2018-12-09 10:47

    Propose a bill that requires all SD National Guard members being called to deployment on foreign soil to take a 3 week course on the culture of the country they are being deployed to. Include the requirement that they spend a minimum of 4 hours conversing with an individual from that country and culture.

  3. Owen reitzel 2018-12-09 11:02

    Expanding Medicaid could be a good example of pro-life. Care about the child after its born as well

  4. Donald Pay 2018-12-09 11:15

    I think the best advise I would give to a legislator is this: when you propose legislation you should know what it is you are proposing.

    As you point out, Cory, the research indicates that doing all these superfluous interventions actually has little impact, and if it has any impact it increases the determination of women to continue on with their abortion. But veteran legislators tend to introduce legislation based on whatever some lobbyists hand them, and that appears to be what happened here.

  5. mike from iowa 2018-12-09 12:01

    Nelson et al have zero intentions of being responsible for all the unwanted babies they want forced births for, what drives these fools to subject women and unwanted children to their tender notions?

    The only answer is the certainty of single party dominance for the foreseeable future that encourages them to play politics with innocent lives.

    Or else they just hate women that much.

  6. bearcreekbat 2018-12-09 13:31

    Another solution in search of a problem, while ignoring very real problems in our State. As Cory reported a while back, and as National media recently reminded us, South Dakota is one of the nation’s leaders in declining health insurance coverage for children, which in turn leads to reduced preventative care for kids and more frequent and serious health issues.

    https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/11/29/trump-leaves-more-kids-uninsured-south-dakota-sees-worst-losses/

    This is a real problem for our kids, yet our elected pseudo self-proclaimed “right to lifers” propose solutions to non-existent problems while they leave many of South Dakota’s existing children without access to health care. Go figure. . . .

  7. Robin Friday 2018-12-09 13:35

    They are proposing legislation from their obsession with their own religious beliefs and indoctrination. Undemocratic, retrograde and unconstitutional.

  8. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-09 13:41

    Donald, I think Guttmacher noted that bills like this are just another way to raise the cost—more punishment of women for having sex, I guess. SD Right to Life should love it; forcing doctors to produce fetal images fits with the fundies’ obsession with fetus dolls.

  9. leslie 2018-12-09 13:56

    Stace Ravensborg Noem reminds me of Nunes Sessions Trump. No … Cruze Rosenstein Trump. No … Rounds Whittaker …No. Mcconnell Barr Trump.

    Does Trump get marching orders from Fox then SD, or SD then Fox? jfc

  10. Stace Nelson 2018-12-09 17:01

    Informed consent, why so opposed to women being informed about the medical procedure they are often pushed into. You cannot do anything medically anymore without significant explanations and informed consent. A woman being fully informed of the medical procedure she is being pushed into should be something those who claim to be “prochoice” and rely on science should be demanding.

    This is a good bill supported by National Right to Life and similar laws have been passed in numerous other states https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/stateleg/UltrasoundFactsheet.pdf

    National Prolife Alliance is also very supportive of this bill.

  11. jerry 2018-12-09 17:17

    Money money money, got to have it, right man?
    Sing along with the O’Jays Mr. Nelson, looks like you are lookin for a sugar daddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXE_n2q08Yw

    “Some people got to have it
    Some people really need it
    Listen to me why’all, do things, do things, do bad things with it
    You want to do things, do things, do things, good things with it
    Talk about cash money, money
    Talk about cash money- dollar bills, why’all”
    Songwriters: Kenneth Gamble / Leon Huff / Anthony Jackson

  12. mike from iowa 2018-12-09 17:33

    Women are being pushed into forced servitude for the sake of a clump of cells wingnuts won’t take responsibility for when they are forced to be born.

    Official PAC Name:
    NATIONAL PRO-LIFE ALLIANCE PAC
    Location: SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
    Industry: Abortion Policy/Anti-Abortion

    Industry: Abortion Policy/Anti-Abortion Industry: Abortion Policy/Anti-Abortion Industry: Abortion Policy/Anti-Abortion Industry: Abortion Policy/Anti-Abortion

    None of these forced medical tests are necessary! None!!

  13. bearcreekbat 2018-12-09 18:01

    This bill applies to all women, regardless of education or experience? If so, Nelson seems to be saying all women must be forced to pay for this procedure to make sure their request for medical assistance is informed?

    If Nelson is right that ultrasounds are needed to “inform” all women what is happening inside their bodies during a pregnancy so they can give consent to a procedure they have requested, then we are in a whole world of hurt. I thought more of women’s intelligence and education than that.

    If all women are just too uneducated to already know about pregnancy and the changes that they wish to stop from happening inside their bodies, I can’t see how an ultrasound will help. Surely, if they have no idea what they are asking for when requesting medical help to end a pregnancy, and lack the ability to read information that must be given to them, or understand what a state mandated “counselor” tells them, then how can they be expected to understand the results of an ultrasound?

  14. jerry 2018-12-09 18:15

    More male sexual insecurity that is typical of women hater’s.

  15. mike from iowa 2018-12-09 18:44

    This total waste of time and resources does nothing for women. It is an ego driven, men know best piece of garbage that places more roadblocks in front of women seeking to exercise their right to have a safe and effective abortion.

    The court said not to place undue burdens on women seeking to exercise their rights. To wingnuts, that means nothing as they can find sympathetic judges who narrowly define undue burdens so almost anything a wingnut can conjure up is okay by right wing judges.

    Remember when the activist right wing Scotus said religious groups did not have to fill out a single form and sign it to relieve themselves of providing birth control? Scotus declared that one form an undue burden against religious organizations.

    Making women wait days, force them to travel multiple times out of state, forcing them to listen to unwanted people begging them not to have an abortion is not an undue burden. Forcing abortion providers to have ambulatory care on premises and admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles was not undue.

    You right wingers make me sick!

  16. Roger Cornelius 2018-12-09 19:45

    How much will the male sperm donor have to pay for this intrusive action that violates a woman’s privacy?

  17. Anne Beal 2018-12-09 20:02

    A sonogram is the only way to verify, with certainty, that a pregnancy is viable. So before undergoing a surgical procedure to terminate something that might not even be there, having a sonogram first is probably a good idea.
    Why have an abortion if there’s only a placenta and no fetus? The condition is common, (200,000 cases annually?) called blighted ovum or anembryonic gestation. I have also had patients who simply had a false positive pregnancy test. It happens.

  18. Donald Pay 2018-12-09 20:06

    I would rather they cut all the b.s. requirements and require a provider of abortion to provide a certain amount of free pre-natal care to women who may not otherwise get adequate care and who want to carry to term. I think you might actually make a difference with that kind of requirement.

  19. Rorschach 2018-12-09 20:08

    This is a party foul. Sen. Nelson, don’t you realize that your party only allows these bills to move forward in even numbered years to gin up votes? This bill will be killed in committee because it is your bill. Then it will be brought by somebody else in 2020 to fire up the base.

  20. T 2018-12-09 20:08

    Why must we clap for a bill approved by pro life and not pro choice
    To represent all people should it not therefore be redundant to a already legal law?

    I am not shown DUI dead people from crashes or faces of those that survived (either or) before I leave
    My buddies at the local pub

  21. jerry 2018-12-09 20:37

    Why Anne Beal, you sound as if abortions are common here in South Dakota..where are those clinics? Are you on the same payroll as Nelson?

  22. leslie 2018-12-10 06:57

    Republicans want MDs to stay out of the public health catastrophe of NRA facillitated gun mayhem. Stace carries a bill for out of state right wing anti-abortion politicos to force MDs to again ignore their ETHICAL code just so their deplorable base remains roiled. Stace is a street level thug-a small town pusher of the drug that hijacks the pre-frontal cortex of “Neanderthal”. Keep your republican voters in perpetual Fight or Flight brain chemistry.

  23. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 07:25

    What part of medically unnecessary tests are medically necessary?
    Will Nelson and Beal pay for them?

    Will wingnuts show the results at their next beer fest as appetizers to a slavering crowd of like minded fools?

    Will O’Keefe be allowed to edit the videos and make it appear all women claim to not want abortions?

    Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of Northern Mississippi wingnuts? Besides the Shadow, that is.

  24. Dana P 2018-12-10 08:20

    Mr Nelson, playing doctor again. Still. “Often pushed into”. Sigh

    Mr Nelson, constructing bills from often incorrect propaganda when it comes to a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. (pssst – that IS still a constitutionally protected right in this country!!) Here’s a thought, speak to an actual practicing physician for facts. What a novel idea!

    Better idea? How much time and staff energy did it take to write this bill? It would take almost no time to write something that would allow for birth control for people. THAT would prevent many unwanted pregnancies. Thus, preventing abortion. Isn’t that the goal, Mr Nelson?

