Press "Enter" to skip to content

Governor Noem Continues Radical Campaign Against Women’s Rights by Signing Five Anti-Abortion Bills

Republicans keep chipping away at women’s autonomy. Stating her Talibanican Party’s goal of eliminating abortion rights completely, Governor Kristi Noem yesterday signed five more laws intended to undermine Roe v. Wade and women’s equal citizenship.

Senate Bill 72 was Noem’s sneak attack on abortion rights. SB 72 further complicates the work of abortion providers by empowering the state to dictate the exact format and wording of the medically malpractical propaganda sheet the state requires doctors to give to women seeking abortions.

House Bill 1177 forces doctors to offer women seeking abortions medically unnecessary sonograms and artificially amplified audio of fetal heart murmurs.

HB 1055 complicates the process for doctors to decide whether a minor patient facing life-limiting illness can be resuscitated. In the Republican Handmaid’s Tale world, this bill’s requirement that both parents be contacted and such contacted be “contemporaneously documented” is really an effort to sabotage abortions, requiring doctors to somehow track down biological fathers and document those efforts before taking the action that medical best practice and the mother’s rights recommend.

HB 1190 mostly plays with language, replacing “females” with “pregnant mothers” in an abortion-reporting statute. This unnecessary language change serves no practical purpose; it mostly facilitates the stigmatizing efforts of the Republican absolutists.

HB 1193 makes it a Class B felony to murder, assault, or kidnap a pregnant mother or to commit such crime against “any other person within the pregnant mother’s presence with the intent to cause the pregnant mother to undergo an abortion against her will.” Again, unnecessary, as murder, assault, and kidnapping are already crimes; Republicans are just ratcheting up the language of fetal worship and fetal personhood to give the overreaching state more ways to threaten doctors who provide the abortions to which women have a fundamental right with prosecution.

We can only wish that, instead of passing lots of unnecessary, misogynist laws, these legislators and Governor Noem would act on their urge to play doctor by quitting politics and going to med school. Oh, but wait: in med school, you have to actually know what you’re talking about.


  1. mike from iowa 2019-03-21 07:37

    At some point in time, even unqualified wingnut political ideologue judges will learn to identify undue burdens and put a cap on this non sense……..maybe.

  2. denson 2019-03-21 08:43

    It’s time to demand the abortion foes ratchet up pressure on MALES not females, and to promote effective birth control. Instead they ignore the responsibility of the sperm donor and spew their wrath on pregnant females. They lobby to eliminate proven-effective family planning, except if provided by religious conservative right wing ‘pregnancy crisis centers’. The (80% male) South Dakota state legislatures write and pass these loony laws. What else do you expect when we keep re-electing them and give them a huge raise with benefits to reward them?

  3. happy camper 2019-03-21 08:59

    Like most things there’s a lot of room for compromise. It’s not like abortion is a joyous occasion. As a fetus matures it’s only natural to become less certain: “Gallup finds that 60 percent of Americans believe abortion generally should be legal during the first three months of pregnancy, known as the first trimester. That support drops by more than half, to 28 percent, once a pregnancy reaches the second trimester; it falls to 13 percent in the third trimester, at which point the fetus is often viable with medical support.”

    NPR explains the nuance:

    PEW says “As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling.”:

  4. jerry 2019-03-21 09:01

    There are more men than women in South Dakota. So that means that the men rule their dominance over the ladies. South Dakota men knew from her experience, that she could be pliable to their needs of controlling her gender and putting them down. There were a few exceptions (me for one), but by and large, misogyny rules in South Dakota.

    Wonder who Ravonsborg will send to Washington to defend this latest stupid? Would be fun to see this putz in a courtroom showing South Dakota skills, but you just know he would likely commission Jackley as that burr head knows the way.

  5. happy camper 2019-03-21 09:21

    If a woman takes the offer, hears the heartbeat and realizes her actions have deep consequences which lead to a change in her behavior, then it became a teachable moment, so isn’t that a good thing? Even if you believe in abortion, I doubt you want to see it happen except when necessary. New life was started everyone should respect that.

  6. jerry 2019-03-21 09:28

    The United States ranks 31st in the care of mom rankings. We are third world with the most expensive healthcare.

    “Finland is the best country to be a mother, according to Save the Children’s 15th annual ranking released Monday, while Somalia comes in last. The United States hovers at 31 — about the same as last year — but is seeing an increase in maternal deaths, according to this study and others.

    Known as the Mothers’ Index, Save the Children’s report ranks the well-being of mothers and children in 178 countries — 46 developed nations and 132 developing countries — based on health, nutrition, education and economic and political status.”

    We are also increasing those maternal deaths due to inadequate services and simply not giving a damn. It would be one thing for GNoem to write all of this hooey about abortion and then expand Medicaid and services to help mothers. Instead, she gives a death sentence to women. GNoem will have more blood on her hands and for what?

  7. happy camper 2019-03-21 09:43

    Noems motives should be questioned is she just playing to her supporters or does she really feel this way? It seemed strange a woman would take this position but the PEW poll showed men and women feel similarly: “60% of women say it should be legal in all or most cases, as do 57% of men.” So Noem may be sincere and simply a product of South Dakota values which often don’t make no sense and are contrary to one another although that’s also the human condition which is why these things should be questioned and discussed.

  8. mike from iowa 2019-03-21 09:54

    Wingnuts could give a &&&&about a fetus after it is born, but they don’t. Their past and present attempts to destroy public schools, take away food stamps, heat assistance, medical care from the least among us prove they don’t care.,

    They are encouraged by the vast numbers of unqualified ideologue witless wingnut appointments to life time judge ships to ensure no burden on a woman’s right to choose is an undue burden. Any appeals decisions will likely be heard by Drumpf appointed nincompoops at the appeals level and Spotus.

  9. TAG 2019-03-21 10:49

    All of this culture-war nonsense needs to take a back seat to more substantive issues IMO. It’s just a “shiny object” distraction for conservatives, and bait for liberals.

    I’d rather our governor and legislature spend some time on solving the more difficult, but more real issues. Like expanding markets and opportunities for our industries, finding real solutions to our labor shortages, low wages, health care affordability, aging infrastructure public safety and polluted surface waters. But that’s just me.

  10. mike from iowa 2019-03-21 11:19

    As TAG suggests, has the queen bee attempted to find more customers for South Dakota grown agriculture products?” That seems like the appropriate first step for any ag state guv to take. Unless she is in full 20230 campaign mode like Drumpf and is shoring up her base first. Lord what rock do these wingnuts crawl out from under?

  11. Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices 2019-03-21 11:29

    Yes, Happy Camper, Noem is a true SoDakian, who wants to stop the surge of people threatening to murder other people or kidnap an expectant mother unless that woman or another consents to an abortion. (HB1193)

  12. bearcreekbat 2019-03-21 11:34

    If HB 1190 replaces “females” with “pregnant mothers,” then doesn’t that mean the statute will only apply to, those pregnant women who have already given birth to one child? A pregnant woman who has never given birth is normally not yet labeled a “mother.”

    And hap’s comment that “Even if you believe in abortion,” seems odd. Is there anyone today that doesn’t believe abortion exists? Maybe what hap meant was,

    “even those who believe women deciding to terminate a pregnancy deserve safe health care,”

    or perhaps

    “even those who believe that a woman should have a protected legal right to decide who or what can use her body,”

    or possibly that

    “even those who believe a government has no legitimate interest in taking away an individual’s autonomy to in family planning and reproduction matters?”

    But even those folks who believe that women should be denied safe health care, bodily autonomy, and/or that the State should have the power to veto personal family planning decisions, premise those views on the belief that abortion is a factual reality.

    I will agree, however, that hap’s comment,

    “South Dakota values . . . often don’t make no sense (sic) and are contrary to one another,”

    unfortunately seems to be an accurate statement regarding many public policy matters these days.

    Channeling our pro-government anti-choice hero, DJT – it must be McCain’s fault, ami right?

