Press "Enter" to skip to content

Two House Dems Complicit in Republican Drive to Overturn Roe v. Wade

For the record, South Dakota Republicans remain determined to accomplish what Democrat Billie Sutton voted for at least twice: the complete repeal of Roe v. Wade and an absolute ban on abortion. Keep pinned to your “people to campaign against” wall these comments made by Republicans in House State Affairs last Friday in debate on the amended House Bill 1177, another forced sonogram bill:

Hansen, Haugaard, Qualm, Nelson and Frye-Mueller agreed they want the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision that legaized abortion nationwide.

…”We need to tread very carefully when it comes to passing abortion legislation in our state, and I think many of us, myself included, are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that Roe versus Wade is overturned, and that abortion ends in America. That’s our starting point,” Hansen said.

…Qualm, a farmer, further explained his position to the committee: “Whatever we need to do to get rid of Roe versus Wade is what we need to do, but it needs to be done in a proper way, that it doesn’t invite litigation and we know has a high potential of losing and we end up paying Planned Parenthood for their lawyers’ fees” [Bob Mercer, “S.D. Legislators Want Pregnant Mothers to Have Chance to Hear Heartbeat Before Abortions,” KELO-TV, 2019.02.24].

(KELO-TV offers another false headline here, caving to the conservative Newspeak that cloaks government coercion in language of opportunity. Pregnant mothers already have the chance to hear an amplified electronic representation of their fetuses’ heart murmurs; all they have to do is ask, as they can for any other medical procedure.)

With Republican intent clear, to completely strip women of their reproductive rights and render them second-class citizens and wards of the Haugaard-Puritan patriarchy state, two Democrats go Sutton and play along. Democratic Representatives Ray Ring and Michael Saba joined the patriarchal Republican wave to vote for HB 1177 on the House floor yesterday.

Remember the Republican endgame here: total abortion ban.

And Democrats, remember the Sutton lesson: not only is voting to help Republicans ban abortion immoral policy, but it also won’t get you elected in South Dakota.


  1. Jason 2019-02-26

    It’s not like they are being taxed if they don’t buy health insurance.

    New poll finds “dramatic shift” on abortion attitudes

    By the numbers: The poll found Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47%) as they are pro-choice (47%). Last month, a similar Marist survey found that Americans were more likely to identify as pro-choice than pro-life 55% to 38%, a 17-point gap.

    The survey also found that 80% of Americans support abortion being limited to the first three months of pregnancy, an increase of 5 percentage points since last month’s Marist poll.

  2. jerry 2019-02-26

    Jason is correct, 80% of Americans support abortion rights. Once again, South Dakota legislators support Hanoi Don instead of what the people want.

  3. Dana P 2019-02-26

    Sigh. SD legislators, continually playing doctor and wanting to control women.

    Women die from abortion bans. That’s a weird “pro life” way to look at things.

    Romania- study history (our lawmakers refuse to do that. they only want to make decisions based on “feelings”) Look what happened in Romania when abortion was “banned”. Scary scary stuff

  4. mike from iowa 2019-02-26

    Just take a good close look at what Drumpf and wingnuts did with perfectly legitimate immigrant children and you will, get the gist of their “Platte River” concern for live children forced by illegal religious views to be carried full term and delivered. into a world where caring for them stops the minute they are no longer attached parasites.

  5. bearcreekbat 2019-02-26

    It is distressing that these legislators, and commenters supporting them, don’t seem to understand implications of repealing Roe v. Wade.

    Roe stands for so much more than the mere right to both autonomy and safe medical care in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The foundation of Roe is the right to privacy in making family planning decisions.

    This necessarily includes the constitutional right to decide to continue an existing pregnancy – you know the old saying, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In China, for example, where there no such constitutional protection from governmental interference with a woman’s decision to continue a pregnancy because she and her family want a child, the government has required women to abort any pregnancy deemed contrary to the government’s policies.

    The Roe court held:

    [The] right of privacy, . . . , is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) (emphasis supplied)

    Today, it seems unlikely that politicians would ever require abortions in the U.S., and under Roe they are constitutionally prohibited from doing so. But history, along with our current politics, evidences a more uncertain and potentially forboding future.