  25. jerry 2018-12-10 08:21

    The hypocritical religious right. “Jerry Falwell Jr. And A Young Pool Attendant Launched A Business That Sparked A Bitter Dispute
    Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen helped arrange Falwell’s pivotal endorsement of Donald Trump, the first by a major evangelical.” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/jerry-falwell-jr-michael-cohen-pool-attendant-lawsuit

    Wow, ever wonder why Falwell Jr. suddenly got interested in trump? Here ya go, a pool boy, a relationship, and Michael Cohen, trump’s fixer.

    When those frauds lay the hands on trump, they show us all that trump has the goods on them.

  26. OldSarg 2018-12-10 09:45

    The reason so many of you object to the sonogram is the woman will realize the “baby” is actually a “human”. If the woman pursuing killing the child wishes to they can still continue on that path but they need to realize the unborn child is still a person with rights.

    Our own Declaration of Independence say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Notice the word CREATED and the word LIFE. To be CREATED one not need to be born yet. LIFE is what that unborn child is. There are no other words that better demonstrate the right of a child to be born than those words. . .

  27. jerry 2018-12-10 09:54

    What if it has a barely beating heart but no internal organs? Is it then self-evident that it is created equal?

  28. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 09:56

    New Choice Health-

    Pregnant Ultrasound Cost Average $110 – $280 Free Quote
    Ultrasound of Fetus Cost Average $90 – $220 Free Quote
    Ultrasound of the Uterus Cost Average $100 – $260 Free Quote

    Send yer bills, ladies, to OldSimplyhappytopaythecostforyou in Vapid City, Northern Mississippi.

  29. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 10:04

    https://billmoyers.com/story/history-of-abortion-law-america/

    For the first 100 years of America, no state outlawed abortion. In fact, in Colonial times it was frequent and pussified wingnut pols weren’t all that opposed to spanking the monkey and allowed people with certain depravities to be around children.

    Then. like today, wingnuts place all their wrath on the female of the species. Back then they burnt them at the stake. Now they just make women wish that was all men did to them.

  30. OldSarg 2018-12-10 10:05

    jerry, the couple came together to create the new life. That alone should be respected. Personally I feel when the first cells split it has become something it was not before, thus a life.

    mike, this is a South Dakota issue and you are financially more of a burden on your Iowa society than a new born child’s sonogram. Maybe you should give more support to an “euthanasia” movement for Iowa and save your state from the burden you create and just leave us alone. . .

  31. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 10:09

    but they need to realize the unborn child is still a person with rights.

    Whose rights, OldSagacioussage? Yours? Certainly none of the mother’s rights are getting any love from you right wing hypocrites.

    May I suggest you remove each and every fetus and raise them in an incubator like chicks? Be sure to turn them and keep them warm. Not sure how you can feed them but their care and comfort has never been a concern for you hypocrites after they are out of the womb.

  32. jerry 2018-12-10 10:10

    They were drinking at Clancy’s Bar and Grill, got a little high and hit the back seat of Jim Bob’s Gremlin. All hell broke loose and bah zing! Next thing ya know, hypocrites want to make some money on the side with a sonogram and more expenses.

  33. o 2018-12-10 10:37

    There is a Eastern proverb: when leaping chasms, it is best not to take half-measures. That is what bothers me about so much of this nagging “pro-life” moral indignation legislation. If you want to take a stand TAKE IT. If you have the votes, PASS IT. If it goes against the constitution, CHALLENGE IT. If you have the winning hand, get your chips into the pot and show your cards.

    Side note: why is ANY mother paying for ANY sonogram or ANY other pre-natal medical expense? There ought to be a YUGE pot of pro-life funding to help get these expectant women and their children on the healthiest path forward medical technology allows. Come on conservatives, stop the pro-wealth posturing and pony up!

  34. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 10:47

    Stoopid OldStoopid- you ain’t too bright are you? I get SS and Medicare. Federal programs which transcends state lines and you, dipwad, pay taxes for my life of luxury. Gawd, that has to hurt, donut?
    I even applied for fuel assistance. But I do not get SNAP assistance and have not applied for it. As for leaving your phony butt alone, it ain’t gonna happen. You are a fraud. Where is the Ellison tape, liar?

  35. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 10:50

    The reason so many of you object to the sonogram is the woman will realize the “baby” is actually a “human”

    The stoopid is strong with this guy. No wonder so many women left OS at the alter of voting booth.

  36. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 10:56

    Personally I feel when the first cells split it has become something it was not before, thus a life.

    Does this include cancer?

  37. T 2018-12-10 11:02

    Oldsargio
    Couple came together to create life

    I’m sure this is comforting to rape and incest
    Victims.

  38. Buckobear 2018-12-10 11:15

    OS — try getting life insurance for the zygote………

  39. Roger Cornelius 2018-12-10 11:16

    “Couple came together to create life” – Old Sarge
    It probably wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say most couples/people come together to have sex with creating life is an after thought.

  40. bearcreekbat 2018-12-10 11:18

    OldSarg offers unfortunate confirmation of the point in my earlier comment – Nelson and apparently OldSarg think all women are just too stupid to realize what is happening inside their bodies. OldSarg and Nelson seem to infer that no woman has read about, studied, been taught, or has been exposed to enough anti-choice propaganda to have the slightest understanding what happens when a pregnancy is ended. But somehow, women can magically gain an epiphany sufficient to understand the beliefs and values of OldSarg and Nelson if forced to submit to a medically unnecessary sonogram.

    Thus, they advocate that we need to enact new (criminal?) laws to force women to hear or view this sonogram as a compulsory educational tool, rather than a useful medical procedure. What OldSarg and Nelson fail to clarify is that if all women are too stupid to have already understood the baby/life argument, just how will a forced sonogram make any difference?

    Either OldSarg and Nelson truly think women are complete idiots who simply cannot learn or understand about the results of an abortion absent forced video or audio stimulation, or OldSarg and Nelson are lying to distract from the true motive of this proposal, namely, put yet another physical and financial roadblock in the path of every intelligent woman’s choice to exercise a settled constitutional right to decide whether another entity, regardless of how it is labeled – whether zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, or person – may use her body for their needs.

  41. Dana P 2018-12-10 11:35

    BCB is spot on. Said much better than I ever could. This is controlling women. This is condescension to women.

    Women’s right to make choices about their own bodies is a constitutionally protected right in this country (remember those pesky “rights”, Mr Nelson and OS? They sure get in the way of your mission to control women)

    This decision needs to be left up to a doctor and the woman. PRIVATE. For people that espouse “too much government”, sure don’t mind sneaking into a woman’s private medical affairs. Disgusting.

    With all that is going on in South Dakota right now, and THIS tops the list? Head shaker.

  42. o 2018-12-10 11:38

    OldSarge, you know that since the Declaration of Independence, this nation has struggled with the definition of “men” in the “All men are created equal . . .” phrase. “Men” at that time was restricted to white, male, landowners. That has definition expanded to include African-Americans, women, but never extended to the unborn. You cannot justify your interpretation of law with your wish for what the law means. You are not making a legal precedent argument, you are making a value proposition from your moral point of view — nothing more.

    Your president even questions the right of citizenship as a birthright, how does that fit your pro-life, value stand? Again, the hypocrisy you your ilk extends this pro-life stance only from conception to birth — then all bets are off.

  43. T 2018-12-10 11:40

    Yes Roger exactly!
    BCB thumbs up

  44. TAG 2018-12-10 12:39

    I’d be interested to know how this proposed law is any different than similar laws that have been struck down in other states by federal courts after legal challenges by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

    Likely this is all just political posturing at taxpayers expense for legal fees and court time. Productive.

  45. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-10 12:48

    I support doctors fully informing women about the medical procedures they seek. I do not support politicians painting their opinions and agendas as “medical information” and forcing that propaganda into doctors’ mouths and women’s uteri.

  46. OldSarg 2018-12-10 13:08

    Guys, both of you know its not about making money nor is it about “rights” or how the pregnancy came about. It’s about the life of an unborn child and that child’s right to live. I am not the decider, you are not and nor is the “petri dish womb host”.

    Do you see how that works? You try to redefine the child within the womb of the mother and my the same token you can redefine the mother as the “petri dish womb host”. At this point as a rational thinking person you should say “But you can’t redefine the woman!” and nor can you redefine the child as anything other than as child and as such they have all the same rights as you.

  47. bearcreekbat 2018-12-10 13:18

    When considering the comment that “they have all the same rights as you,” it reminds me that I have no legal or moral right to use a single body part of another human being against her or his will for my own survival.

  48. OldSarg 2018-12-10 13:25

    Bearcreek, it has nothing to do with your rights over others. You have no right over others. You are no man’s master. It has only to do with the life of a child yet to be born. That child has as much right to life as you do. If you think the child is less of a human simply because they haven’t reached the age you, in your infinite wisdom, have decided is viable life makes you no better than the men who killed the American Indians for sport since they didn’t consider them human either. . . have you actually become what you hate so much?

  49. o 2018-12-10 13:34

    OldSarge, I feel your pain. You want so badly for the world in your head to follow the same definitions as the world you live in. Over and over, you keep trying to define what words mean in legal context, but you are not using legal context: you define from your moral point of view. Your opposition is not defining human life: the courts have done that. In the same manner, you cannot redefine “woman” because the courts have done that.