  13. jerry 2019-03-21 11:46

    Meanwhile, as the governor and her incompetent republican legislature conspire. We have the reality of this, they don’t give a damn about children…imagine that…

    “The 2018 Kids Count Data Book, published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation out of Baltimore and ranking 2016 data, ranked the Rushmore State as 45th in “health.” Categories included “low birth-weight babies,” “children without health insurance,” and “teens who abuse alcohol or drugs.” On each, South Dakota came in right around or below the national average.
    However, on the fourth category — “child and teen deaths per 100,000” — South Dakota ranked last. Whereas nationally 26 children per 100,000 will die annually, 47 South Dakota children will die per 100,000. This is up from in 2010, which revealed a mortality rate of 39 per 100,000 in the state. August 5, 2018 Rapid City Journal

  14. happy camper 2019-03-21 12:29

    What bugs me the left is afraid to concede it is much more than a clinical procedure to get rid of waste matter it is a woman’s right to chose but it should be solemnly considered it ain’t blowin your nose. Each side would do well to admit the other makes some important points rather than demonize you should try humanize each other. You are the same species.

  15. Dicta 2019-03-21 12:43

    I would like to see abortion end as a practice with a few exceptions, but not until after we open access to contraceptives and increase financial support for poor expecting mothers. Tellingly, the state government continues to ignore that.

  16. Jason 2019-03-21 12:46

    moth·er 1 (mŭth′ər)
    a. A woman who gives birth to a child.
    b. A woman whose egg unites with a sperm, producing an embryo.
    c. A woman who adopts a child.
    d. A woman who raises a child.
    2. A female parent of an animal.
    3. A female ancestor.
    4. A woman who holds a position of authority or responsibility similar to that of a mother: a den mother.
    5. Roman Catholic Church
    a. A mother superior.
    b. Used as a form of address for such a woman.
    6. A woman who creates, originates, or founds something: “the discovery of radium, which made Marie Curie mother to the Atomic Age” (Alden Whitman).
    7. A creative source; an origin: Philosophy is the mother of the sciences.
    8. Used as a title for a woman respected for her wisdom and age.
    9. Maternal love and tenderness: brought out the mother in her.
    10. The biggest or most significant example of its kind: the mother of all battles.
    11. Vulgar Slang Something considered extraordinary, as in disagreeableness, size, or intensity.
    1. Relating to or being a mother.
    2. Characteristic of a mother: mother love.
    3. Being the source or origin: the mother church.
    4. Derived from or as if from one’s mother; native: one’s mother language.
    v. moth·ered, moth·er·ing, moth·ers
    a. To give birth to: mothered three children.
    b. To be the source of; create or produce: “Necessity mothered the invention of printing” (Irving Wallace).
    2. To act as mother to, as in nourishing and protecting.
    To act or serve as a mother.

  17. jerry 2019-03-21 13:04

    Dead Mother’s, South Dakota pride. South Dakota is shamefully higher in the deaths of mothers as shown in the statistics compared with the rest of the nation. Medicaid Expansion, along with social services instead of draconian abortion law.


  18. bearcreekbat 2019-03-21 13:07

    Again, I would have to disagree with hap’s suggestion that,

    the left is afraid to concede it is much more than a clinical procedure to get rid of waste matter. . . .

    I don’t know what “left” hap is reading or talking to but the “left” that I am familiar with has never made such a claim.

    Instead, the “left” I have read and am familiar with repeatedly states that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and safe medical procedures is vastly more important than any interest the State might claim to justify denying or restricting these rights. Just as this “left,” like most folks, believes the State’s interest in subjecting a woman’s autonomy to benefit other humans by legalizing rape to please men or grow babies, sterilize women and men or require abortions to protect living people from overpopulation, or allowing slavery to proivide needed services to people unable or unwilling to care for themselves, this “left” doesn’t agree with the State taking steps that limit a woman’s autonomy to protect of advance fetal development.

    This is also a basis for that same left’s assertion that freedom from governmental control in deciding whether and when to procreate is an important aspect of the right to privacy worth defending.

    None of these concepts has anything to do with catagorizing, labeling, or deeming abortion to be a mere “clinical procedure,” or “get[ting] rid of waste.”

  19. o 2019-03-21 13:12

    As important as legislative chipping away is important, they must all fall within the constitutional fence established by Roe. What concerns me is the erosion of the Supreme Court judges who would see women’s constitutional issues in the same light as the Roe court. That is the ballgame. Plenty of “pro-life” voters held their noses to the atrocity that is Trump and single-issue voted to get a seat or two appointed on the Supreme Court for anti-Roe judges.

    Once the tipping point happens, and the Supreme Court becomes unsupportive of Roe, I can only shudder at what other rights for women, minorities, labor, immigrants, environment, public safety, . . . will fall as well.

  20. jerry 2019-03-21 14:09

    Pro Lifers have two different meanings. One of these meanings is Pro life imprisonment for the murder of their significant others. That could be a girl friend or a wife, dead is dead.

    “A pregnant teacher who was found in a shallow grave in Damascus, Maryland, allegedly shot and killed by her longtime boyfriend has shined new light on a grim statistic: Homicide is one of the top causes of death for pregnant women.

    A study by the Centers for Disease Control found that among injury related deaths, only car accidents were a more common cause of death for pregnant women.

    Research shows women are not necessarily more likely to experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner during pregnancy; most pregnant women who experience violence have been abused before. But violence against pregnant women is more likely to be frequent and severe in nature.”

    The prison factories in South Dakota must need new blood to turn a profit. We need more killers to populate the prison system. Good thing GNoem got that gun thingy passed, it makes murder so much more easier.

  21. Kurt Evans 2019-03-21 14:17

    As an advocate for both the right to life and the right to liberty, it troubles me to be accused of trying to deprive women of liberty. My goal is to protect the life and liberty of the child.

    But Governor Noem doesn’t just want to prevent the men and women of South Dakota from having our children aborted. She wants to prevent us from planting crops she doesn’t like on our own land. From my perspective, that tends to validate the left’s “control freak” criticisms and undermine pro-life credibility, which ultimately leads to more dead children.

    With that said, abortion kills mostly females. There’s less liberty to exercise women’s rights when there are tens of millions fewer women to exercise them because they were murdered in their mothers’ wombs.

  22. bearcreekbat 2019-03-21 15:26

    While women who have legal access to medical help in terminating pregnancies are relatively safe, Kurt makes an excellent point in the correct circumstances:

    [illegal] abortion kills mostly females

    Here are some stats from countries where abortion is illegal. Whether men are killed for assisting a woman in obtaining an abortion is not discussed, but the fate of many females is tragic.

    . . . those who do die from abortion-related causes in the country [Argentina where abortion is illegal] fall into roughly three categories . . . . First, some doctors refuse to treat pregnant women with chemotherapy or other potent medications because they are worried they might harm the fetus. Second, some doctors allow ectopic pregnancies—in which a fertilized egg grows outside the womb and can’t survive to birth—to continue until the woman’s fallopian tube explodes, because they fear that eggs in even ectopic pregnancies will be considered living beings under the law. In the third category are teenage girls who kill themselves because they are distraught over their pregnancies. These teenage deaths account for three-eighths of all maternal deaths in El Salvador. . . . .

    . . .

    . . . In Brazil, where abortion is also illegal, it’s estimated that 250,000 women are hospitalized from complications from abortions, and about 200 women a year die from the complications. . . .

    . . . the 200 deaths might be an undercount, since families often won’t admit that a woman has died from an abortion. The deaths, she says, are “a reduction from 20 years ago, but at the same time, I’m not confident that we have good data. What I know is that women put their lives at risk buying medicine on the clandestine market, not knowing how to use it, and going to a hospital because of complications.”

  23. Loren 2019-03-21 15:52

    What would the legislative session be without a GOP tour thru our bedrooms and bathrooms?

  24. Debbo 2019-03-21 15:52

    What was said by denson, BCB and O.

    I am so sick and tired of GOP misogyny.

  25. mike from iowa 2019-03-21 16:24

    Second, some doctors allow ectopic pregnancies—in which a fertilized egg grows outside the womb and can’t survive to birth—to continue until the woman’s fallopian tube explodes, because they fear that eggs in even ectopic pregnancies will be considered living beings under the law.