    A couple short years ago, for example, it seemed unlikely, nay – almost inconceivable, that our Country would, contrary to the popular vote, elect someone to be President who has been sued successfully multiple times for fraud and breach of contract, filed three bankruptcies, hid his tax returns from the public, made recorded public statements admitting the desire to illegally grope women, faced allegations of sexual abuse from over 20 female accusers, bragged publicly on the record about walking in on naked underage beauty contestants, had no governing experience or history of public service, among other previously disqualifying characteristics, as the President of the United States of America, but it happened. Likewise, it seemed just as unlikely that any Republican congressmen or Senators would support the erosion of congressional power in favor of an expansion of executive power, but it happened. It seemed unlikely that Senators temporarily in the majority would arbitrarily change rules for the selection of a Supreme Court justice to block an existing President’s nominee from even getting a Senate confirmation vote, but it happened.

    Down the road, we may elect politicians who are inclined to think our population in growing too fast, or identify some other reason, whether premised on financial gain, religious inclinations (or lack thereof), or some other spurious reason, that we must limit the number of babies born here. Absent any constitutional limitation to the governmental power to do so, they could easily enact laws requiring mandatory abortion and sterilization of women seeking to have a child.

    See e.g., Buck. v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1940), ruling that

    [Virginia governmental autorities were permited to forcibly sterilize a young woman] in order to prevent the nation from “being swamped with incompetence . . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

    Roe completely undermined this frightening Buck decision. Such a decision by a state is no longer permitted under our Constitution after Roe. A repeal reopens the door to each state to the legislative ability to deny a woman the right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

    The question for these anti-Roe warriors is do you really trust our future elected representatives to make that decision, or are we safer with a constitutional interpretation taking that power out of the hands of our government while we identify safer means to reduce abortions?

  6. Roger Cornelius 2019-02-26

    Brilliantly stated, bear, thank you.
    Your comments remind me of decades long of forced sterilization of Indian women as part of the U.S. genocide campaign. When I first read of the forced sterilizations it was shocking to learn those activities were happening as recently as the 1950’s.

  7. Debbo 2019-02-26

    Cory said, “the Haugaard-Puritan Patriarchy state.”

    Exactly right. That’s what’s going on here. That’s why controlling male sexual activity is not brought up. Patriarchy considers that sacred.

    While there are people who are honestly concerned about the fetus they are only pawns for the patriarchal overlords.

    The patriarchal members of the current deministration are negotiating with Afghanistan’s government and the Taliban about ending US involvement there. The women, who suffer most in that nation, are never mentioned in those talks. It’s quite clear the US contingent does not consider them an important issue.

    The SD Democrats made a similar move when they nominated anti-choice Billie Sutton for governor.

    I will not cease to speak for the freedom of everyone.

  8. Ryan 2019-02-26

    Seems to me that if men and women equally support restrictions on certain behavior, suggesting such restrictions are based on patriarchy diminishes the role and value of the opinions of women. Feels similar to indicating women are merely passive vessels filled with whatever ideology is put in front of them rather than active and intelligent participants in our social makeup. I disagree with that premise.

    I personally disagree with overturning roe, but only half of those who do are males. Plenty of dumb females out there, too.

  9. Antoinette Miller 2019-02-26

    I have to have a word with Saba. What an absolute disgrace. I can guarentee he wouldn’t be in the state house if it wasn’t for me.

  10. John Sweet 2019-02-26

    What’s to be done with the men who cause these pregnancies in the first place? Seems like there should be some price for them to pay?

  11. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-02-26

    Privacy, privacy, privacy. Conservatives who read Bearcreekbat honestly should be all about protecting women’s rights from the invasions made possible by a Roe repeal.

  12. Ryan 2019-02-26

    John, what price do you suggest? To whom should it be paid? Should a man only pay if the mother aborts the fetus, or do you mean all women should be paid when impregnated? How about if there’s a miscarriage? I have many more questions but there’s a start.

  13. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-02-26

    Ryan, the fact that patriarchy has female supporters does not change the fact that it’s patriarchy, benefiting men and oppressing women.

    I don’t want to presume to speak for John Sweet, but his question could suggest that the problem is that, just as the state cannot fairly exact a price on those men, the state (still run mostly by men) has no business exacting any such price in autonomy on women, because exacting those prices requires far too much state intrusion on private matters.

    Privacy, privacy, privacy, equally for men and women. If a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term or if she’d rather not, that’s her call, not mine, not yours, and not ours through the force of the state.