    You need a new, legal definition of “human life,” and the only place you can get this is the Supreme Court. Until then, calling unborns “children” or “human life” is antithetical to US established law — no matter how you feel about that.

  50. bearcreekbat 2018-12-10 13:42

    OldSarg, you seem only to be arguing with yourself. I have made no arguments about viability, nor that the unborn does not have a “right to life.” Rather, I simply pointed out that no one’s “right to life,” whether born or unborn, is greater than another’s right to decide who can use her or his body parts. Hence no one, born or unborn, has a legal or moral right to use a single body part of another human being against her or his will. Focus.

  51. OldSarg 2018-12-10 13:50

    o, no pain here. At first I was shocked by your views of superiority over others and your elitist ignorance thinking you should be able to decide life and death for others as if you were a God. I understand your desire to have power over others. Their have been many an evil person in our world’s past who have also sought power over others. In actuality I pity you and your ilk. I simply cannot imagine how deranged your minds must be that you could ever justify the killing of a harmless child. i mean, I can understand euthanizing a mad dog but killing a harmless child? If you can justify killing a harmless child where is your limit? Would you kill an elderly person, maybe a shoplifter or how about someone who is Jewish? Do you not see what kind of animal you have become? You know I have heard so many people in the past say things like “Oh, it can’t happen here. We would never massacre people just for being different or believing differently” but it is happening here and people like you support it. You have become evil. Your heart is gone.

  52. OldSarg 2018-12-10 13:58

    Bearcreek, maybe I am only arguing with myself. In most of these arguments I hear only the echo of my own voice fighting for the unborn child. It kind of justifies those with weaker minds from the past who murdered the abortion doctors. They gave up on simply arguing verbally. I guess they felt they were no longer heard and the echo drove them mad. Very sad. I’ll keep arguing through my posts. I don’t like death being caused by man’s hand.

  53. TAG 2018-12-10 14:21

    Kentucky’s mandatory ultrasound law was struck down last year by federal courts in the case:
    EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Beshear
    https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-kentuckys-new-abortion-ultrasound-law

    Here’s a description of the successful argument:

    The law requires that the doctor show and describe the ultrasound images even if the woman averts her eyes or asks the doctor to stop. According to expert testimony presented in the lawsuit, the law violates basic principles of medical ethics and informed consent by compelling doctors to dismiss a patient’s objections.

    Notably, the law provides no exception for circumstances where the doctor believes the ultrasound will have a traumatic effect on patients, including for women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest or who face a medical condition or fetal anomaly.

    “Requiring doctors to show every woman an ultrasound image and to describe them to her — even against her will — violates longstanding constitutional principles, including the right to privacy, the right to bodily integrity, and First Amendment freedoms,” said William Sharp, legal director of the ACLU of Kentucky

  54. o 2018-12-10 14:34

    OldSarge, if your words were sincere, they would be touching. But your “it can happen here” rings hollow as your “pro-life” cronies advocate for and perpetuate the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Yamen; as you sentence to death those who come to the US for a better life — only to die because we choose not to share our excess; as you allow people to die in the US for lack of health care because you believe government intrusion into health care is an absolute evil when the other party does it; as you proliferate weapons on the streets of the us to undermine the most basic of civil order — for profit . . . You welcome the deaths of many you choose to not see as “human” enough to be worth your advocacy. Do not for a minute think that because you can couch the abortion debate in “pro-life” rhetoric that it washes your hands clean of the abomination of orchestrated death you and your ilk perpetuate. Your moral umbrella is not as protective as you hope. Through a wanted disregard for life, you promote power, wealth, selfishness, and destruction, and try to wash away the mud on one issue alone. Sir, the US very well may be morally spiraling downward, and you are greasing the path.

  55. bearcreekbat 2018-12-10 14:43

    OldSarg, one very compelling argument supporting a woman’s right to choose came from a woman who asked if the law should have prevented her from giving birth to her existing daughter. During a pregnancy, a woman cannot conceive another child. This woman was pregnant, but choose to have an abortion due to problems with the pregnancy, despite wanting to have a child.

    Approximately 3 or 4 months later she again became pregnant, which could not have happened without her earlier abortion. The second pregnancy was carried to full term and gave her a daughter that she dearly cherished. She pointed out that “a law denying her the choice to have an abortion when the time or circumstances were wrong for her would have prevented the conception of her daughter a few months later.” She asks, “who are you to tell my daughter she had no right to be conceived and born because you would have denied my right to terminate an earlier pregnancy and thereby prevented my ability to conceive my daughter?”

    Maybe the issue of defending the unborn is not necessarily all that black and white. Defending one unborn at the cost of preventing all other potential unborn children from being conceived during the term of the unwanted pregnancy seems an unintended consequence for those who purport to care about the unborn, especially the folks who are also against using contraceptives to prevent conception.

  56. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 15:57

    Is it possible OldSlenderSalamander does not know how badly he insults women’s intelligence?

    Got a present for you, OldSilyassSam. I got my SS cola notification for next year and I get about $$$ bucks more per month. I asked SS to specifically hit yer pay stubs for my lavish benefits.

    Thought you’d like to know.

  57. mike from iowa 2018-12-10 16:05

    Some supposed Lakota culture expurt done swallowed the fake noize, religious right Blarney mountain in one big gulp. Maybe they knew they would make the headlines if they murdered a law abiding abortion provider and no doubt right wingers cheered for them before and after.

    Makes tools like OldS complicit in first degree, pre-meditated murders.

  58. OldSarg 2018-12-10 19:58

    It’s murder folks. Plain and simple. There is no arguing it. There is no changing the facts. You can say it’s the woman’s right to murder the baby or yo can say you have the right to murder the baby but none of that changes the fact it is murder.

    o~ your concern for the plight of our soldiers or those who try escape the hell that is the middle-east rings hollow as you have done nothing to change anything. Your words do not count until you do something. You do nothing and are nothing.

  59. leslie 2018-12-10 20:15

    Is this a military thing? In response to Sarge’s Daugaard thread post, Stace’s utter bullsheit that women’s “informed consent…often pushed” into making abortion decisions, is all this is; “a good bill …passed” in many other states. So what?

    Sarge is mad b/c we don’t “respect” Daugaard. Trump threatens world security with his thin skin. NOBODY believes Trump, Stace, Sarge, Happy or Grdz because they are inauthentic. Teresa May is a leader. She didn’t name-call as BREXIT was withdrawn. She learned by listening.

    36 years ago I realized i could write a formal letter shading the truth, rather than telling the truth. It is obvious many politicians in DC no nothing of ethics, and never learned this truth, even at 70.

    Now there are 2 or 3 SCOTUS members in this same quicksand. Respect them?

  60. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-10 20:55

    It’s not murder, plain and simple, because no one is calling for sending the aborting woman to the death chamber or giving her life in the pen.

  61. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-10 20:57

    But as usual, opponents miss the subtleties here. Doctors say ultrasound is not medically necessary. Why do legislators get to play doctor? Senator Curd is an M.D…. is anyone else in the Capitol qualified to practice medicine?

  62. Robin Friday 2018-12-10 21:52

    Stace Nelson, what evidence (a.k.a. proof) do you have that women are often “pushed into” abortion?

  63. Robin Friday 2018-12-10 22:07

    Personally, I desire to “have power over others” only to the extent that if I could, I would force pharmaceutical companies to provide free or reduced cost meds to children, young people and adults suffering from life-threatening conditions, rather than stand aside and watch them die from lack of resources to pay for the life-saving meds.

  64. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 04:56

    It’s not murder, you masochist moron. It’s self defense! Now, take your Roman religious rhetoric away and mind your own damn business!!

  65. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-11 05:32

    The Legislature is pushing women around with mandates and bad medical advice.

    If abortion is murder, why don’t we put the man who forces a woman to get an abortion in prison for life?

    Analogy: when a woman is raped, the state cannot force that woman to submit to a medical exam or to any specific medical procedure.

  66. Jason 2018-12-11 07:17

    It’s a double murder for killing a pregnant woman in most States.

    Le’ts discuss how the Supreme Court played doctor and how Democrat politicians like Cory play scientist.

    Macron is now for tax cuts after trying to play scientist.