    This is what having religious pols get you. Religion has zero place in government – any government of any country.

  26. leslie 2019-03-21 17:25

    Kristi is a loyal foot-soldier doing trumps distraction defense in the state. Trump has lost in federal courts 63 times since illegally taking office. He wins 6% of the time. The federal government normally wins 70%. Mother jones 3.20.19

  27. Across the aisle 2019-03-21 18:37

    Leslie, how did Trump “illegally” take office?

  28. happy camper 2019-03-21 19:15

    This should always be an ongoing debate because it is about life. Anyone who thinks they hold the indisputable last word are just being arrogant (and ignorant). Science, culture, health care in various countries (if you want to broaden where it takes place) all keep changing. Nothing sits still your opinions whether you realize it or not are dynamic.

  29. Donald Pay 2019-03-21 21:01

    I agree with what happy camper said above at 19:15. I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I’ve changed positions on this question from pro-choice to pro-life to now being both, but coming out slightly on the pro-choice side. And it’s because of what happy said. “Nothing sits still.”

    There should be an ongoing discussion, because there are profound issues involved. It isn’t “just tissue” one is aborting. What there shouldn’t be is legislated efforts to close off the discussion on either side. After lots of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Roe v Wade was a pretty preceptive compromise. It tilts towards choice of the woman early on in a pregnancy and toward life of the fetus later on in a pregnancy. My pro-life side is queasy about that early period because I think about how much I loved my daughter from the time she was conceived. My pro-choice side is queasy because that same daughter thinks she is fully capable of weighing all these issues for herself and making a decision that is right for her.

  30. MaryD 2019-03-22 00:04

    So everyone believes getting rid of the law gets rid of abortion? It doesn’t. If a woman wants an abortion or needs an abortion she is going to get it one way or the other. It drives abortion into back alleys for poor women and unclean and unsanitary facilities. For women living in South Dakota and find it necessary to have an abortion and have the means, they will just drive up to Winnipeg to a medical facility. Our SD abortion law has been voted on twice and still is on the books. The majority believes there should be such a law because of the 12-year-old who gets pregnant because of incest or the cheerleader gets raped by the football team or women who are the victim of rape. I wonder how many would be cheering to end abortion if this were their child. I also wonder how many farmers voted for Noem/R because of this issue and now can’t plant Industrial Hemp. Which is more important now to these one issue voters.

  31. Debbo 2019-03-22 00:09

    Anyone who practices animal husbandry knows how to prevent abortions. Lock up the bull.

  32. Adam 2019-03-22 00:36

    Country people and abortion remind me of a dog barking at bird flying by – dog can’t stop the bird from flying or catch the bird, at all, but it barks over and over again and tells itself, “I scared the bird away and defended home from intruder” (even though no dog has ever seen a flying bird ‘intrude’ upon its home).

    In essence, dogs are just stupid animals, much like most country people.

  33. bearcreekbat 2019-03-22 11:29

    Happy and Donald, your perspective “that this is about life” deserves full and fair consideration. I have identified 3 main reasons for supporting choice:

    (1) women deciding to terminate a pregnancy deserve safe health care;

    (2) a woman should have a protected legal right to decide who or what can use her body;


    (3) a government has no legitimate interest in taking away an individual’s autonomy in family planning and reproduction matters.

    hap argues, and Donald agrees, that

    This should always be an ongoing debate because it is about life . . . Science, culture, health care in various countries (if you want to broaden where it takes place) all keep changing.

    What new changes in science, culture and/or health care could you imagine that might justify rejecting each of the above three reasons for supporting a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy?

    Or to put it another way, what change might justify using the power of the law to force a woman to carry an unwanted entity, from zygote to fetus, in her body?

    I am open to considering all new facts and developments, yet have a difficult time conceiving (pun intended) that advances in either science or medicine would justify eliminating a woman’s right to bodily integrity decisions.

    And the only cultural changes I can imagine would be changing the law to subject women to the state’s decision about whether or not she reproduces, and that seems to be what the current debate is all about, hence that wouldn’t seem to qualify as the type of cultural change that hap references.

    So help us all out, what changes in science, culture and/or health care can you imagine that would or should cause a reconsideration of the three reasons I have posited for continued support of a woman’s right to bodily integrity?

  34. TAG 2019-03-22 14:06

    Adam said: “dogs are just stupid animals, much like most country people”

    This is neither accurate nor helpful. I have a hard time believing that you truly mean this, and will assume you are actually a GOP’er trying to troll a liberal blog.

    Sad way to entertain yourself.

  35. happy camper 2019-03-22 14:35

    Adam’s comment reminded me of my shelter dog who began to experience many new things and caught her reflection in the mirror. She repeatedly turned her head away and back until she understood that was her. The prevailing science says dogs don’t know their own image but I beg to differ. After this learning experience she never did it again.

    BCB we can’t predict but I’m sure we can agree the vast majority of knowledge is still unknown so it stands to reason new information may change our perspective. We always have to keep some doubt, or open-mindedness that how we think and feel now could change rather than be dogmatic. My little girl was smart!!!

  36. bearcreekbat 2019-03-22 16:41

    Hap, then should I conclude that at this time there is no event or discovery you can imagine that would provide a basis to change opinions on the three points I mentioned? And yet you still feel (or perhaps hope) maybe some event beyond your current ability to imagine still might occur in the future that would convince us that using the force of law to require women to continue a pregnancy against her will would become appropriate public policy?

    I am all for keeping an open mind, but like to try to base it on reality rather than inconceivable possibilities. But, whatever squirts your pickle, as a good friend used to say.

  37. happy camper 2019-03-22 17:07

    I currently support a woman’s right to chose, but if science starts to tell us more then we should listen. I have no desire to restrict women’s rights, but we also shouldn’t be afraid to learn, and that learning, for example, could show things about fetal development that reasonable people might find alarming. Mostly what I am saying is that pro-choice people try to slice the argument black and white without an ounce of doubt, almost without, or rarely express a level of concern we should have for the sanctity of life, which I don’t mean in a religious way, but life remains sacred without a belief in god, but you don’t hear pro-choice proponents ever discussing the downside of abortion. They don’t want to explore the whole issue both good and bad which I find distressing.

  38. bearcreekbat 2019-03-22 18:18

    hap, you don’t seem to be advancing your position. What can science teach us about fetal development that even addresses, let alone provides a rationale to contest, any of the three points supporting limiting the power of government to deny women medical help, bodily autonomy, or the legal ability to decide when to have children?

    And where did you get the idea that pro-choice advocates “rarely express a level of concern we should have for the sanctity of life?” If I am not mistaken, substantially more pro-choice advocates oppose the death penalty than anti-choice advocates. Pro-choice has never meant that someone favors or supports abortion. Rather, it means that they support limiting the government from interfering with the pregnant woman’s decision or denying any woman safe medical care with whatever choice she makes.

    What part of the “whole issue” have you concluded is not being addressed by the pro-choice factors that I have raised? What “downside” of abortion have I neglected?

    What gives you “doubt” about whether the force of law ought to prevent one unwilling person from resisting another person’s use of internal parts of her body?

  39. happy camper 2019-03-22 20:35

    I don’t have a position I’m pushing BCB, only skepticism, and with this politicized issue it’s hard to know what to believe because the research is so biased each way. The Atlantic ran a good story last year on how Pro-Choice is using science, and they have some points.

    “The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” she said. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”

  40. happy camper 2019-03-22 20:44

    This is a better snippet: Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

  41. Debbo 2019-03-22 21:02

    I have a thought about that early viability and pro lifers. Let the fetus be removed if that’s the woman’s best choice, and the pro lifers can assume all responsibility for it. That way they get to honor their sanctimony while the woman gets to be treated as an autonomous adult human being in control of her own body.

    Pro lifers’ roblem solved!

  42. happy camper 2019-03-22 22:20

    If that autonomous adult human being has a fetus inside her that is viable, dependent human being at 22 weeks and not 28 weeks that’s a real issue. BCB wondered how science could change the argument that’s a pretty strong example. If a fetus can survive a complete month earlier than previously thought with more advanced medical attention that’s a valid argument. Science can move the needle. Apparently the brain is developed that should give pause.

