Representative Tom Pischke (R-25/Dell Rapids) is seeking reëlection so he can go back to Pierre and push more angry-dad legislation to get back at his ex-wife.
A new website dedicated to popping Pischke’s Bubbles of Love compiles his Woman-Haters Club bills and says the Republican Representative’s agenda is just bad for women and families:
The website, paid for by the Minnehaha County Democratic Party, features audio of Kelly Pischke’s testimony against her ex-husband’s 2019 House Bill 1104, another thinly cloaked attempt by Rep. Tom to lower his child support payments. On February 20, 2019, Kelly Pischke phoned in to the House Judiciary Committee, on which Rep. Tom sits, and said that Pischke’s narrow Legislative agenda is a vindictive extension of the abuse that ended their marriage:
I’ve been divorced for about four years, and it’s been a long four years keeping myself and my children protected. I am divorced because I left an adulterous and domestically violent relationship, a relationship where I endured years of physical and emotional abuse as well as financial warfare. I left because my children and I deserve a better life. I left because I did not want my children to be raised in a hostile home.
…I really thought November 6, 2014, would finally end the abuse that I had endured for years, but to my dismay, a whole new beginning started. Since Mr. Pischke did not agree with the judge’s ruling, he set his focus on running for District 25 House of Representatives with a single goal to change how custody arrangements are made [Kelly Pischke, testimony to House Judiciary against 2019 HB 1104, 2019.02.20].
Kelly Pischke went on to say that Rep. Tom’s legislation fits an abusive husband’s pattern of seeking control and domination. She also presented a reasoned explanation of how 2019 HB 1104 would have hindered the ability of judges to determine what is in the best interest of children.
Our Legislature has had the good sense to reject most of Rep. Tom’s angry-dad bills; let’s hope District 25 voters have the good sense to reject Tom Pischke on November 3 and send real legislators to Pierre with a commitment to real family values, not a personal vendetta.
The brazen naked agenda is the calling card of the party of Benito trumpolini.
I have only met Tom in person once, and he had a foul mouth, coming from a guy with a foul mouth (but I’m not introducing this kind of legislation). If I had that ability, I would push legislation that would make it 10x harder for dead beat dads to skip out on child support, I would track them down to ends of earth.
Obviously, neither one of you have been on the receiving end of one of these divorce settlements. I know things are probably different now, but I went through it about 40 years ago. SD is one of the worst states to get a divorce in if you are a male. Every divorce is different I know, but many cases the man really takes it in the shorts. I wanted custody —- no you are a male and she is the mother. We should split the bills evenly —– no, you pay them all. We should split the furniture at least — no she needs to provide for the children. It was here decision to start having an affair and wanted a divorce, shouldn’t that account for something? Yes, you get to pay her 33% of your gross pay for 14 years.
My lawyer was to become a Supreme Court Justice, and the judge in the case got divorced a few months later and went to the Supreme Court with his case because he thought it was unfair. He lost.
I can agree that there are some assumptions about divorce law that need to be revisited, but that still doesn’t make what Pischke is doing anything but a blatant conflict of interest. Come on.
Thank you to Kelly Pishke for speaking out against domestic abuse. She speaks for many women that have had to endure this. May your voices be heard.
Dicta, while I disagree with the policies that Pischke seeks to enact into law and agree that such changes would be objectionable, I don’t really understand the thought that this is somehow a “conflict in interest” or that trying change the law is somehow objectionable behavior. It seems to me that when someone disagrees with current law there are several options, which include, but are not limited to the following:
One can try to get away with surreptitiously violating that law (like Donald Trump);
One can openly violate that law (perhaps like Rosa Parks); or
One can follow established rules and try to change that law, including seeking public office and if elected introducing bills to amend or repeal the law that one finds objectionable.
Pischke has chosen the third option which seems entirely appropriate and reasonable, especially since he apparently has made his goals clear to the electorate. His legislative agenda may be considered objectionable and repugnant but aren’t his means of seeking that change exactly what we want someone seeking change to do?
Someday we should converse about who and what constitutes a deadbeat dad and if all alleged deadbeat dads are considered equal , as the courts and child support seem to think.
From personal experience, no mitigating circumstances make a difference when it comes to making a person’s life hell on earth, at least in iowa.
When will Republicans in South Dakota stop running candidates for the state legislature who are either single issue candidates, or candidates trying to fix problems, which do not exist?
John, when the Republicans in South Dakota stop voting for them.
Mr. Claussen, when the Conservatives with Common Sense finish pressing our agenda, you will see more of these “Pischkes” move over to the Libertarian ticket to muck about, which does annoy my good friend Bob but is better for the GOP.
Mr. Pischke is truly insaner than most. Write grudznick’s words down and tape them to your mirror.
Piscke may not be doing anything unethical, but I certainly get the sense that what he’s doing is about personal revenge, not writing laws that are more fair.
In addition, his behavior truly fits the behavior patterns of an abusive male. I believe it was in the 90s when the Julia Roberts movie, “Sleeping With the Enemy,” came out. She faked her death in New England and escaped under a new identity in Iowa. He hired detectives and tracked her down. Reviewers of the movie, *male* reviewers, said it was well acted but over the top. That doesn’t really happen. Oh yes it does. Literally all the time.
Piscke is doing a less lethal version of that. Kelly escaped from his clutches via divorce, but he’s proving that he’s still got control over her. He’s determined to take $ from her, make her suffer, force her to testify at his committee, etc. Posting photos of the human shaped target he shot up is a thinly veiled dire threat calculated to be especially frightening.
All of this is nothing new. Abusive males have been doing things exactly like this for a long time.
Yes, he’s hurt his children too, even if he never touched them, they’ve been extremely traumatized.
Believe Kelly Piscke. That guy is abusive, low life scum.
I’m sure divorce and child custody laws could use some work, however, there are a few cold, hard facts to keep in mind.
In the aftermath of divorce, the woman’s income goes down, the male’s income rises. This includes women who have custody of the children and get child support.
The greatest threat to a woman’s health, well-being and even life is a male boyfriend/partner/spouse. Rather than spending time on Pischke’s personal vendetta, why not work on functional programs and laws with real teeth to keep women safe? Protect lives, then turn to the next issues. Priorities!
Attempts to punish the ex-wife really hurt the children, who are torn between loyalties to 2 parents, and suffer from cutting back child support. I find the legislation sponsored by Pischke generally to be hostile and punitive in intent to some group or another. We don’t need another angry person in the legislature who has no empathy for any one but himself.
Ms. McMillin is right about the high toll abusive males like Pischke wreak on children. They know what’s going on, even at a very young age, and the stress is very damaging to them. It’s a pity Piscke doesn’t have the decency to love his children enough to put them first. It’s a shame that the voters of the district elect such a poor excuse for a legislator.
Totally agree!
I believe there are two sides to every story. I would not believe Kelly Piscksche. There are no police reports or any bruises on her. She lies and just because she says this crap does not make it true. She wanted it all because she is hurt that her husband did not find her desirable. She is a daddy little girl nd even to this day her parent live next door to her. It is admirable that we want to protect women of abuse, but Kelly pischke is NOT one of them
Good people, tom pischke loves his children dearly, and only wants to be a good dad. He had never missed his child support or any Bill’s concerning the children…his attempts to have legislation for more time with children have nothing to do with money, but only his wish that he more hands on dad..
That is what is best for his children