  67. T 2018-12-11 07:22

    This bothers me to no end,
    I was in ND couple weeks back met a family whose daughter was raising a child.
    She is really struggling to make ends me. In ND you do not get any assistance for food and heat unless you list the father on the papers you complete. Guess what folks? She doesn’t know, not because she was a modern gal because she was raped. Society made this gal have the kid now there and s no help
    We are no different in SD. “Make these single moms get a job”! Nome get together a people around here #1 concern was getting “people off welfare” the guy who said this family was raised in government money and still takes it….
    But you must have your baby
    L

  68. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 07:53

    False equivalency, Jason. It’s a double murder because of the death of the mother not the termination of the fetus. Even the Bible says that causing the death of a fetus alone isn’t equally comparable to the death of a human. In the ABSENSE of specific prohibitions of abortion in Scripture, it is concluded that a fetus is not considered a soul. Exodus 21:22

  69. Stace Nelson 2018-12-11 08:02

    @Robin Listen to the testimony in the House Judiciary from victims that were coerced into killing their babies: https://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?Bill=1217&Session=2011

    @CAH Just because some have wrongfully devolved back to the pagen state of sacrificing babies, doesn’t make such insanity sane or healthy. Liberals are so intent on celebrating the power to murder the most innocent with impunity that they care not for the health of the woman cajoled and coerced into doing so. A woman brutally killing her baby is the most unnatural thing in the world. It is not a right, it is a loss both for the baby that is brutally ripped apart to end its existence, a loss for the mother and family who shall never know the joy of that gift of life from God, and a loss for society.

    Be careful wishing for the brutal pagen world that you aspire to where human life is valued so little and taken so callously. We should learn from history of what occurred when your eugenics inspired Socialist brethren assumed power in Germany..

  70. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 08:10

    Nelson … self defense Keep your religious dogma inside your huge brain and understand women’s right to choose, you misogynist heathen.

  71. Dana P 2018-12-11 08:36

    Stace Nelson is delusional. “celebrating the power to murder”? WTF? “Wishing for the brutal pagen world”? Wow!

    Never once, does mr nelson, a lawmaker tell us why he isn’t using his energy and “power” to fight for birth control (BONUS – IT WOULD HELP PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES = LOWERS ABORTION RATE)

    Never once, does mr nelson, a lawmaker, tell us how these children are going to be cared for if woman doesn’t have the right to control her own body.

    This is about controlling women. (Many of mr nelson’s claims are straight outta Handmaid’s Tale) Stay out of my doctor’s office, mr legislator. You have no business telling my doctor to do a medically unnecessary step in my PRIVATE examination room.

  72. OldSarg 2018-12-11 08:56

    Porter, one needn’t be religious to believe in a right to live. A deer, rabbit even a rat will fight to preserve their own life. It is natural. In this case the unborn child, with total trust in their host, depends upon the host to protect them. To advocate for killing the unborn child in not natural thus an abnormal behavior. Abnormal behavior needs treatment more than being celebrated. peace

  73. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 09:21

    OldSlobbersolstice is full of skit.

    In this case the unborn child, with total trust in their host, depends upon the host to protect them.

    What a load of malarkey. What happened to a fetus having full rights? That fetus can make no legal demands because it does not pay rent for the use of the womb. Its survival resides solely with the autonomous rights of that host and if she wants to vacate the property, that is her right and only her right.

    Stop trying to force women to become second class citizens again.

  74. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 09:29

    Stace Nelson-
    House Bill 1217
    XML/RSS Feed
    Purpose:

    establish certain legislative findings pertaining to the decision of a pregnant mother considering termination of her relationship with her child by an abortion, to establish certain procedures to better insure that such decisions are voluntary, uncoerced, and informed,

    to establish certain procedures to better insure that such decisions are voluntary, uncoerced, and informed,

    B coercing women into listening to 72 hours of whiny sappy misinformation about not having abortions. I submit this is neither voluntary, coercion free and informational.

    In fact the whole bill does opposite of what wingnuts claim.

  75. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 09:58

    Nature doesn’t make a woman pregnant. Nature doesn’t punish a woman for choosing when the time is proper to make a fifty year commitment to a future human being. That’s why nature gave women the ability to have many children. Because only a future mother can know if the time is right. A man makes a woman pregnant not God. God doesn’t punish a woman’s choice. Men do. There’s no such thing as an unborn child. There’s only a future child. There’s only the future mother. It’s not a human until it’s born. Cells divide before an entity is a human and cells divide after an entity is dead. Cell division is only nature not a baby. Anthropomorphizing a fetus for religious and political reasons is simply men believing they’re more powerful than God. You have no peace,KV. You have only those few days a month when you play Jesus OS. Most days you’re just self-consumed, overbearing and difficult to be around OS.

  76. T 2018-12-11 10:25

    Oldsargio
    Deer rabbit and rats are slaughtered by humans
    So not seeing your invalid point

  77. bearcreekbat 2018-12-11 11:52

    Anyone else notice how the initial comments in support of this legislative proposal have completely changed as the irrationality of their initial arguments has been demonstrated by comments opposing this proposed law.

    First, they argued the law was only intended to protect and inform ignorant women. Next it was to make sure that a woman seeking an abortion actually gave a valid consent to the procedures. Then forced sonsgrams were needed to assure that there was an actual pregnancy.

    As commenters demonstrated the disingenuousness behind each of these rationals, soon the supporters of the bill devolved back to their long rejected “murder, or “killing babies” hyperbolic arguments.

    These latter arguments really mean at least two things. (1) Supporters are trying to end run our Constitution by creating the most burdensome difficulties possible to prevent women from freely exercising their settled constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy (translation – unwilling women need to be forced to give unwanted birth); and (2) Our Constitution does not merit their respect when it has been interpreted by the highest Court in the land in a manner that supporters don’t agree with.

    In both cases, submitting proposed legislation to avoid compliance with a settled constitutional right is not exactly a conservative principle. Conservatives used to be honest and respectful of the law.

    To that end, a true conservative who disagreed with a right protected by our Constitution would seek to amend the Constitution, since that is the procedure our founders established to change unwanted provisions. (see e.g., the 13th Amendment).

    By instead attempting to block the free exercise of a settled constitutional right with legislation, however, folks like Nelson, OldSarg, Beal, et al, have revealed their implicit understanding that they are wrong – they know that they cannot get the support they need to amend the Constitution.

    They are too closed minded to allow themselves to understand the danger of opening the door to government regulation of our right of privacy in family and reproduction matters. This is a problem that they should have learned from history (see Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)), but that most of America remembers.

    Along with the unrestricted governmental power to require a forced pregnancy comes the governmental power to force sterilization and abortions. Once we lose the right of privacy in our personal decisions whether to reproduce, any newly elected state government is not longer prevented from restricting or limiting an individual’s family planning decisions.

    Blinded by their need to feel rightous, these modern day warriors resort to legislative games designed to restrict and deny women their settled constitutional right of privacy. When called out, they move to hyperbole, screaming “murder” and “baby killers” in an effort to distract from their efforts to evade a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

    There seems to be little point in arguing against such hyperbole, however, since by its own inherent nature it reveals itself to be without either reason or meaningful impact. In the long run it is nothing more than noise.

  78. Jason 2018-12-11 12:20

    BCB wrote:

    Submitting proposed legislation to avoid compliance with a settled constitutional right.

    That right was settled by non-doctors.

    This thread is about doctors right?

    Also keep in mind the medical technology we have today vs the early 70’s.

  79. Ryan 2018-12-11 12:20

    People killing other people is as natural as breathing and eating. Been doing it forever. You people and your “it’s not natural to kill babies!” baloney are just pretending that humans have always been some advanced and special creatures. We are animals. We evolved from other animals. We kill our young. We will our middle-aged. We kill our old. You bunch of head-in-the-sand types. Sheesh.

    And don’t bring your made-up gods into this. If god doesn’t exist, you are wrong. If god does exist, free will was intentional. Just like all the sad things humans do every single day, if god exists he will judge people for their actions when it comes to abortions. Aren’t you god-hollerers missing the part of your special book that encourages you not to judge others? Or maybe that’s in the 95% of the book you all ignore, huh?

  80. Jason 2018-12-11 12:26

    Ryan wrote:

    People killing other people is as natural as breathing and eating. Been doing it forever.

    Is there any Country that does not have a law against murder?

  81. happy camper 2018-12-11 12:29

    You know what disgusts me a little bit? For or against it’s still too many men who are so sure they know what’s best for everybody else. Maybe on an intimate woman’s issue you could hold your tongue, but no, you think the world can’t get along without you. Stop pontificating and listen more to women.

  82. Ryan 2018-12-11 12:57

    Jason,

    First, the definition of murder includes the requirement that the killing was unlawful, so your question is paradoxical.

    However, ignoring that fact, your question still doesn’t matter because the law of the land is currently that many types of abortion are legal. So we aren’t talking about murder. But even if you just mean killing, that doesn’t get to the issue at hand, either. I was simply stating that humans killing humans is more historically accurate than humans defending humans.

    I personally believe that abortion is the end of a human life, but I don’t believe it should be unequivocally banned. I don’t think of fetus-life in general as some special and untouchable life form. Our laws allow certain criminals to be put to death. Our laws allow one person to kill another in defense of self or others. Our laws allowing a pregnant person to kill her fetus do not seem all that different from the other exceptions to the general rule of “no killing.”

  83. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 13:17

    The legal termination of a pregnancy can help in at least two ways. It can provide self defense to a pregnant woman threatened with the burden and hardship of an unwanted life of motherhood without her complete dedication. A termination of a pregnancy can protect a future human from a life without dedicated support from a mother. Both outcomes are best for all of us. No woman shall be forced into a future of burden and hardship by religious or misogynistic order. No future human should be forced into a life without a dedicated parental member by religious or misogynistic decree.