  43. o 2019-03-22 22:48

    Something Kurt wrote earlier is really sticking with me. He attempts to attribute the Governor’s motives (and I would say the legislature that sent here these bills to sign) for these new laws as “pro-life” or “control freak.”

    So here is my question along that train of thought: Were any pro-life bills (outside anti-abortion) passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Noem this session? There was an 11th hour nursing home funding increase; was there anything else that clearly shows a demonstration of action to save the lives of South Dakotans?

  44. Jason 2019-03-22 23:05

    Whose lives are in danger of dying 0?

  45. o 2019-03-22 23:25

    1) Death Row inmates
    2) People in nursing homes that are closing
    3) People without adequate health care
    4) People facing poisoning from environmental pollution
    5) People facing opium and other drug addictions
    6) People in homes with unsecured guns
    7) People in areas of dense gun ownership
    8) People who are homeless
    9) People why purchase food that more integrates cheap, processed sugar
    10) The poor – especially children
    11) Marginalized groups
    12) People in need of mental health support
    13) People in rural areas with low density 9-11 service or ambulance service or hospital coverage
    14) People, especially women, in abusive situations with no safe house for escape from their abuser

  46. Jason 2019-03-22 23:46

    1. They are on death row for a reason.
    2. Home Health care.
    3. Health care is available to all, even illegal aliens. Are you talking about insurance?
    4. South Dakota isn’t LA.
    5. Build the wall.
    6. What about the unsecured knives?
    7. Are you talking about south Chicago?
    8. They can move to California so they don’t get cold.
    9. Sugar doesn’t kill people.
    10. How can Government stop poor people from dying?
    11. They are dying? How will the Government stop this?
    12. They are dying? How will the Government stop this
    13. They are dying? If only we had airplanes and helicopters.
    14. They are dying? We have shelters for them. They also have access to guns.

  47. Debbo 2019-03-23 01:08

    Those responses are just pitiful Jason, a complete waste of space. Please go to bed now.

  48. Debbo 2019-03-23 01:16

    O said, “Were any pro-life bills (outside anti-abortion) passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Noem this session?”

    Exactly. If the SDGOP was Really pro-life, we’d see them address at least a few of the issues you listed.

    If they Really wanted to reduce abortions they’d be working to make birth control for males as well as females easily available and free.

    If they Really cared about “babies” they’d pass laws on domestic violence and child support that are very tough.

    If they Really were focused on the “unborn” (fetuses) they’d directly address the problem of the impregnators and how to control they’re sexual behavior.

    If . . . . . . .

    The SDGOP leadership is concerned with a couple things– tossing red meat to their base to obscure their pro-big $$$ agenda, and keeping uppity women in their place to maintain their patriarchal power.

  49. mike from iowa 2019-03-23 08:25

    Happy, the standard for viability is 24 weeks, not 22 or 28. Some preemies can survive earlier birth. I’d wager most won’t with or without super major monetary costs.

  50. happy camper 2019-03-23 09:37

    Mike the article said they are debating it as low as 22 weeks the earliest surviving premie is 21 weeks. The fetus learns the mother’s voice in the womb so the brain must already be functioning. I’m not saying it’s consciousness, in fact, this article (already 10 years old) wagers the fetus experiences nothing in utero (others say differently), but we shouldn’t be afraid to let real science keep learning. Researchers in the second article believe consciousness begins at birth.

  51. bearcreekbat 2019-03-23 12:05

    hap, I think you have finally let the cat of the bag on the premise of your argument with this comment:

    … if that autonomous adult human being has a fetus inside her that is viable, dependent human being at 22 weeks and not 28 weeks that’s a real issue. BCB wondered how science could change the argument that’s a pretty strong example.

    This seems to translate into an old, rather than new, argument or development – should the government prevent a woman from deciding who can use the insides of her body? It really shouldn’t matter whether the “who” is 1 day after conception or 22 weeks after conception, the question remains do we want our government to force any woman to submit her body to the survival needs of another person?

    And this question gives your scientific advancement point much greater strength under the Roe v. Wade viability distinction as a basis for permitting state action. As I understand it, the state’s interest in protecting potential life after viability trumps a woman’s right to bodily integrity and only then can the state use force to require a woman to submit her body to satisfying the survival needs of another person (the viable fetus). I note that, even then, the state cannot interfere with the woman’s choice to terminate the pregnancy if submitting her body to that viable potential life endangers the woman’s life or health.

    So under that analysis, you are totally correct – a scientific or medical change in determining when a zygote might be viable is a development that could well authorize a greater intrusion by governmental force with a woman’s right to protect her body from conscription against her will to satisfy someone else’s survival needs.

    Nonetheless, that scientific or medical advancement position – determining a new date for viability – doesn’t relate to the three objections I raised to governmental powers: (1) denying health and medical care for a woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy; (2) allowing the state to eliminate a person’s right to bodily integrity; and (3) the expansion of state power to interfere with highly personal decisions about whether or when to have children.

    So I have to concede that you are, in a manner, correct when you contend that advances in science or medicine may well eliminate or reduce protections from bodily conscription of women. I still maintain, however, such changes have no affect on the question you pose:

    the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have. . . . ”

    No other human being today has the right to use the law to force one person, man or woman, to give up any part of their body needed to save the life of another human being. The viablity test for fetuses, however, empowers the state to take that exact right away from women. My question remains,

    recognizing the fetus as a life, and as a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have, why should that recognition constitute a reason to use the law to remove a woman’s right of bodily integrity so that women no longer have “all the rights that the rest of us have?”

    Bottom line hap, as best I can tell, the argument supporting forcible government subjugation of women to the needs of a fetus doesn’t change based on discovering a new date of viability.

  52. mike from iowa 2019-03-23 12:36

    Happy, I read your article and the fact remains- the standard is 24 weeks and will be the standard until the Scotus or Spotus decides to change that standard. That is all I am saying.

    Abortion is not the problem or the long term answer for unwanted or medically unviable fetuses. Sex education and readily available and inexpensive birth control should be the solution, but…..

  53. jerry 2019-03-23 13:00

    bcb, far be it for me to get into this but for one thing. That post of your’s is one of the best descriptions of women’s rights that I have ever read. Thanks for the thoughtful input.

  54. happy camper 2019-03-23 13:16

    My takeaway remains accurate information brings people closer together. Pro-Life began embracing science to suit their own ends, with reluctance from some factions, cause what if they didn’t like what they found. Both sides are picking and choosing or even falsifying data, but at least they are willing to look at science which may be in conflict with their spiritual beliefs. Pro-Choice can also more appreciate the awe-inspiring things going on down there which led to their mysticism. If all this greater exposure helps a young woman take greater pride in her life-giving abilities it seems to me both sides could inch a little closer to one another.

  55. bearcreekbat 2019-03-23 13:59

    hap, following up on your 13:16 observation, can you identify how pro-choicers are “picking and choosing or even falsifying data” you contend to be related to any of the three points I have raised?

    Accepting for the purpose of discussion all claims that a fetus is a “person” and should have the same rights as any other “person,” what data do you contend pro-choicers are either falsifying or picking and choosing over some other equally or more important data to support the pro-choice position that the government should not enact laws that reduce a woman’s rights below any other person’s rights?

    Thanks for your kind words and encouragement Jerry.

  56. happy camper 2019-03-23 15:34

    Accepting for the purpose of discussion all claims that a fetus is a “person” – that’s not a rabbit hole I’ll go down. I’ve never made that assertion but warily accept the law as it is now. What I have said is on such an important matter everyone should keep refreshing the data to make sure we’re still comfortable with the moral and ethical implications of our laws. You’re too forgiving that a woman who has willingly had sex carries no burden. Language like “the argument supporting forcible government subjugation of women to the needs of a fetus” is without compassion for a growing, unborn human being and denies the intention that our laws are a mirror of society’s values. It is ok to make judgments on those who later want to take no responsibility for their reproductive behavior. You want to let them off the hook entirely when they minimally have something to learn from that experience, such as taking adequate precautions.

    The line on data is a Cliff Note from the Atlantic article and elsewhere.