  14. Debbo 2019-02-26

    Cory, your last paragraph perfectly sums up what women and some men are fighting for. Thank you.

  15. Ryan 2019-02-26

    Cory, I agree it should be the host’s decision whether to allow the life she caused to exist to continue or to snuff it out.

    However, I disagree that men benefit from an abortion ban. If anything, I would guess that millions of these would-be fathers were relieved of expensive child support when their offspring were aborted, and actually “benefit” from more abortions since an overwhelming majority of aborting women aren’t married and thus child support is applicable.

    With equal opportunity to run for office and vote, women are just as responsible for the current makeup of our local and national governments as men. Apparently patriarchy is the will of the people, irrespective of the gender of voters. Weird. Probably because of religion. Terrible stuff, religion. Too many religions put men on pedestals, and too many women allow their religion to put them in very disadvantageous positions politically.

  16. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-02-26

    Ryan’s last sentence is noteworthy. No worldview that puts men above women, that denies half of the species its full dignity, is a properly functioning worldview.

    I am willing to argue that the arguable cost of increased child support is outweighed by the relative gain men experience by shoving women into a status where they do not enjoy full privacy rights and can be treated as second-class citizens or wards of the state if impregnated.

  17. Roger Cornelius 2019-02-26

    Host’s? What is a host?

  18. bearcreekbat 2019-02-27

    Just to clarify, the law imposes a duty to support a child on both parents, whether married or not. Any financial benefit from avoiding the obligation to pay child support would accrue to both men and women, whether married or not.

    Thus avoiding child support does not seem to be a factor contradicting Cory’s proposition that a patriarchy confers greater benefits on men than women.

  19. leslie 2019-02-27

    MESSEGING IN A LITTLE RED STATE (do we want dems running on platforms contrary to those of the Democratic Party that we volunteer for?)

    Guns (Dems coming to take them, oh my?)

    Abortion (killing babies)

    Health Care (SOCIALISM! omg)

    SD PUC (consumer protection, instead of economic development)

    Climate Change-denial

    Voting rights



    Public resources rather than wealth maximization, corporatization and privatization

    Qualified accountable public servants

    Public Education (pre-K through 16)

  20. Ryan 2019-02-27

    As I used it, a host is an animal on which a commensal organism lives.

    Most men support equality, so I disagree that we as a gender enjoy the oppression of women any more than women enjoy being oppressed. Some men and some women believe men to be superior. Those are the wackos, and they don’t represent their respective gender’s general positions.

    Yes, bcb, children are expensive for both parents, but I dont think that means men benefit from banning abortion more than women. At the least it’s equal, but let’s be real. A lot of deadbeat dads pay no child support anyway, so whether abortion is legal or not impacts would-be mothers much more than would be fathers.

  21. mike from iowa 2019-02-27

    Edited videos are back in vogue with right wing nut jobs.

    This one has Laura Ingraham'[s knickers in a twist even though you can hear the video producer coaching the oman on what to say and how to say it for best effect.

    Wingnuts cannot win anything without cheating! Do not ever forget that!

  22. bearcreekbat 2019-02-27

    Ryan, I don’t recall either Cory or me saying “men benefit from banning abortion more than women” due to financial considerations. I won’t try to identify the specific advantages to men that Cory believes inform his viewpoint, as he is in a better position than I am on that matter (Cory might even think think there are direct financial advantages for men even though I do not).

    From my perspective it seems a patriarchy, by definition, means men hold the power to make rules governing women’s reproductive conduct, which necessarily limits a woman’s free agency to decide for herself how to use her own body. Of course, such rules also limit a man’s free agency to support or oppose a woman’s pregnancy, but it has no effect on his free agency to decide how to use his own body. Any advantage in these reproductive matters necesarily goes to the rulemaker, as the rulemaker is the only entity that has the power to modify these rules.

    Your argument about deadbeat dads still seems to fall short. If a deadbeat dad refuses to pay child support in the case of a child that was not aborted, then legalized abortion apparently did not make that deadbeat dad any better off.