  84. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 13:20

    Especially as BearCB so eloquently puts it… by those, “Blinded by their need to feel righteous.”

  85. happy camper 2018-12-11 13:30

    Not eloquent just hypocrisy Progressives are blinded by their Virtue Signaling. Same thing.

  86. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 13:35

    Compared to BCB, Happy Camper is a mental midget. Contrarian without direction. Same thing.

  87. Ryan 2018-12-11 13:38

    Now, here’s something.

    First, I support every woman’s right to decide what life does or doesn’t reside in her womb. Just to be clear.

    Porter said something that got me thinking, though. He said “No woman shall be forced into a future of burden and hardship…” which I agree with. Now, for decades I have admittedly wondered about the father of a hypothetical fetus that is about to be aborted. Obviously, women, as the necessary conduit, should be able to decide if they serve as such conduit. But, it appears that most people who support abortion being lawful agree that even women who intentionally got pregnant should be able to have an abortion, and that applies even if the fetus father wants the pregnancy to progress. I agree with that, too, because it is the body of the woman and should be her decision.

    Now, thinking about Porter’s comment regarding being forced into burden and hardship…does it seem like a conflict in our society that when conception occurs, the father is expected to be responsible for that life despite any actual or potential burden, but the mother is granted the liberty of a do-over with at least some pro-choice voices suggesting future burden as a reason for a mother to “terminate” the fetus…?

    I’m sure a few people will misinterpret my comment, so let me be clear: I support the right of the mother to decide, in all instances. I’m just asking if anybody else notices the difference in societal judgment for deadbeat parents. Deadbeat dads are often considered deplorable, which is often correct. Deadbeat moms are often considered victims, which is often incorrect. Feminists should demand equality :)

  88. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 13:42

    Virtue Signaling is the latest attempt by those who’ve been discarded for leaning on political correctness as a salve to their bigotry. Correct is correct and virtue is virtue. That it upsets Happy Camper is an extra virtue point every time we signal what’s right about the left and what’s distasteful about those with no sensitivity filter. Camper can say whatever he/she wants but he/she can’t be shielded from criticism with invented catch phrases.

  89. happy camper 2018-12-11 14:05

    No Porter you just can’t see it from your prism on the left you’re sure your values are correct just like those from the right. I liked your paragraph it wasn’t preachy but practical, but again I wonder if women should have the greater say.

  90. OldSarg 2018-12-11 14:11

    The excuses of finances, rape, being poor and all that is just blather and of no meaning as we have poor today and we are not killing them and we have rapes today and the media/democrats have accepted the rapist among their ranks, such as the attorney general in Minnesota.

    To settle this I offer these thoughts: A human fetus if left to develop will only grow to be another human. No person has the right to take another human’s life. I will not support nor take part in the killing of a child. If that is the position you wish to take I only ask that you not be a part of my community and join the ranks of those above who do not live in South Dakota where we have succeeded in driving out the last of the baby killers. Not our problem.

  91. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 14:27

    Lying OldLiardisgracetotheuniform, WHERE IS YOUR VIDEOTAPE PROOF ELLISON IS A RAPIST, YOU LYING PIECE OF SPIT!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death

    More deaths

    Various studies have looked at whether uninsured people have a higher risk of death. The most cited was published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2009 and found that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of being uninsured.

    You’re the animal!

  92. Ryan 2018-12-11 14:30

    OldSarg, we used to share at least a small amount of moral or ethical ground, but you must be slipping.

    When you suggest people leave the state that you happen to live in because they happen to disagree with you, do you realize that about half the people in the US disagree with you, and so does the law? So, if your position is that people should leave South Dakota for being pro-choice, why don’t you leave the US for being anti-choice? It’s the law. If you don’t support the law, move. Right? Or are you a raving hypocrite? I mean, I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you.

  93. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 14:38

    Troll-That right was settled by non-doctors.

    No, troll, that right was settled by American lawyers with an intimate knowledge and understanding of the words in the constitution and how they opined they should be defined to stay within the guidelines set forth by the founding fathers.

    Doctors are not chosen to interpret the meaning of laws. They are, at best, professional advisers used to give unbiased meaning to particular parts of legislation within their expertise.

    Doctors say embryonic viability occurs at 24 weeks, who are you peons to claim viability begins with fetal heartbeat?

  94. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 14:58

    Giving human rights to a fetus because if left alone it will become human? Then, if left alone a 90 year old human will become a corpse. Should his/her rights be removed now because of what the future will bring?

  95. Mike J 2018-12-11 16:40

    Old Sarge says “No person has the right to take another human’s life.”
    What about when someone kills another person in self-defense. That is taking another human’s life and the law says it is okay because you were defending yourself.

  96. OldSarg 2018-12-11 16:58

    Ryan, take a look at the responses to my post. The one thing you can conclude from those responses is the folks posting above are nuts and the majority of them do not live in South Dakota thus, even without your support, I am safer here than living where they do. . . I just never thought defending “life” would bring such threats as if these men posting above have anything to do with the topic at hand.

  97. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 17:10

    It doesn’t matter where you live, old man. If you get pregnant I’ll move in next door to you and make sure (every day) that your medical decisions are treated with dignity and respect by your church, your politicians and your bartender. Until then mind your own damn business.

  98. OldSarg 2018-12-11 17:27

    Porter, 1) I think I’m some years younger than you, 2) Thanks, 3) Nope, I consider life my business. peace

  99. bearcreekbat 2018-12-11 17:30

    I almost choked to death from gagging when I read a OldSarg’s comment:

    “No person has the right to take another human’s life” says the guy who in another comment on a different thread wrote that it is just fine to murder someone he deems to be a traitor:

    They killed him. I understand as all traitors should be killed. I would kill a traitor to our country as well.

    https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/11/21/rounds-and-thune-namby-pam-over-trumps-immoral-support-of-murderous-saudi-leader/#comment-120654

    This give a hint to the answer to Ryan’s question to OldSarg: “. . . are you a raving hypocrite?”

  100. Porter Lansing 2018-12-11 17:31

    You’re 63 and I’m 65.

  101. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 17:33

    Liar, where is the Ellison video of rape? You are a pathological lying animal like yer buddy in the kremlin annex. I hope Ellison sues yer arse for defamation of character and being a lying animal!

    If you can’t back up yer lies, don’t lie.

  102. bearcreekbat 2018-12-11 17:35

    And as a service to OldSarg if he decides to move to a country that actually shares his viewpoint on abortion, here are 26 options:

    Andorra; Malta; San Marino; Angola; Congo-Brazzaville; Congo-Kinshasa; Egypt; Gabon; Guinea-Bissau; Madagascar; Mauritania; São Tomé & Príncipe; Senegal; Iraq; Laos; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Palau; Philippines; Tonga; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Haiti; Honduras; Nicaragua; and Suriname.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/the-many-countries-where-abortion-still-banned/

  103. mike from iowa 2018-12-11 17:44

    bcb, please don’t choke to death. OldSandbag would only blame Cory and us out of staters for choking you.

  104. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-11 17:54

    A woman has a unique right to end her pregnancy. A woman has a right to enlist professional medical assistance to end that pregnancy safely for her.

    Women and men have a right to seek medical advice and procedures of their choosing.

    Woman and men have a right to go to their doctor and hear actual scientific information, not propaganda and political agendas.

  105. Adam 2018-12-11 21:33

    Idk. Me just want to believe Democrats kill babies so bad that me willing to lie to myself and others about all kinds of things. Me just feel like… yeah. You know?

  106. Debbo 2018-12-11 22:10

    The Pootiepublicans just can’t help themselves. They love to play their followers like cheap, cracked, worn out, busted, $10, out of tune violins.

    I recall in the ’00s I think, when those followers were almost starting to get smart about this and realize it was just a game for the Pooties, just a scam to get votes and money, keep them amped up but never really, truly follow through. There was even some GOP citizens’ rebellion, but alas, it was short-lived. They’ve returned for more humuliation.

    Abortion is the GOP’s Golden Goose and they will never, ever kill it. The Pootie/Koch boys may be venal, they may be small, they may be uber misogynists, they may be petty, they may be hateful, they may be unimaginative, they may be crooked, they may be greedy— but they’re not that stupid.

    A little collateral damage, like a woman’s humanity, is a small price to pay in their minds. And besides, they just don’t care.

  107. Robin Friday 2018-12-11 22:20

    Stace, your accounts are anecdotal. How do they prove that any significant percentage of women are “coerced” into termination of pregnancy. They are but few. And there are no statistics which demonstrate your contention regarding widespread coercion. I strongly suspect that coercion comes from the other direction, through the legislature from religious groups who contend that everyone should be bound by THEIR regigious convictions.

  108. Ryan 2018-12-12 08:24

    Maybe somebody here has heard this, or something like it – I don’t remember where I first heard it but it’s stuck with me.