  57. mike from iowa 2019-03-23 17:51

    It is ok to make judgments on those who later want to take no responsibility for their reproductive behavior. You want to let them off the hook entirely when they minimally have something to learn from that experience, such as taking adequate precautions.

    In the learned words of Debbo, aren’t you forgetting the guys, Hap? It still takes two to make baby batter. What hook are they on when it comes to forcing a woman to carry a fetus she may not want for whatever reason?

  58. happy camper 2019-03-23 18:00

    No, I haven’t forgotten about that Mike. It’s not fair but it’s a fact of biology that girls have the oven and boys just come over to heat up a muffin. Laws can try to level the field but women will always have greater personal burden if that’s what impregnation means at that point in their lives.

  59. bearcreekbat 2019-03-23 18:49

    hap, you may have lost me – I can’t tell from your comment what data, scientific, medical or otherwise, that you assert pro-choicers have neglected or falsified with respect to the three points I raised. Am I to conclude you are retreating from that statement?

    Speaking of what you call a rabbit hole, if a fetus is considered to be less than a person, then the justification for a government denial of a woman’s bodily autonomy seems even weaker. Generally arguments such “life begins at conception,” or fetus viability, seemed premised on the notion that such facts would make the unborn a “person” and have been the key moral positions of those who argue that our government should restrict the bodily autonomy of pregnant women.

    I have yet to see an anti-female autonomy argument omit the express or implied notion that the government should take away a woman’s freedom to decide the use of her body in order to protect another “person” or “life” that needs to use it without her consent. And that is how I have perceived all of your points. Indeed, even in your new comment what other meaning can we give to your use of the phrase “compassion for a growing, unborn human being?”

    A public policy goal of punishing a woman for careless sex by denying her control over the use of her body could be logical, but only if the man were also punished in a similar manner. A man has the same ability, and one would think – obligation, to take adequate precautions such as always using birth control.

    Under the punishment rational, the man who impregnates a woman due to failure to take adequate precautions should also forfeit bodily autonomy for nine months. To accomplish this the government could conscipt him to a mandatory organ donor list and force and him to give part of his liver or a kidney to save the life of another person. Yet, I have not seen any anti-woman autonomy argument that would justify saving a life by punishing a responsible male.

    You mention “society’s values.” Indeed, instead of relying on new information or developments, we could a revert to the days when “society’s values” condemned only sexually active women, while sexually active men were often admired and even envied. Think of our society’s numerous pejorative labels given to sexually active women in the past compared to labeling sexually promiscuous men. But in the end, a “punishing the sexually active woman who fails to undertake to responsibility to take necessary precautions” theory seems entirely unrelated to our focus – whether advances (not retreats) in science or medicine can provide a reasonale rationale to reconsider the three pro-choice factors I have referenced. And as a side note, the punishment theory faces the problem of dealing with failed birth control products, rape, and other factors behind the participants’ control.

    So back to my question, what facts have been falsified or discounted by pro-choicers who rely on the three points I identified?

  60. Debbo 2019-03-23 21:14

    BCB, you are my hero!

  61. happy camper 2019-03-24 03:56

    BCB away from your evaluation of how things should be the fact remains the woman carries the fetus and her life will be the one most affected. For me this is not a personal debate but an opportunity to look at the science and see if Roe vs. Wade is still the right decision, and more specifically if there is any validity in the Pro-Life position and the bills enacted in South Dakota and similar bills elsewhere.

    I find myself slightly moved toward their generation position, not that the bills should be used to restrict a woman’s right to chose or cause humiliation, but something incredibly complex is occurring during pregnancy beyond our understanding and a deep respect for the beginnings of life is missing from the Pro-Choice argument. Perhaps there is no personhood, that awareness does not occur till long after birth, but we’re not killing dependent infants, and we see physical crime against a pregnant woman differently, but why should we if it’s just a fetus not a person. In insurance matters you want prenatal care to be covered or the state to pay, so it’s as though Pro-Choice expects two sets of standards one if the fetus is desired and one if the fetus is not desired which makes me uncomfortable. That fetus is important, but this one isn’t. In one instance the adult autonomous human must be in control of her own body, but in the second she deserves all the benefits of bringing life into this world.

  62. mike from iowa 2019-03-24 09:21

    Happy, wake the hell up! Roe will not be re-decided in the near term by science. It will be decided by hired guns-essentially ideological right wing, tenured for life, otherwise incompetent selections to the Spotus and other courts.

    Mitch McCTurtle has made that abundantly clear. He and his cohorts are packing the courts and plans to have the courts make laws long after wingnuts lose power. He has said this is his intentions.

  63. mike from iowa 2019-03-24 09:23

    McCTurtle is also planning to go nukular on judicial picks so the Senate can confirm them on a majority vote and Dems can’t stop them.

  64. happy camper 2019-03-24 11:10

    But science is having an impact and encouraging Pro-Life liberals: “Secular pro-life groups tend to put special emphasis on scientific evidence to support the idea that a human life begins at conception.” “Cecilia Cervantes, a 26-year-old wearing two adjacent buttons reading Overturn Roe and Feminism: Equality For All, told me she’s always felt welcome at both the March for Life and the Women’s March—which in recent years she’s attended back-to-back—and believes it’s important to go to both, even though she doesn’t feel her beliefs are perfectly represented by either’s platform.”

  65. bearcreekbat 2019-03-24 12:24

    hap, I can fully agree with your observation that

    the fact remains the woman carries the fetus and her life will be the one most affected.

    Indeed, that is a primary point underlying the three objections to government prohibitions that deny a woman’s right to decide who or what can use her body, while protecting this right for all others.

    But none of the three objections I described can be said to devalue a fetus in any circumstance, whether wanted or unwanted. Rather, pro-choicers are valuing living women in all circumstances, by supporting their right to decide who and what can use the insides of their bodies. It is not hard to understand, and so far, you have offered no justification that I can see for the state taking away a woman’s control of her body to benefit a fetus.

    Saving the life of the fetus doesn’t seem to be a justification since we ask no one to give up control of their bodies to save the lives of newborns, children, or adults in need of blood transfusions, transplants or other procedures that require a healthy body as a source of a needed life saving substance or organ. Why should a woman who is pregnant lose the right to bodily autonomy while non-pregnant women and all men fully retain the right to deny anyone access to their bodies for living saving sustenance?

    If a fetus is not even a person, only a potential life, then using the law to take away a woman’s bodily autonomy makes even less sense than forcibly taking organs from healthy people to save lives of those in need.

    If a fetus is a person, then I have not seen a rational that supports increasing the rights of that person above the level of anyone else’s rights, especially those newborns and children needing transfusions, transplants or similar body substances or parts to survive. And to make matters worse, the increase in fetus rights is only possible if the the government also forcibly takes bodily integrity rights we all enjoy away from pregnant women.

    It seems that using the law to take away a woman’s bodily autonomy by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is most logically premised on one of two ideas. As you pointed out, perhaps the premise is that women who get pregnant deserve to be punished by losing the right to bodily integrity. Or perhaps your other thought is more accurate, namely, it is a social or cultural idea that by getting pregnant a woman has made herself unworthy of the legal protections society assures non-pregnant living people.

    Going back to the foundation of our conversation, however, as it relates to the three objections to using governmental powers in such a manner that I described, it is hard to see how advances in science or medical care could ever support either notion supporting the idea that the government ought to enact laws eliminating only a pregnant woman’s right to decide who or what can use her body. (I note that regardless of your objections, it seems that the life-saving rational remains the key to your arguments.)

    And just to clarify, government laws prohibiting killing “dependent infants” do not interfere with any person’s right to bodily integrity, in contrast to laws preventing an unwilling pregnant woman from refusing to permit another entity control and use of the inside of her body against her will.

  66. happy camper 2019-03-24 13:49

    People are going to think differently about this BCB, and go from point A to point B in different ways. My own line of thought is that life should be defined, then consciousness, then personhood, then society give guidance when or if life of the fetus can be terminated.