  23. Ryan 2019-02-27

    bcb, from your perspective, then, the male gender somehow has power the female gender doesn’t. I disagree with that. Men and women equally voted wackos into office who want to restrict abortion rights. Men and women are more or less equal in the division between the poorly labeled categories of “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

    I was suggesting that if patriarchy exists when men and women are equally able to vote and run run for office, the patriarchy is the result of such voting and running for office. If some of the resulting legislation includes abortion restrictions, I think it is fair to suggest that those restrictions “benefit” men and women equally, because just as many men want abortion to be freely and easily available as women. Most of the male commenters on this blog want that, so how is this patriarchy benefiting them just because they happen to be males when the patriarchy is actively seeking to pass laws that these men oppose?

    If there are laws that give men more rights than women, those laws should be changed. However, there is no analogy for abortion restrictions that are applicable to men because there is nothing that is “almost like” the growth, death, or birth of a fetus. Abortion is not “sexual activity.” Abortion restrictions are not restrictions on sexual behavior, as is sometimes suggested. Abortion restrictions apply uniquely to women because women are able to become pregnant and men are not. The people who benefit from patriarchy, or from abortion restrictions, are the people who agree with what the “rulemakers” want to do – but those people are made up equally of men and women.

  24. Debbo 2019-02-27

    BCB said, “patriarchy, by definition, means men hold the power to make rules governing women’s reproductive conduct, which necessarily limits a woman’s free agency to decide for herself how to use her own body.”

    This is exactly the point, and violates the standard of equality which is purported to be the foundation of the USA. That’s also the point women are making. I see 2 options:

    1. Placing control on women’s reproduction requires placing control on men’s reproduction.
    2. If there are no controls on men’s reproduction, there can be no controls on women’s reproduction.

    I prefer the second option, that short of criminal acts, there be no government controls on adult reproduction. It would be best if individuals possessed a moral character that led them to make wise decisions in that regard, but of course, that’s not the case. That’s when government can use its influence to encourage wise decisions through tax law, free birth control and various programs involving pre- and post-natal care, child care, etc.

    When government programs exclusively target women’s reproduction while deliberately neglecting or even ending some of those helpful programs, but never even considering any limitations on male reproduction . . . . .

    When it walks, talks and squawks like patriarchy, that’s exactly what it is.

  25. bearcreekbat 2019-02-27

    Ryan, our positions seem to have diverged on each of our understandings of exactly what a “patriarchy” means. When you state that you disagree with the proposition that “the male gender somehow has power the female gender doesn’t,” I interpret that disagreement as indicating no patriarchy exists. I previously premised my argument on the assumption we agreed that there was a patriarchy and that this meant that society’s decisions about rules governing only women’s behavior ultimately remained in the hands of the male patriarch or pariarchal males who held that control.

    I don’t see how it is possible that a “patriarchy exists” in the circumstances where “men and women are equally able to vote and run for office,” unless a a male holds power to reject the decisions of the voters and arbitrarily implement contrary rules (sort of like Trump’s declaration of a faux “national emergency” to sidestep the votes of Congress).

    This suggests to me that your objection to Cory’s “patriarchy” comment would be more accurately directed to the contention that in the US there is no patriarchy, rather than the notion that one gender fairs better or worse in abortion policy under patriarchal rule.

    That said, even assuming there is no patriarchy here, I would still contend that based upon retaining the free agency to decide his own personal bodily intregity in reproductive decisions, a male still has it much better than a female when abortion is prohibited, and is no worse off when abortion is permitted. Hence, it generally seems objectively advantagous to be a male in those circumstances in which the powers that be, whether patriarchal or democratic, restrict abortion rights.

    That could quickly change with a repeal of Roe’s holding. Repeal would permit the state to require mandatory steralization, circumcison, casteration, and like invasions of male bodily integrity. That would go a long way toward equalizing the cost to men and women of permitting the state, whether patriarchal, matriarchal, facist, or democratic, of controling it’s populations’ reproductive organs.

  26. bearcreekbat 2019-02-27

    And I can certainly understand Debbo’s argument that it sure looks alot like a “patriarchy,” when a society adopts rules disadvantaging only one sex, namely a female’s bodily autonomy in reproductive matters.

    It is kind of like the game child experts advocate to control children. When a child doesn’t want to go to bed, simply ask “do you want to go to bed now, or in anoither 15 mnutes?” The child naturally responds in 15 minutes. While the child gets to make the decision about when to go to bed, the reality is that decision has already been made for him.

  27. Ryan 2019-02-27

    No, I’m not saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist – it might. But I’m saying if it does, it is equally due to the votes of women and men in electing males and allowing males to “write the rules.”