    It’s perfectly fine if you let your religion dictate your behavior. It is not fine if you expect your religion to dictate the behavior of people of a different religion or no religion.

    If only the crazies got it. Too bad hyper-religious folks often seem to be less-than-hyper-thinkers.

  109. happy camper 2018-12-12 08:30

    It seems like people who cannot handle the uncertainty of things are most attracted to a strong ideology in whatever form that comes. You don’t have to think anymore. It’s just a little bit interesting that Kavanaugh voted with the liberals favorably on Planned Parenthood. People can surprise you.

  110. OldSarg 2018-12-12 09:12

    Guys, I’m not real religious. I don’t think I have stepped into a church in more than 5 years, and only then for a funeral, but the truth is I do have compassion for those who do not have the ability to defend themselves whether it be an elderly person, a woman, child or even an unborn child. I understand that most of you do not feel the same way I do about being a bully or the killing those who cannot defend themselves but that is exactly why I am here and why I fight against your evil actions. Personally I think most of you have no sense of morality at all. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right is right even if no one is doing it.

  111. happy camper 2018-12-12 09:42

    Porter’s statement is very moral and about the best one I’ve read, simple, clear, but at what point a pregnancy can no longer be terminated should remain a constant debate, but you (OldSarg) even use similar language as Porter you’re just on opposite sides of an emotional issue.
    “The legal termination of a pregnancy can help in at least two ways. It can provide self defense to a pregnant woman threatened with the burden and hardship of an unwanted life of motherhood without her complete dedication. A termination of a pregnancy can protect a future human from a life without dedicated support from a mother. Both outcomes are best for all of us. No woman shall be forced into a future of burden and hardship by religious or misogynistic order. No future human should be forced into a life without a dedicated parental member by religious or misogynistic decree.”

  112. OldSarg 2018-12-12 09:58

    happy, I understand your opinion but hardships are part of life. Even a mother cat with a litter of 12 does not kill off 2 to make it easier on herself, a mother bird does not roll a surprise egg out of the nest (look up cow bird) and an mother elephant does not leave her baby in a mud hole without trying to save it. We all have hardships but to remove the hardship by killing it because a child is unwanted or a burden has to be one of the most petty self-centered actions any animal could take. . . and in actuality the killing of a human just because it appears to be a burden places one lower than a simple animal. It’s not natural. It is abnormal.

  113. happy camper 2018-12-12 10:11

    Well, I don’t think all lower animals are the good parents you’re describing mothers often reject their young, but reading more about abortion would at least show it’s not a modern issue:

    “The Stoics believed the fetus to be plantlike in nature, and not an animal until the moment of birth, when it finally breathed air. They therefore found abortion morally acceptable.[17][36]

    Aristotle wrote that, “[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive.”[37] Before that point was reached, Aristotle did not regard abortion as the killing of something human.[38][39][40] Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female; before that, it had vegetable and animal souls.”

    Oh, Aristotle was a bit misogynist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

  114. OldSarg 2018-12-12 11:31

    That’s all fine Happy. 1) You can keep searching for reasons to justify killing a baby all day long but it doesn’t change reality. 2) Stoics died out in their happy optimism, 3) Quoting Aristotle, who existed even before the days we were bleeding each other for health, would not be my choice for the medical definition of when a child becomes a human. Assignment of specific days is rather silly.

    The reality is the unborn child is a human and has a right to life. It’s a rational thought out view that I will continue to adhere to. No changy, changy. . .

    Do you not find it the least bit interesting that today one will quote a thinker from a 1,000 years ago and the quote would have valid application today yet the Global Warmist ignore a 1,000 years of science to support a grant recipient ex-politician as the real expert today? Weird. . .

  115. Debbo 2018-12-12 11:49

    You can say whatever you like about the zygote, blastocyst, fetus. You still don’t get to control a woman’s body, especially while ignoring the fact of the impregnator. When you decide to address the entire issue of pregnancy, you might, just might, have a shred of moral authority.

    OS, it’s interesting that you have now adopted the persona of the reasonable one, troubled by what you try to paint as the recklessness of those who disagree. Got tired of angry name calling? Decided this would work better? You proceeded through your Jesus shtick quickly. Did Pootie tell you that was ineffective? What’s next?

  116. happy camper 2018-12-12 12:02

    I’m not trying to justify a position, but if women felt the need to abort a fetus since ancient times, that tells me that need is normal.
    It was debated then which tells me the debate is going to continue.

  117. OldSarg 2018-12-12 12:18

    Debbo, I wasn’t making this personal. The woman’s body is her own. The child within is not a part of the host body. I’m not trying to control anyone other than to preserve the life of a defenseless child. I just see the unborn child as a life and just as i would help a man or woman found abandoned next to the road I would help a child.

    You, on the other hand assign discriminators such as ” zygote, blastocyst, fetus” in order to justify the butchering of the defenseless child. Rather nasty at this time of year don’t you think? I thought you were a preacher. . .

  118. o 2018-12-12 12:39

    OldSarge: “Guys, I’m not real religious.” “Debbo, I wasn’t making this personal. The woman’s body is her own.”

    BRING BACK OLDSARGE, YOU ALIEN-POD PERSON!!!!!

  119. mike from iowa 2018-12-12 13:03

    The child within is not a part of the host body.

    Then why is it in there in the first place? Could it survive anywhere else from the moment of creation? If not, why not? Try not to make ship up.

  120. bearcreekbat 2018-12-12 13:20

    OldSarg comes up with another one: “just as I would help a man or woman found abandoned next to the road. . . .” From his past “rather nasty” comments about “illegal” people, this claim rings a bit hollow.

  121. m 2018-12-12 13:27

    Mr. Nelson….are you a woman? And that’s a honest question. If not….butt out. Women are able to make their own decisions based on information already provided and consultation with their doctor. The only “pushing around” going on is from bigot, power hungry, representatives like yourself, thinking you need to dictate others’ lives. Work on more meaningful legislation, if you’re able, and stop pushing out garbage.

  122. Debbo 2018-12-12 13:49

    OS, ” zygote, blastocyst, fetus” are scientific terms accurately describing the womb contents. Here’s another bit of science. A sperm cell is required to create a zygote from an egg.

    Now what were you going to say about controlling the impregnator’s body as well as the woman’s?

  123. bearcreekbat 2018-12-12 14:34

    And debbo, like the zygote, et al, science has established that sperm cells are

    “. . . certainly as alive as any other cells in a male body. Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism. . . .”

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/are-sperm-alive/

    In other words, one sperm cell is, in fact, a “life” that “is not a part of the host body.”

    Where o where are the proposed laws requiring every male to look at his sperm cells under a microscope before he decides to eject them from their warm safe environment needed for their survival in the testes?

    Perhaps there is some rational reason these “defenseless” little sperm-babys yet unborn don’t merit protection from mass slaughter. Indeed, we don’t want our teenage boys to be labeled murderers upon reaching puberty, as that term is already reserved to denigrate girls and women.

  124. Debbo 2018-12-12 14:43

    Exactly, BCB.

  125. OldSarg 2018-12-12 14:51

    Look at yourselves. Post after post. . . In the next couple of weeks we will all be celebrating Christmas. Our families will gather together, we will look at our kids, their kids, sisters, brothers and parents and with each look, almost without exception, we will think about our love for each other. Is it possible that after all the advocating for killing babies you all can still know love?

  126. Debbo 2018-12-12 14:58

    There’s OS with his look-at-what-a-nice-person-i-am shtick. He hopes it works especially well when he has no response to the thoughtful discussion occurring.

    IOW, he’s got nothing.

  127. mike from iowa 2018-12-12 15:10

    Twould be a boring world without the bcbs and Debbos and other humor mongers eating OldSillimanturley’s lunch for him.

    I’d suggest he quit while he was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind, but the truth is I like seeing you guys slap his sillyass around. Makes my day. Although I am not hard to please.

  128. Adam 2018-12-12 15:20

    Me just feel like mansplaining to women how evil it is to give them rights over their own body and health. If you’ve got any kind of baby in your belly, you must have that baby or die trying. Says so right there in the Bible.

    The issue of abortion is proof that Evangelicals are retards.

    Someone needs to run for President on the premise that he will make Mexico pay for America’s sins. I bet that crap would be really popular with South Dakota’s brain dead majority.

  129. Robin Friday 2018-12-12 18:15

    This is what I mean when I say “stand aside and watch them die from lack of resources”.
    https://abc7chicago.com/health/parents-son-died-because-he-couldnt-afford-high-cost-of-insulin/4885096/?sf204152458=1

    To me, the immorality of society standing aside and watching adults die when they don’t need to simply because they can’t pay big pharma prices for the meds they need to live is monstrous. Do something about controlling big pharma and big healthcare insurance instead of worrying so much about women controlling their own bodies.

  130. Debbo 2018-12-12 20:21

    Exactly what Robin said.