    Pro-Choicers scream “Stay out of my uterus!!!” But it is demanded we give prenatal care, help pay for abortions or deliveries either with insurance or by the state, and now fetal surgeries are possible, so it’s also demanded we get in their uterus which in my mind has opened the door for society to share in these decisions.

    My own belief life begins at conception, but not protected life, consciousness begins at birth, personhood a more complicated brain function. For me the date of viability is important because that’s when consciousness could begin and seems like a reasonable place to stop allowing termination thereafter unless to risk of the mother as our laws currently define.

    In my opinion Pro-Choice is going to have to take a more compassionate approach to how Pro-Lifers see the issue. They’re not doing all these things to hurt women, they simply define a different place on the spectrum when life should be protected. Science and education must continue to take a role in this debate which will never end, but that’s ok, it should be welcomed and embraced in fact, as long as the debate remains factual. Don’t expect everybody to agree which is why I’m pointing to Pro-Life Liberals everybody needs to come to their own conclusions my main point being willing to change their mind if necessary.

  67. bearcreekbat 2019-03-24 15:14

    hap, the progression of your argument is intriguing.

    First, your last post helps if it eliminates the punishment of women rationale. At least I think that is what you mean when you say, people opposing a woman’s choice are “not doing all these things to hurt women.”

    Next, not facing government policies that remove bodily integrity rights when a woman gets pregnant minimizes or trivializes that aspect of the forced continued pregnancy policies. Indeed, accusing pro-choice folks of “screaming” about such government policies seems an emotional term designed to demean those who value women and support their freedom from government restrictions on deciding who or what can use their bodies.

    Then, you seek to portray those who would take away women’s right as victims suggesting that they are being unfairly viewed by pro-choice people. Your comment

    Pro-Choice is going to have to take a more compassionate approach to how Pro-Lifers see the issue

    implies some lack of compassion for those supporting the suppression of women’s rights. But the issue is not how to view opposing parties, rather, it is whether policies that treat the bodies of pregnant women as subservient to the needs of fetuses are morally or intellectually sound. I have identified reasons to question these policies.

    As best I can tell your position clarifies that you give fetal life priority over a woman’s right to deny the use of her body to save fetal life. The issue for you is at what stage does that fetal life justify the repression of women.

    But you never offer an explanation for the premise to your query, namely that at some point fetal life trumps a woman’s right to decide who or what can use her body. You don’t explain why you do not give similar priority to the lives of newborns, children and adults also in need of another person’s body parts or substances over people (including people with the authority to consent for children) who are allowed to retain their legal right to deny the use of their bodies to save lives. Since punishing a pregnant woman now is off the table as a rational or justification, then why is it morally correct to support governmental suppression of the right to refuse to permit the use of her body to save fetal life, but not other lives?

  68. mike from iowa 2019-03-24 15:51

    They’re not doing all these things to hurt women….

    Isn’t it a medical fact that abortion is much safer than childbirth? Especially early on abortion. Pro life forces are dead set aGAinst any type of abortion at any stage of the fetal development.

  69. happy camper 2019-03-24 20:30

    BCB you really do go off to the absurd: “You don’t explain why you do not give similar priority to the lives of newborns, children and adults also in need of another person’s body parts or substances over people (including people with the authority to consent for children) who are allowed to retain their legal right to deny the use of their bodies to save lives.” I guess the fetus being in that person’s belly conceived for procreation might have something to do with it. But lets move on.

    I didn’t realize that Trigger Laws around the country are being passed to rise to the Supreme Court in order to reverse or gut Roe vs Wade and effectively end abortion. The South Dakota laws wouldn’t do that but obviously they would pass a law quickly when allowed, and it’s the reason for the New York law and possibly Virginia on the ProChoice side. People shook their heads at another abortion discussion but it seems this is the much more critical thing occurring that I was unaware. A link to those bills is below.

    Okay now back to ProLifers. They honestly believe this is murder. They’re angry and in pain and following their conscience. This is totally relevant because their views are the polar opposite to yours but ProChoice is going to need all the support they can muster which is going to mean reaching out to other ProChoice people in every part of the political spectrum. One ProChoice advocate actually thinks the reversal will help galvanize all of ProChoice, including Republicans and Democrats who have taken Roe vs Wade for granted. That seems doubtful second link.–regional-govt–politics/look-abortion-bills-around-the-2019/rjgjwPxL6ZKBOOPBJ1SqmK/

    I Am an Abortion Rights Activist. I Hope the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade:

  70. Debbo 2019-03-24 23:37

    “Recent polls suggest that 70% of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”

    “The issue really isn’t abortion–it’s who gets to make the decision. And the answer to that question shouldn’t be government.”

    The GOP War on Women continues and will continue as long as the GOP can continue to use it to extort their base.

    As HC says, there are some sincere people of good will on the anti side, but if they were running the show it would have ended years ago with zero legal abortions. They’re not the problem. They make up 30% or less of the population.

    The age of viability of the fetus isn’t the problem, nor is science.

    The problem is the misogynistic GOP exploiting their base with ginned up BS lies and stringing them along with bits and pieces of incremental laws that increase women’s suffering and project the illusion of real, antiabortion action.

    It’s all a charade and Noem and the SDGOP are playing their part well, going through the motions, giving the appearances, but in fact accomplishing only enough to diminish women and keep the GOP base frothing. They are shameless when they should not be.

  71. Debbo 2019-03-24 23:37

    Be sure to read the above link. It’s very short.

  72. bearcreekbat 2019-03-25 11:41

    Well hap. It looks like we have explored these issues to the extent of our current abilities and I thank you for your comments. Additonally, your view that I have drifted “off to the absurd” informs me that a further discussion is likely unproductive, hence, unless you have questions for me, or something else motivates me, I will refrain from further responses to your posts.

    To summarize my concluding thoughts about our dialogue: Neither you nor Donald, given his silence, can identify any imagined future scientific or medical developments that might affect anyone’s current views of the three objections I identified to government intrusion into a woman’s decision when and whether to terminate a pregnancy.

    Thanks again for your willingness to engage on this difficult and emotional topic.

  73. Debbo 2019-03-25 12:20

    Thank you BCB, for your wise and thoughtful comments.

    Thank you HC, for giving males a pass on the weak excuse that, although they are equally responsible for creating the fetus, they don’t share the burden of carrying it, thus we can only shrug our shoulders and allow them to go on their merry way. Ain’t patriarchy grand?!

  74. bearcreekbat 2019-03-25 12:31

    ¡De nada and muchas gracias a ti, Debbo!

  75. happy camper 2019-03-25 13:33

    I never said it was fair but you’ll have to start dealing with political realities. If Roe is repealed abortion will end in SD and require a popular vote so ProChoice arguments will have to appeal to centrists. Dig more in the polling data 60% is an average of all voters other polls show the majority of people still find abortion immoral so you better start thinking about how to frame the argument to Republican-leaning, South Dakota voters who matter not the choir on this blog or you’ll once again be politically irrelevant.

  76. Debbo 2019-03-25 14:48

    That’s not my point HC.

  77. happy camper 2019-03-25 15:00

    But it’s the more important point if you want to see abortion rights persist, and I’m honestly not convinced the laws have much if anything to do with misogyny but simply a very conservative, religious legislature. I was able to find one poll result from 2014 that showed 48% of South Dakotans approved of abortion under most circumstances versus 50% who do not. That’s an uphill battle. Howard Dean thinks Roe could be overturned as soon as this year:

  78. mike from iowa 2019-03-25 15:14

    If you think for a minute overturning Roe will stop abortions in any state, you are not thinking straight.

    Wingnuts do not like the fact that abortion is safer than forcing women to carry a fetus to term. If they can outlaw Roe, then abortions become much more dangerous, but will never go away.

  79. mike from iowa 2019-03-25 15:16

    Plus, due to circumstance surrounding the appointments of the last 2 unqualified Spotus bums, any decision on Roe will likely not be considered legitimate by a large part, if not a majority of voters.

  80. Debbo 2019-03-25 15:30

    More important to you HC, not to women who’ve never been treated as fully autonomous human beings. Not to women who see misogynists relentlessly coming for us. Endlessly. Not to us women who don’t have the luxury of detached, uninvolved, shoulder shrugging, casual conversation.