    I can’t stress this enough because everyone keeps ignoring it: there is no male analogy for pregnancy. There is no restriction you can put on a man’s body that is similar to abortion restrictions because men cannot become pregnant. If men could host life, their ability to end that life would be restricted identically to a woman’s ability to do so.

    If somebody tried to pass a law that criminalized promiscuous behavior by women but not men, that would be wrong. If somebody tried to pass a law that restricted a woman’s right to have her tubes tied and that law didn’t apply to men wanting to have a vasectomy, that would be wrong. However, when men and women across the country equally want to restrict access to abortions, it is not “the patriarchy” unfairly attacking one gender, it is the voice of society correctly and appropriately focusing the restrictions on the only scientifically possible hosts of life.

    And to be clear, I support freely available and unrestricted access to abortions, but the “men are oppressing women” argument that comes from the abortion restriction conversation is baloney. Most women never seek to have abortions, so “women” aren’t the target. Most men don’t want to ban abortions, so “men” aren’t the oppressors. The oppressors are men and women, and the target is pregnant women seeking abortions. Playing fast and loose with labeling the “oppressors” and “victims” according only to gender is dangerous and not productive. It only leads to further divide us on gender lines, and I for one think that is the opposite of progress.

  28. Porter Lansing 2019-02-27

    Patriarchy is a remnant of when women couldn’t even vote, own property, get a job and keep their own money or determine how many kids the patriarch wanted them to have. Enough time hasn’t passed for women to gain equality by voting. Assuming equality in a patriarchy is simply ignored male privilege and severe head up your butt syndrome.

  29. Ryan 2019-02-27

    “Enough time hasn’t passed for women to gain equality by voting.” says porter.

    Wrong. The only laws that can be gender neutral that aren’t are laws favoring women, such as exemption from selective service, and that puppy is about to change soon, too.

    Equality in outcome and equality in opportunity are not the same, and pretending they are to claim victimhood for a certain population is word game pandering.

  30. Porter Lansing 2019-02-27

    I’m right in my assertion, ryan. You disregard the discrimination against women by the patriarchy, which slowed the quest for equality immensely.
    You disregard the white male discrimination for all American minorities. It’s a fault of yours. Stop it. The playing field of equity and equality has always been tipped to favor white males by white males, themselves.

  31. Debbo 2019-02-27

    Good points Porter.

    I was thinking about patriarchy/white male privilege in regard to sports. The Minnesota Gophers women’s hockey team has been extremely successful in the 21st century– NCAA national championships, consistent winning records, numerous Big 10 titles. Last Sunday’s Minneapolis Strib had articles about the women’s team and the men’s team on the same page. The women had just beaten Wisconsin to take the league title. The men were struggling to stay above .500. Guess which article was at the top of the page and twice as many column inches. Yup.

    Then I thought about women’s NCAA Division I basketball. There may be more male coaches than women, I’m not sure. As far as women coaching men’s teams? Zero. In the WNBA there are several male head coaches. In the NBA there are no women head coaches. I think about 75% of the players in the NBA are black. Are there a couple black head coaches?

    Moving on to pro women’s softball– Yes, there is a league, mostly east of the Mississippi River. There are males managing some teams. There are no women managing MLB teams.

    BTW, NFL players are overwhelmingly black. Head coaches? Not so much.

    Ah, but there’s really not much point in this, is there Porter? Reasonable people already know about white male privilege and the patriarchal system. Those that choose to deny it will continue to do so because that is their preference for strange reasons unknown.

  32. Porter Lansing 2019-02-27

    Strange reasons unknown.

  33. Ryan 2019-02-28

    I was thinking lately about blue collar jobs. 99.9% of coal and oil workers are males. 99.9% of bricklayers are males. Most jobs that can cost a person life or limb are dominated by men by crazy high percentages. Big friggin deal. Where is the call for gender quotas or “equality” on jobs with zero glory or power? Cherry picking equality is very convenient these days.

    Men dominate sports because men are more interested in sports at a high level. I don’t know if it is just biology and testosterone or different internal competitive drives or what. Of course, it isn’t universal – some men could not care less about sports and some women are fanatical about it, but those are the outliers. Might as well ask why all the lingerie models are females. Hmmmm. I just can’t figure it out!