  131. Porter Lansing 2018-12-12 21:10

    Nelson, Deutsch, OS and all you Roman religion, women’s rights denying zealots reading this. Before I go off to hibernate, I have a question. You know in all those science fiction, time traveler stories they always warn not to change anything because it will alter the future in unpredictable ways? Well … if a fetus is already a child then is a pregnant woman already a mother?
    Via con Dios, amigx and Happy Holidays (there are 14 in December, worldwide)

  132. Debbo 2018-12-13 15:43

    Court blocked Ole Baldy’s effort to allow more businesses to deny free birth control to employees on ACA. He’s such a misogynist.

  133. jerry 2018-12-14 20:08

    Republican death panels hit South Dakota hard. “Three nursing homes closed over the past three years and two more are slated for closure by February. Another 17 former Golden Living Centers are now being operated by a state-approved receivership created after the New Jersey firm running the homes went bankrupt.

    The closures have occurred in small towns in South Dakota that have few or no options for relocation and are often many miles from another operating nursing home.”https://www.sdnewswatch.org/stories/wave-of-nursing-home-closures-hitting-small-south-dakota-communities/

  134. jerry 2018-12-14 21:21

    What could possibly be the cause of the loss? Could it be the Medicaid Expansion that is now at risk due to Jackley’s abhorrent work in getting the ACA declared unconstitutional?
    Where are these 900 old and disabled folks going to go? Maybe you can put them up at your camp happy camper.

    We live in a state that brags about a surplus while we cannot keep the water on for our elderly, while we cannot feed them and keep them warm. You know, third world country stuff.

  135. mike from iowa 2018-12-15 06:40

    No body forces hospitals or nursing homes to accept Medicaid. They go in with eyes wide open knowing the reimbursement rate the fed will pay.

  136. mike from iowa 2018-12-15 06:41

    If the fed won’t increase reimbursement rates, blame wingnuts. They control the purse strings and the entire fed gubmint.

    Now try real hard to claim both sides do it.

  137. jerry 2018-12-15 10:39

    Oh goody, I am sure that gramps and grams will be delighted that both sides do it whist they are pushed to the curb to keep them from going further to the gutter. We are a failed state led by failed crooks and liars who blather about the great job they are doing denying essential life to our most vulnerable. Proud moments. You do remember when Daugaard cut nursing home funding when he came into office, right?

    BTW, what is your address so we can direct the first 90 year old to move in with you.

  138. happy camper 2018-12-15 11:04

    Then you just don’t understand how it’s administered. Medicaid pays nursing home costs. I’m not happy about it all but only blaming wingnuts isn’t helpful when it’s obviously a failure around the country, but it’s hard to understand why SD has such an especially bad policy. As that link to the Madison paper indicted it’s unclear but the reporter didn’t even use the legislator’s name this is a statewide issue that needs more attention and digging. If people care about life, like Stace Nelson, for those who can’t take care of themselves, what gives???

  139. Porter Lansing 2018-12-15 11:17

    What gives in SD? One thing is the lack of comprehension and the utter hatred for two words that help those who can’t take care of themselves and one word that describes the syndrome. Socialism – Welfare and Selfishness

  140. happy camper 2018-12-15 11:35

    Janklow put a moratorium on more nursing homes years back, but maybe those who don’t take Medicaid are exempt. Very nice places like Dow Rummel Village wealthier people go, so the nursing home resident interviewed might be right about the dynamics. It’s also hard to get people to do the jobs, like CNA, it’s not an easy problem to solve.

  141. Porter Lansing 2018-12-15 12:00

    My Mom lived her last four years in a Watertown nursing home. She had to sell or give away all her belongings and pay $1145 of her $1200 a month Social Security check for half a room with pretty good care (as long as my RN daughter kept an eye on the staff). Medicaid paid the rest. We had to secretly send her money for small items she wanted. Why didn’t she live with me? Like so many, up there, change would have been to hard.

  142. mike from iowa 2018-12-15 12:21

    I’m sure this doesn’t help- The nursing industry is under pressure in South Dakota as an aging population, fewer nursing students and an older workforce are combining to create staffing shortages.

    But the state has an added challenge in filling open nursing positions — pay. National nursing studies show RNs in South Dakota earn less than their counterparts across the nation.

    According to the American Nurses Association, South Dakota’s registered nurses have the lowest annual salary of any state and the District of Columbia, ranking 51st behind Mississippi, Alabama and Iowa.

    The association reports that South Dakota’s 12,530 registered nurses received an average annual salary of $57,010, or $27.41 per hour. California’s RNs posted the highest

  143. mike from iowa 2018-12-15 12:24

    Nursing homes on Northern Mississippi claim to offer competitive wages…… with whom? Southern South Dakota on the bayou? And since South Dakota is so bad, it is fair to blame the party that has been in control for just about forever in yer state.

  144. Porter Lansing 2018-12-15 12:35

    MFI – SD is part of an eNLC which allows nurses to work in eleven different states with their SD license. With a little government support SD could attract nurses and slow the nurses going away, for better conditions. I don’t think nurses are buying into the fallacy that no state income tax is giving them a better deal even with s***hole wages.

  145. Porter Lansing 2018-12-15 12:41

    Also … Can you hear the crowd out there shouting, “Helping nurses isn’t the role of government!!” That’s wrong. There is NO role of government. Government does what the people want it to do. It doesn’t matter what was put on paper by the founders. It matters what we want to buy as a group, which always gets the best price. (e.g. COSTCO)

  146. happy camper 2018-12-15 12:58

    Perhaps Mike, SD should hold our current legislature accountable, but the problem is more convoluted. Most of the care is provided by CNAs, not RNs and there has been a trend in the industry toward private equity for profit, an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) style of layered protection, one pays this one, one pays that, but all owned by the same investor or group of investors. These for-profit nursing homes provide the worst care with most complaints as was the case with Skyline, now the Rapid City operation. Also, because it’s hard to get staff traveling CNAs (and RNs) at much higher cost are hired, in fact most of the CNAs in Madison were temporaries hired from other states. SD has to raise the rates and regulate the industry.
    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/nursing-home-care-suffers-as-companies-outsource-to-related-firms-siphoning-off-profits/

  147. jerry 2018-12-15 13:00

    Install and initiate Medicaid Expansion, then the nursing homes could be back to providing care and employment in the communities they are now being forced from. Economic development for rural areas starts by keeping the jobs that already exist and then improving on them. The Medicaid Expansion is part of the ACA/Obamacare so it will continue to provide those essential services once it is enacted.

  148. grudgenutz 2018-12-15 15:11

    Stacey Nelson claims to be a political conservative, dedicated to personal sovereignty. He then puts the lie on his own belief by saying that he has the right to determine whether a woman has the right to excise an unwanted growth from her own body.

    Government powerful and unreasonable enough to ban abortion is government powerful and unreasonable enough to force them.

    Nelson is just a dimwitted ideologue determined to make everyone adhere to his idea of spiritual purity. He makes me gag.

  149. grudznick 2018-12-15 15:23

    Blunt Mr. Nelson makes me gag as well, like a blunt soaked in lysol, he is.

  150. jerry 2018-12-29 11:14

    On this date in 1890, the Massacre at Wounded Knee occoured. All of west river South Dakota was to be Indian land as put down by the Janis Brothers in their fluent Lakota to all the members at Fort Laramie. It was all understood and signed for.

    Today, a belligerent bully of a person, Mr. Nelson, seeks to control and abuse women’s bodies with total disregard of their treaty rights as a human being’s, that being their freedom. Nelson is to all women what James W. Forsythe, Colonel of the Seventh Cavalry and Commander at Wounded Knee, was to Natives on this date, December 29, 1890.

  151. Porter Lansing 2018-12-29 11:42

    Hear, hear Jerry man.

  152. Stace Nelson 2018-12-29 13:24

    @MFI This is SD. South Dakota law makes it clear that it is my duty to protect the unborn innocents: South Dakota Codified Law 26-1-2 states, “A child conceived, but not born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth;”

    @Jerry You are the one seeking to massacre innocents and to keep information from women that the baby inside them is in fact a living separate being, to keep them from them to making an informed decision. You are in fact the bully.

  153. Porter Lansing 2018-12-29 13:38

    Sen. Nelson. It may be SD and that may be why no one pays much attention (except we ex-pats) but that law is invalid. An elected official is required to know the law.
    Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.

  154. Adam 2018-12-29 13:40

    Social conservatives just want a bigger and more intrusive government. The more rights they give a phetus, the less rights they allow women. This is because they are retards who don’t understand the principles America was founded upon.

  155. Porter Lansing 2018-12-29 13:43

    Sen. Nelson The entity living in a womb isn’t yet a life and doesn’t become a life until birth, when God blesses it with a soul and USA grants it legal status. Before birth the woman’s decisions are legally binding. *If a fetus is already a baby is a pregnant woman already a Mother, Stace?

  156. Jason 2018-12-29 14:28

    Porter,

    Your State is breaking Federal law right now.

    The baby in the womb is a life and science has proved it Porter.