    For us it’s both. Strategy and more personal than you can ever dream. It’s OUR LIVES they want to dictate.

  81. happy camper 2019-03-25 16:02

    I don’t mean this to sound mean Deb, but you sound like a feminist from an earlier generation still carrying all that with you. Old tapes we play (in our head) my sister likes to say. None of the modern women I know use your kind of language, or the similar language Jerry occasional uses. “Misogynists relentlessly coming for us.” The vast majority of people I talk to discuss their relationship in terms of equal partners which was not the case when feminism demanded new standards. It’s 2019 I’m shocked by the lagging religious convictions and archaic beliefs but these often come from women in South Dakota too, ones you’ve also been a part of perpetuating. Belief in god is the main driving force behind ProLife, so you must understand the conflicts. Women are physically the host that’s never going to change if the guy doesn’t care he’s gonna skip off down the street, and again we’re talking about young people who often don’t plan ahead. I know abortions won’t stop as Marty Robin said it’s no longer coathangers there are safe ways to do the procedure at home she outlines in her book, but as abortion has become more difficult out of wedlock births have increased so they see this as effective, and certainly if Roe is repealed states with bans will have to bring ProChoice to a popular vote that reflects the values of that state to get it passed. You grew up in South Dakota you know we’re behind the times but it would be better to deal with what seems, at least with some likelihood, to happen.

  82. Debbo 2019-03-25 16:36

    I’m not concerned with how I sound HC, and you’re welcome to your opinion. The baggage I carry is clear-eyed vision and a willingness to state it. You would likely be shocked by some of the things women say when males are not around.

    In your life I am sure your impressions ring true. Those are not the things women say when we are together. It just doesn’t work for you to impose your experiences and outlook on the feminine gender. We are not the same.

    The other matter is that you are talking about the rank and file pro lifers. My subject is the misogynists on the US Senate and House and some state capitols, plus creatures like Franklin Graham, Falwell, ALEC and others who play those unwitting dupes for votes.

  83. Debbo 2019-03-25 22:19

    Adventurous. Alone. Attacked.

    The misogyny of the patriarchy is real and worldwide.

  84. happy camper 2019-03-26 09:54

    Obviously violence against women anywhere is unacceptable, but the main driver of anti-abortion bills in this country is Religious Fundamentalism in two forms: Belief in god they think it’s murder and Patriarchy fostered by the churches.

    It’s shocking to read tenets from the Lutheran Church that shaped relations between man and wife, so put the abundance of blame on fundamentalism where it belongs. They’re unmovable in their position but centrists can be swayed so don’t alienate them if they don’t agree with you hook, line, and sinker. You’re gonna need them.

  85. mike from iowa 2019-03-26 10:36

    I wonder why fauxknee kristians seem to think mixing their fauxknee religion in government policies is okay when their heads exploded thinking Obama was a Muslim and would invoke Sharia law as Potus.

  86. Debbo 2019-03-26 12:04

    HC, there are many varieties of Lutheranism. The inappropriately named Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not patriarchal, does ordain women and support them in all leadership positions of the church. None of the other Lutheran denominations do so.

    BTW, I have heard there is a grassroots movement afoot to change the name of the ELCA to eliminate that confusion.

  87. Debbo 2019-03-26 12:06

    HC, you realize the GOP uses that fundamentalism to meet their political needs, right?

  88. happy camper 2019-03-26 14:10

    Yes, for sure, high up like Trump and the national level most probably don’t care, just use it for votes/power. The fundamentalists don’t care they’re getting what they want, but I’m assuming the SD Legislature (and others) are more representative of local values with sincere convictions, so it’s worth remembering the history. Phyllis Schlafly in her last interview took credit for the Religious Right, killing the ERA Amendment, getting disparate religious groups to work toward shared goals, and had a disdain for GOP elites.

    From a late interview 2012: “And one of my projects has been to make the Republican Party pro-life, and we have succeeded. Because under Nixon the Republican Party was pro-choice and I can remember going to conservative meetings and even there the prevailing view was pro-choice. But we have made it pro-life with knock-down, drag-out battles at every Republican convention until we’ve succeeded. And in 2010 almost every Republican who was elected, including all the women, is pro-life, and you almost now have to be pro-life to get a Republican nomination.”

    Question: Do you think feminism got anything right, looking back over the years?

    “No. I think it’s completely destructive because it starts out with the notion that American women are victims of the patriarchy. And if you start out thinking you’re a victim, you’re not going to get very far. But that’s what they teach: victims of the patriarchy, and they’re out to abolish the patriarchy. (chuckles)”

  89. Debbo 2019-03-26 14:18

    Schafly should have died several decades earlier. Nasty woman.

  90. mike from iowa 2019-03-26 15:29

    Schlafing stock Schlafly was one twisted sister. Blessed with a gay son she wasn’t real fond of. Her attempts to put religion in public and everywhere it didn’t belong set America back hundreds of millions of years. Not shedding a tear over her demise.

  91. happy camper 2019-03-26 16:06

    Obviously she is unliked (here), but there is still a whole lot to learn from how, after 30 states had approved the ERA, she mobilized a roadblock to its passage. Quite fascinating to watch old interviews this one with a very young-looking Larry King:

  92. mike from iowa 2019-03-26 16:31

    I’m guessing Hitler and Pol Pot would have admired her immensely.

  93. bearcreekbat 2019-03-26 18:45

    hap’s comment, “if you start out thinking you’re a victim, you’re not going to get very far,” seems contrary to today’s reality. President Trump displays his victimhood over and over again. Christians are victims of “happy holidays” and liberal teachers who don’t teach creationism and climate change denial. The extraordinarily rich are victims of a nasty “death tax” on inheritances exceeding $10 million. Conservatives are victims of their money being stolen by taxes for altruistic public policies. And do not get me started on the vast suffering of all those anti-immigrant conservatives, what with all those needy women and children stealing their jobs, bringing diseases, using tax dollars, and on and on. And of course, don’t forget the white folks who have suffered at the hands of political correctness and affirmative action.

    These people’s candidates hold the presidency, the senate, the SD governorship and legislature, etc. And hap says: “if you start out thinking you’re a victim, you’re not going to get very far?” Go figure.

  94. happy camper 2019-03-26 18:51

    BCB that was Phyllis Schlafly.

  95. bearcreekbat 2019-03-26 19:28

    Hap, Thanks for the correction! I should seen it was a quote – por favor perdoname.

  96. mike from iowa 2019-03-27 17:42

    NRA doesn’t want people convicted of domestic violence to lose their questionable rights to own shooty guns. iowa passed a law saying people convicted of domestic violence lose the right to own guns and Terry Eugene Braindead vetoed the bill because a few law enforcement officers would lose their jobs without guns. The fact that domestic violence victims may lose their lives because of Braindead’s veto apparently didn’t cause ammosexuals to lose any sleep.

  97. o 2019-03-30 11:34

    So many regulations that seek to reduce a woman’s rights revolve around a convoluted stance of “education.” I was just reading about some lawsuits stemming from the Sandy Hook shootings and thought maybe “education” should be part of our gun laws. Before a person can buy a gun, they have to be shown the statistics that the gun they bring into their home will be more likely to kill a member of their family than an intruder; maybe before a gun can be used to shoot someone, it be required that the shooter acknowledge that they are a bout to attempt to kill a human being; maybe they ought to be forced to listen to the “target’s” heartbeat . . . you know, some “common sense,” “pro-life,” “educational” regulation.

  98. bearcreekbat 2019-03-30 12:14

    I just have to add one more new proposed regulation to o’s gun regs suggestions, which is based on the antichoice requirement of some states for a transvaginal ultrasound

    Before anyone is allowed to purchase or even own a gun they must be required to submit to a transanal ultrasound to assure they don’t have a stick up their butt that might induce irrational behavior.

  99. mike from iowa 2019-03-30 12:21

    bcb- +1 :) Made my day.

  100. o 2019-03-30 12:24

    bearcreekbat: “Before anyone is allowed to purchase or even own a gun they must be required to submit to a transanal ultrasound to assure they don’t have a stick up their butt that might induce irrational behavior.”