  34. Porter Lansing 2019-02-28

    ryan … You “cherry pick” your analysis. If you allowed your big brain to analyze options you don’t agree with, you’d develop a more balanced intellect.

  35. mike from iowa 2019-02-28

    Fact of the matter is, snot nosed boys do not want to compete with and be shown up by icky girls in any athletic endeavor where the rules are equal for both.

    Patriarchy at work and has been since the world began.

  36. Ryan 2019-02-28

    There are only a few people who post on this blog that really are balanced, and you are not one of them, porter. You are a radical liberal who refuses to admit any conservative idea is practical or helpful, and you refuse to see that all the problems of the world are created by diverse and myriad variables. You seem to think everything is a result of privilege or racism or misogyny or whatever other catchy word you heard most recently that assigns a scapegoat for you to blame for your troubles.

    When you can see the gray area in an issue, and when you understand nuance, feel free to talk about balance. Until then, just keep repeating the “ideas” that were fed to you by your radical liberal heroes on your social media.

  37. Ryan 2019-02-28

    mike, that article you linked to doesn’t say or allude to what you just said at all.

    Let’s just get this on the table so I know if you are serious: do you think that in general, females would best males in a majority or sporting events if they competed directly against each other with rules that apply equally to both genders? Regardless of the amount of snot on somebody’s nose, of course.

  38. jerry 2019-02-28

    Ryan proves again and again the real reasons women have abortions, his and the republican policy stink ideas. Have contraception made easily available, have an economy that would allow the raising of children outside of poverty, and get the hell out of our bedrooms.

  39. Porter Lansing 2019-02-28

    Thanks, ryan. I’ve now a proper epitaph.
    I was a radical liberal who refused to submit to any conservative idea that wasn’t practical or helpful. I observed that many of the problems of the world are solved by diverse and myriad variables. I thought most inequities were a result of privilege or racism or misogyny or whatever other word I heard most recently that depicted a white bigot.

  40. mike from iowa 2019-02-28

    All it takes for an eleven year old rape victim to undergo a C-Section is for good people to stand around with a finger up their nose until the abortion deadline is past.
    \n eleven year old rape victim forced to undergo c-section because……………….

  41. mike from iowa 2019-02-28

    I can hear the crying now, she cheated. She swam faster because she was able to store air in her hoo-haw. Her sweater puppies give her better bouyancy.

    I had to run behind her to appreciate her taught, lithe bums jiggling as she ran. I can’t pole vault as high because she has better aero -dynamics and weighs less.

  42. Ryan 2019-02-28

    jerry, I am not a republican and I support absolute privacy regarding bedroom behavior. I support freely available and easily accessible contraception and abortions. You may continue to ignore my actual words and assign to me the beliefs that you would like, if it makes you feel good.

    porter, you must have googled the word bigot lately, since you thought a week ago that it meant “liar.” I am teaching you, after all. As for what you want on your tombstone, I could not care less.

    mike, rape is one of the most terrible things humans do to each other, and rape that results in pregnancy is something so sad and deplorable, I can’t even fathom how it would impact a person. I don’t believe in karma and I don’t believe in hell, but sometimes I wish I did.

  43. Ryan 2019-02-28

    mike, your comment about males reacting to potential defeat in sport makes apparent your sexism and willingness to make up gender battles that don’t exist. Attitudes like that further the gender divide, just like the attitudes of other folks on here who pit men against women at every opportunity.

  44. Porter Lansing 2019-02-28

    ryan used the words I, me and mine twelve times in one post. Enough said.

  45. Ryan 2019-02-28

    What’s funny is even your attempt at some clever insult borrows an unclever premise somebody else used not very long ago trying to reduce the impact of my comments. You remember that, don’t you? Of course you do. You counting my words says a lot more about you than me.

    But this isn’t about you or me, porter. When you want to discuss the merits of the conversation, pipe back up. If you just want to talk about yourself and about me, do that all by yourself in the shower while you pat yourself on the back for all the great things you think and say that aren’t your original thoughts or words.

  46. Debbo 2019-03-13

    Sensenbrenner said, “Non-Native domestic abusers’ constitutional rights might not be upheld if they harm a Native woman on tribal land and have to go before a tribal court.”

    He’s apparently worried that whites will be treated like they treat Indians in state courts. Racist scum like him deserve it, but he’s probably wrong. Those privileged white boys just love beating up women, children and POC, in any order.

    Good find Mike.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *