Press "Enter" to skip to content

SD Right to Life More Interested in Insider Politics Than Fighting Abortion?

When I first reported on Senator Stace Nelson’s (R-19/Fulton) intent to file legislation forcing doctors to perform medically unnecessary sonograms on women seeking abortions, I said we could expect the usual anti-abortion crusaders to leap at the chance to rush another anti-science, anti-woman, big-government bill through the Legislature to the quiveringly eager pen of Governor Kristi Noem.

Silly me.

Pat Powers of Republican establishment spin blog Dakota War College reports that the most prominent anti-choice group in the state, South Dakota Right to Life, opposes Nelson’s Senate Bill 6, the forced-sonogram bill:

South Dakota Right to Life, 2019 SD Legislative Session summary, screen captured 2019.01.21.
South Dakota Right to Life, 2019 SD Legislative Session summary, screen captured 2019.01.21.

(Note to SDRTL: Blue hyperlinks don’t show up on blue background color in your table. For usability, consider changing that alternating row color to my favorite, #F0F0FF.)

There it is, right below the DONATE NOW button, South Dakota Right to Life opposing a “right-to-life” bill. SDRTL offers no explanation of this opposition on its website, other than an oblique promise in exec (not this guy again!) Dale Bartscher’s Week One Legislative recap to “support reasonable legislation that helps protect the ‘right to life’ of all innocent human beings….”

To the good, even Dale Bartscher acknowledges that “right to life” belongs in mock quotes to indicate that’s not really what his crusaders are about. Pat Powers signals that SDRTL is less concerned about the principles behind legislation and more concerned about being able to control and take credit for whatever fetal fetishism becomes law:

On the measure that’s been assigned to Senate Health and Human Services, South Dakota Right to Life has announced that they will OPPOSE Senate Bill 6. Nothing definitive as to why yet, but I suspect no one bothered to ask the state’s leading pro-life group what they thought, and they know up front that the measure is fatally flawed [Pat Powers, “South Dakota Right to Life Set to OPPOSE SB6 Sonogram Measure,” Dakota War College, 2019.01.20].

Come again? If a citizen has an idea to solve what he thinks is a major problem, that citizen has to run that idea by some group of unelected activists for approval? I didn’t see that requirement in the Legislature’s Joint Rules. (But hey, Speaker Haugaard’s pantyhose-and-no-cleavage rule for females in the House isn’t written there, either, so who knows!)

But maybe politics and credit and fundraising (oh yeah, did I mention that DONATE NOW button?) aren’t really at play here. Maybe South Dakota Right to Life really does agree with me that SB 6 is an unnecessary intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Pat Powers seems to share that view, as he mocks SB 6 sponsor Nelson for telling KDLT “that women should be forced to look” at fetal sonograms “because it’s just like him looking at his foot before surgery.”

To be clear, those are Pat’s words, and they are quite apt, because it’s as ridiculous for Senator Nelson to assert that an abortion is anything like his foot surgery as it was last fall for his (male, male, male, I must emphasize) colleague Senator Al Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen) to assert on the radio that he should get to force women to wait to have abortions because he once had to wait to have an operation on his wrist.

Don’t let me stand in the way of good arguments against bad anti-choice bills. Please, Pat, pour it on against Senate Bill 6. Please, Dale and SD Right to Life, tell us more about why government bossing doctors and women around is a bad idea.

And then, remember those arguments when the next anti-choice bill hits the hopper.

Related Blog Note: Pat’s readers don’t know what to make of SDRTL’s opposition to the forced-sonogram bill. Pat posted that news last night, and as of 10 a.m. this morning, his commenters remain in a stunned silence.

10 Comments

  1. Rorschach 2019-01-21 13:01

    2019 is not an election year. The GOP Party and it’s handmaiden SDRTL only put bills like this out when they need to rile up the base to get them out to the polls.

  2. John 2019-01-21 15:04

    Nelson’s bill is an unfunded mandate. Nelson’s government must pay for his advocated sonograms. Geez’ what banana republican hypocrisy.

  3. grudznick 2019-01-21 15:16

    Mr. Nelson usually does not like to increase the costs to people. Except here.

  4. Debbo 2019-01-21 16:22

    What’s the trick? Ror or John, maybe you’re correct. I don’t trust SDRTL to be honest about this. Why would they change now?

  5. Francis Schaffer 2019-01-21 18:25

    So when are right to life’s going to demand men to have sperm tests prior to sexual intercourse?

  6. jerry 2019-01-21 20:50

    I think you’re onto something Mr. Schaffer. These goons see failure in women when they have their periods because that shows they are not preggers. Got to be preggers to fulfill the destiny the goons have set out for the ladies. Same goes for the sonograms, can’t have an abortion because then women would not fulfill the goons outlooks on women’s worthiness. Nelson and the goons have zero regard for women unless they are preggers and they want to preg check all women, all the time. Of course, after the pregnancy, Nelson and the goons are like feral tomcats, they leave without support.

    Something else, nursing homes are closing Nelson. Medicaid is coming with block grants while you and your phonies are doing nothing but wasting our time…and with a raise to boot.

  7. Debbo 2019-01-21 22:11

    Excellent summation Jerry, from first word to last.

  8. Debbo 2019-01-21 22:38

    “Think of what we could achieve as a country if we’d quit fighting over abortion rights — which nearly 60 percent of Americans agree should be legal in all or some cases — and come together to support women and motherhood and catch up to the rest of the world.”

    The author of this opinion piece, Christine Bauer, describes her own decision to abort, release for adoption or raise the child. She also lists the sad statistics that show the US with a rising maternal mortality rate, no paid parental leave and unaffordable child care costs.

    Ms. Bauer closes with this:
    “These statistics are daunting and, when put together, spell out a country that is anything but pro-child and pro-family. It’s time to change the debate from pro-choice vs. pro-life to constructive conversations that will lead to creating and implementing laws and policies that support women who choose to become mothers.”

    https://goo.gl/TfHF8U

  9. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-01-22 07:00

    Francis, as long as it’s SDRTL’s idea, it’ll be fine. But any suggestions from anyone else are not allowed.

    Troy Jones makes the case in the DWC comment section that anti-abortion crusades only work when they are part of an organized campaign all under one roof instead of splinter groups. That does make it easier for the lucky group that corners the campaign market to raise money, hire an executive director and lobbyists….

  10. Francis Schaffer 2019-01-22 13:47

    I must not have the same working definition of ‘Right to Life’. I believe in a living wage, universal health insurance, minimum income, etc. I do not see the current batch of Right to Lifers advocating all of these.

Comments are closed.