    Such a procedure may find a stick OR their head?

  101. bearcreekbat 2019-03-30 13:20

    o, an excellent point!

  102. Debbo 2019-03-30 15:02

    BCB, you made me LOL!! Thanks!

  103. Debbo 2019-03-30 15:03

    Mike, good link.

    (GO HAWKEYES!!!!)

  104. mike from iowa 2019-03-31 12:05

    Knowing what I know about wingnuts the sticks would be fake and that would be HRC’s fault.

  105. happy camper 2019-03-31 12:07

    And: “Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney claimed Sunday that if the Trump administration succeeds in striking down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act in court, millions of Americans who have health coverage because of the Obama-era health law will not lose their insurance. But with no clear GOP replacement plan, Mulvaney provided few details on how he could make such guarantee.” This is such a relief.

  106. mike from iowa 2019-03-31 12:43

    The troll’s problem is he sincerely believes the pathological liar Drumpf. There are no replacement plans for ACA. Drumpf just told wingnuts to write one. McCTurtle told Drumpf to take a hike. They want nothing to do with dismantling the ACA this close to an election.

    If the ACA is found to be unconstitutional it will be becaUSE OF UNQUALIFIED lIFETIME Appointed justices wingnuts are ramming through the senate to pack the courts while they can.

  107. bearcreekbat 2019-03-31 13:24

    I have seen more than one comment recently by “Jason” with statements along these lines:

    Replacement bills have already been written. The Democrats just have to sign or or they will be blamed.

    Here are some details about the 2017 Republican AHCA “replacement bill” that failed:

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the AHCA would increase the number of uninsured people by 23 million over 10 years, but would decrease the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over the same period (about 1%), mainly by cutting Medicaid coverage for lower income Americans. Both the House AHCA bill and Senate BCRA bill would cut taxes largely for wealthy Americans. If enacted, insurance premiums are projected to decrease for younger, healthier, and wealthier people, while older and poorer people would likely see their premiums increase. . . .

    [It included] provisions curtailing federal funding for Medicaid, enacting loopholes for insurers on pre-existing conditions and establishing tax cuts for upper-class Americans, the AHCA . . . .

    Some of the “key provisions” included:

    Eliminate employer and individual mandates and related penalties, substituting a one-time premium increase of 30% for persons that were without coverage previously for a specified time period (63 days).

    States would be allowed more flexibility in establishing essential health benefits (i.e., insurance policy content).

    Change tax credit/subsidy formulas used to help pay for insurance premiums (initially age-based, later modified to income-based) and eliminate a “cost-sharing subsidy” that reduced out-of-pocket costs.

    Provide funding to health insurers to stabilize premiums and promote marketplace participation, via a “Long-Term State Stability and Innovation Program” with features analogous to a high-risk pool.

    Reduce income ceiling used for Medicaid eligibility and substitute a tax credit for those below 100% of the poverty line.

    Reduce Medicaid payments relative to current law, by capping the growth in per-enrollee payments for non-disabled children and non-disabled adults, by using a lower inflation index.

    Repeal taxes on high-income earners established under ACA/Obamacare, repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers, and delay the excise tax on high premium health plans (the so-called “Cadillac tax”).

    Allow insurers to charge premiums up to five times as much to older people vs. young people, instead of three times, unless the state sets a different limit.

    Remove federal cap on the share of premiums that may go to insurers’ administrative costs and profits (the “minimum medical loss ratio”).

    . . .

    It would have reduced social security costs by assuring the death of potential recipients:

    . . . Social Security expenditures would decrease due to earlier mortality. . . .

    . . . A Congressional Budget Office report suggests an extra 16 million people would be left uninsured leading to 19,277 preventable deaths. . . .

    The proposed new requirements for insurers regarding pre-existing condition coverage changed under various proposals from continuing the ACA requirements to permitting states to allow insurers to increase premiums substantially after a lapse in insurance coverage by someone with a pre-existing condition.

    These are just a few of of the highlights of the republican “replacement plan” proposals. (All bolding added to the quotes)
    Read all about it at:

  108. mike from iowa 2019-03-31 15:12

    From WAPO link above-

    The renewed debate over health-care policy was set off by Trump’s abrupt decision last week directing the Justice Department to intervene in a federal-court case seeking to eliminate the ACA in its entirety on constitutional grounds.

    Although the outcome of that case is far from certain, the Trump administration’s aggressive move in court sparked panic among many Republicans — and a measure of glee among Democrats — over the prospect of a protracted battle over health insurance for tens of millions of Americans during a presidential election cycle. Most Republicans are particularly wary given that Democrats took control of the House after last year’s midterm elections in part because of their focus on preserving and expanding health cre programs.

    This is another emergency of Drumpf’s own making. Just as he thinks he has an emergency on the border, wait until his financial aid cuts to Central American countries set in and then there will be caravans of immigrants up the ying ying, thanks to the moron in the kremlin annex.

  109. o 2019-03-31 16:35

    Jason, from your breitbart article on Obria: “In keeping with their life-affirming mission, Obria clinics do not provide contraceptives and do not perform abortions.”

    Why does the US government support medical providers who do not provide Constitutionally and medically recognized treatments – especially contraception: the number one way to reduce abortions?

    If Obria refused treatment to women with guns, you would be demanding de-funding by the government.

  110. happy camper 2019-03-31 18:45

    There’s nothing wrong with Obamacare (with modifications). It’s interesting to hear this old interview with David Boren he says Bill Clinton had the votes to pass legislation so wealthier people would pay for their own Medicare so it wouldn’t be an entitlement for all just those who needed it, but he second-guessed himself. Fast forward all of them, including Charlie Rose doing the interview, have been accused of sexual harassment.

  111. Roger Cornelius 2019-03-31 22:27

    Does everything Americans do or say have to be in the Constitution?
    Government dollars go to so many things that aren’t specifically in the Constitution.

  112. o 2019-04-01 09:49

    I have always wondered about the Right (which goes to their true motives) why they had never used the free market and market forces to drive Planned Parenthood out of existence. It has always been about de-funding or banning. Instead why not get into women’s health in a BIG way. Create clinics that do ALL the good things to promote women’s health EXCEPT perform abortions? Make “the competition” try to compete with your own well-funded excellent care. Isn’t that the market solution? Doesn’t the GOP believe in market solutions?

    I have to think the reason this has never been embraced is two fold: 1) the deep concern for women’s health is just not there, and 2) it does not appease the savage need for control – legislating from moralistic dictates.

  113. happy camper 2019-04-01 10:10

    I think it’s important to remember Phyllis Schlafly because Republicans, conservatives, once didn’t have these factions or use them for political gain, so even now there are Republicans who are uncomfortable with the Religious Right and why so many people self identify as Independents but pick a party simply to vote in the primaries. You have to admit they were motivated and successful, some said they lost the war but they have been tenacious.

  114. leslie 2019-04-11 21:58

    ATA: Touchy huh? Trump is an illegal because—

    1. Emoluments constitutional violation at the moment of swearing-in.

    2. Russian hacking and social media altered the electoral vote by small but sufficient amounts (80,000) in a few key states. Mitch McConnell in league with John Thune prevented pre-election notification of the public. Many have been indicted.

    3. Campaign finance violation/fraud (signed personal check to reimburse Stormy Daniels hush money before/after election). DT jr also wrote such a check.

    4. I could go on … in a more appropriate thread.

  115. Debbo 2019-04-14 21:05

    Of course it is. That’s what the anti women fanatics do.

  116. happy camper 2019-04-14 21:12

    The written reviews are fabulous!!! Clearly, on a serious note, they are not anti-women. Within their understanding they are prolife.

  117. Debbo 2019-04-14 22:13

    Read more closely and critically HC. My comment is about the anti women fanatics who make a Lying video to keep $ flowing from the genuine pro lifers. Pay attention son.

    My work here is done.

  118. happy camper 2019-04-14 22:47

    Your work is unproven. Politics is about exchange, but there are people who are quite purely motivated by their in this case misguided beliefs. Pro-life is not as naive as you assume and you’re not as right as you think you are sister.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.