  157. bearcreekbat 2018-12-29 14:40

    Stace Nelson, what about the restrictions on state government required by the US Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS? What does your sworn oath of office direct you to support – a SD statute or a U.S. Constitutional restriction on the power of the state?

    Spoiler alert – it looks to me like the legislative goal of using our government to restrict or interfere with a decision of a woman, contrary to the long standing rulings of the SCOTUS that prohibit the government from doing so, violates the sworn oath of office.

    And when the justification (religious, political, or otherwise) for doing so is to protect something or someone (such as the unborn, whether labeling it a “person” or other nomenclature) who is not a citizen (see U.S. Const., Amend 14 section 1 – “. . . persons born . . . in the United States. . . are citizens of the United States”) and has no constitutional rights at all, this seems to be evidence an intentional violation of the legistator’s sworn oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution. See SD Constitution section 8:

    Members of the Legislature and officers thereof, before they enter upon their official duties, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States . . . .

    http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Constitution/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-3-8

    As has been the law of our Country since 1803, our SCOTUS (rather than legislators) is tasked with interpreting our U.S. Constitution. Fulfilling this duty, the SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to prohibit government from interfering with the right of privacy in matters of procreation, which includes the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. There is no language in the U.S. Constitution, nor SCOTUS interpretation, protecting any rights whatsoever of the unborn.

    That is my non-political, neither right wing nor left wing, objective reading of the oath and the limitations the SCOTUS has found that our Constitution places on federal, state and local governmental units. Am I missing something, or do you simply feel that your moral code and/or political viewpoint requires you to violate your sworn oath of office as a state legislator?

  158. Jason 2018-12-29 14:48

    BCB,

    Why do most States have double murder laws for killing a pregnant woman?

  159. bearcreekbat 2018-12-29 14:49

    And Nelson, if you believe the prior ruling of the SCOTUS is incorrect or unjust, why don’t you use the law to change the ruling as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution – by proposing an amendment? That would honor your oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution. Attempted end runs do not.

    Or you could resign from public office and then you need not comply with the oath of office requiring support of a Constitution you deem abhorrent.

  160. bearcreekbat 2018-12-29 14:51

    Jason, I give up, you tell me – why?

  161. Jason 2018-12-29 14:52

    Because a baby in the womb is a life.

    It’s not that difficult to understand BCB.

    The science backs that up also.

  162. bearcreekbat 2018-12-29 14:58

    Thanks Jason – and that is relevant to my point about the oath of office, or the holdings of the SCOTUS regarding restricting government from interfering with the right of privacy in procreation matters, because?

  163. Jason 2018-12-29 15:08

    Speaking of the oath of office. Congress mandated a wall be built but they didn’t fund it.

    Should all Congress members resign because they didn’t fund it and didn’t follow the law BCB?

  164. bearcreekbat 2018-12-29 15:36

    Okay, Jason, I get it – your “life” argument is not relevant to the point of my post regarding the SD oath of office.

    Now you appear to be suggesting that members of Congress “didn’t follow the law” and ask if they should resign. What do you think, did they violate their oath of office and if so should they resign?

    As relevant to my post, it seems you agree that Stace Nelson has violated his oath, i.e. “didn’t follow the law?” What do you think a SD legislator should do if his conscience directs him to violate his sworn oath of office, i.e. not “follow the law”?

  165. Adam 2018-12-29 17:34

    People like Jason just simply ‘like’ fetuses more than women. That’s all. When faced with the perception of choice between only one or the other, they choose fetuses every single time.

    I think it’s because people like Jason just aren’t all that good with women, and perhaps, in life, women just don’t like them very much. So, they lash out at women through ridiculous public policy proposals in order to get back at them in some kind of way.

  166. Porter Lansing 2018-12-29 17:44

    Good one, Adam. It began with Jason’s parochial school indoctrination and nun-trinsic beat downs.

  167. owen k reitzel 2018-12-29 17:48

    So since you’re pro-life I take you’ll be urging NOem to expand Medicaid to help children?

  168. owen k reitzel 2018-12-29 17:49

    I was talking to Stace.

  169. Porter Lansing 2018-12-29 18:07

    Owen … someone positive needs to talk to him. He lives out there all isolated with little to do but wash his tractor. Happy New Year. Remember, start every new year reit with o.k. :)

  170. owen reitzel 2018-12-29 18:49

    good words Porter. Good words. :)

  171. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-12-30 07:31

    To Adam’s comment: it is easy to idolize, absolutize, and objectify a subordinate lifeform, co-opt the voice of the voiceless, and assert complete control over an entity that cannot participate in the discussion of its own fate than it is to look a flesh-and-blood woman in the eye, admit her equal citizenship, and respect the right she has to make decisions that we may not agree with.

    Bills like Nelson’s Senate Bill 6 aren’t about caring; they are about control.

  172. Jason 2018-12-30 09:36

    Cory wrote:

    “objectify a subordinate lifeform.”

    So now Cory is playing Doctor and God now.

    Cory doesn’t care about the science.

  173. bearcreekbat 2018-12-30 12:08

    Jason, why won’t you answer my questions?

  174. Porter Lansing 2018-12-30 12:14

    Cory doesn’t care about science vs Jason doesn’t know about science. I’ll go with the first assertion. (Not True) Now the second. (Apparently not, judged by what he posts)

  175. grudznick 2018-12-30 12:24

    Not being religious like my good friend Bob, I have not suffered any nun-trinsic beat-downs, but it does sound interesting.

  176. Jason 2018-12-30 14:30

    Sure they should resign if they don’t follow the law.

  177. bearcreekbat 2018-12-30 14:34

    Thanks Jason, that is one answer. But there are two more questions:

    Do “you agree that Stace Nelson has violated his oath, i.e. “didn’t follow the law?”

    What do you think a SD legislator should do if his conscience directs him to violate his sworn oath of office, i.e. not “follow the law”?

  178. Jason 2018-12-30 14:39

    No he didn’t violate the law.

  179. bearcreekbat 2018-12-30 14:49

    Thanks again Jason. Now we are moving forward!

    I set our in detail my argument at 14:40 and 14:49 the reasons why I contend he violated his oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution.

    What are your reasons for contending that any of my factual statements supporting my argument are incorrect?

  180. Debbo 2018-12-30 16:48

    Dessa is a runner up for Minnesota’s Artist of the Year. The winner is Sarah Rasmussen, a beyond fine theater director who grew up and began directing in Sisseton.

    Dessa is an all around outstanding performance artist and writer. I’m commenting here because I’d like you to read the lyrics of one of her great songs. The title is “Fire Drills.” It’s an accurate and superb take on the female life. You can hear it here:

    https://youtu.be/bj-S_F103vserse 1]

    I’ve been Wendy
    Living with the Lost Boys
    Youth spent as a deckhand on the convoy
    Moved every night to prove we were something
    Got confused if it was from or to that we were running
    I’ve seen Gibraltar
    I’ve seen the Taj Mahal
    Soweto, Hagia Sophia
    Chefchaouen paints their walls blue
    I’ve played to full rooms
    I’ve played the fool too
    Burning through the bottoms of a pair of new boots
    Cut my hair, tape my t*ts down
    A woman on her own must be from out of town
    Funny, you don’t know the concessions that you’re making until you catalog em
    And by then they’re many and you’re battle-hardened
    Heat makes liquid of the asphalt
    Keepsakes and parking tickets on the dashboard
    I’m here to file my report as the vixen of the wolf pack;
    Tell Patient Zero he can have his rib back

    [Chorus]
    You can count my ribs
    Wanna know what class I’m in
    Count my
    You can count my ribs

    [Verse 2]
    You can’t be too broke to break
    As a woman always something left to take
    So you shouldn’t try to stay too late or talk to strangers
    Look too long, go too far out of range cause
    Angels can’t watch everybody all the time
    Stay close, hems low, safe inside
    That formula works if you can live it
    But it works by putting half the world off limits

    [Chorus]
    You can count my ribs
    Wanna know what class I’m in
    Count my
    You can count my ribs, my

    [Verse 3]
    We don’t say, “Go out and be brave”
    Nah, we say “Be careful, stay safe”
    In any given instance, that don’t hurt
    But it sinks in like stilettos in soft earth
    Like the big win is not a day without an incident
    I beg to differ with it
    I think a woman’s worth
    I think that she deserves
    A better line of work
    Than motherf*cking vigilance
    Don’t give me vigilance
    By definition you can’t make a difference
    If the big ambition
    Is simply standing sentry to your innocence
    That’s not a way to live
    That can’t be what a woman is
    That gives her nothing to aspire to
    What that is
    What that is
    Is just a life of running fire drills

    [Outro]
    We’re running fire drills
    We’re running fire drills
    We’re running fire drills
    We’re running fire drills
    We’re running fire drills
    We’re running fire drills

  181. Porter Lansing 2018-12-30 17:47

    Thanks for sharing. Great piece. Is the artist a female, African American?

  182. Porter Lansing 2018-12-30 17:53

    Never mind. I watched the video. Even better when she sings it. ✯✯✯✯✯

Comments are closed.