Press "Enter" to skip to content

Democrats Hosting Abortion Rights Rally Downtown Sioux Falls Sunday 2 p.m.

Hey, Sioux Falls Democrats… and women… and Libertarians… and everyone else who loves women and liberty—what are you doing Sunday afternoon?

You’re going to the “Freedom to Choose” Rally for Reproductive Rights, that’s what.

South Dakota Democratic Party, rally poster, retrieved 2022.09.20.
South Dakota Democratic Party, rally poster, retrieved 2022.09.20.

The FB page for this events lists the following Democratic candidates who plan to participate:

  • Rep. Jamie Smith, candidate for Governor
  • Rep. Linda Duba, candidate for District 15 House
  • Rep. Jennifer Keintz, candidate for Lt. Gov.
  • Brian Bengs, candidate for U.S. Senate
  • Kristin Hayward, candidate for District 12 House

Now some of you may say, Yeah, but I don’t want to go to a political rally—I’m fighting for women, not Democrats. But stow any feigned nonpartisanship for quieter times: the Alito Court and other Republicans have turned this profoundly personal issue into a political issue. Democrats (and Libertarian candidates for U.S. House Collin Duprel and for governor Tracey Quint!) are pretty much the only politicians who will fight to protect women and women’s rights and who will be honest with you about their position on abortion. If you don’t get political, you won’t get basic women’s equality back in South Dakota.

The Freedom to Choose rally starts downtown at 2 p.m. Sunday; organizers are still nailing down the exact location.

32 Comments

  1. jkl 2022-09-20 17:23

    Totally off subject, except relating to Democrats: how did things go at this year’s state fair in regards to vandalism and bully of the Democrats booth by the Magyars?

  2. Kurt Evans 2022-09-20 17:40

    Abortion deprives the child of the “Freedom to Choose” anything, ever.

  3. grudznick 2022-09-20 17:48

    Mr. jkl, you saying some cardboard lemonade stand got TPed by some mean kids on skateboards?

  4. larry kurtz 2022-09-20 18:11

    A foetus is no more a child than it is a grandparent.

  5. grudznick 2022-09-20 18:20

    My good friend Lar is righter-than-right on that one. grudznick does like it when Lar plays that card.

  6. Mark Anderson 2022-09-20 18:49

    Women, if you want full rights, move to a blue state.

  7. larry kurtz 2022-09-20 18:54

    That a pseudonymous troll would support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy but deny her right to ingest cannabis is a leap only a dope could make.

  8. larry kurtz 2022-09-20 19:06

    You know what, grud? When I made that appointment with you in 2003 to pitch my vision for the Ross Compressor Building then tracked drywall mud all over your office I was embarrassed but now I realize I should have kicked you right square in the nards instead.

  9. grudznick 2022-09-20 19:07

    On occasion, some of my good friends come to the realization that grudznick is a more complicated fellow than many of them remember. Today is simply one of those days.

  10. Jackilope 2022-09-20 19:11

    Kurt — forcing 10 year olds raped to give birth is dangerous for the child carrying and not acceptable. A woman losing or miscarrying deceased child under current law cannot get a D & C. It’s not black and white.

  11. P. Aitch 2022-09-20 19:37

    Larry means grudznicks office at 1815 9th Street in Rapid, huh Larry? How ‘bout it El Gallo?

  12. P. Aitch 2022-09-20 19:41

    Cells reproduce before a fetus become alive and cells reproduce after a human being is a corpse. Cell reproduction is not an indication of life. Being born and beginning to breathe independently is the indicator of life.

  13. M 2022-09-20 20:01

    Correct P. Aitch

  14. Kurt Evans 2022-09-20 20:05

    “Jackilope” writes:

    Kurt — forcing 10 year olds raped to give birth is dangerous for the child carrying …

    Coercing a ten-year-old girl into an abortion is psychologically dangerous for one child and fatal for the other.

  15. grudznick 2022-09-20 20:11

    I see the prophecy long advocated by grudznick and his close personal friend, Lar, is starting to come true with Walworth county.

  16. DaveFN 2022-09-20 21:11

    Commentators with their definitions of life are tilting at windmills as an attempt to justify their respective positions and might as well be arguing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

  17. Kurt Evans 2022-09-20 21:20

    Larry Kurtz writes, apparently referring to “grudznick”:

    That a pseudonymous troll would support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy but deny her right to ingest cannabis is a leap only a dope could make.

    On a related note, the God of the Bible obviously wants government to avenge crimes of theft, violence and defamation. Broad attempts to use government coercion to micromanage people’s lives and force non-Christians to act like Christians, on the other hand, don’t work, and they have high social and economic costs.

    Many on the political left suggest that pro-life Christians derive a twisted pleasure from asserting control over other people, and such a perception would seem to be reinforced by those who waste political capital on the micromanagement or outright criminalization of voluntary drug use by adults.

  18. P. Aitch 2022-09-20 21:37

    DaveEffNutz wouldn’t know which end of a pin to sit on. It’s just blah blah blah …

  19. DaveFN 2022-09-20 23:39

    Lansing

    This like most every topic Cory posts is way beyond your skill set to address, as much as you try.

    Stay in your kitchen where you belong.

  20. bearcreekbat 2022-09-21 00:33

    One point that I have never seen an attempt to refute (by Evans or any other anti-choice advocate) is that assuming only for the sake of discussion that a fertilized egg-fetus is in fact a “person,” there is no apparent rational explanation why a woman should be denied the right to defend against that “person’s” use of the woman’s body against her will. No other man, woman, boy or girl is denied the right to defend against the involuntary use of their body, even if parts of their body are needed by someone else to survive. For example, someone needing a kidney or liver transplant cannot force another person to give up his or her kidney or part of the liver, and someone starving has no right to forcibly take and eat any part of another living breathing person’s body for survival. So even if a fertilized egg-fetus needs the woman’s body parts to survive why should it matter whether it is a “person” since the law does not give other persons such power over another in order to survive?

  21. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2022-09-21 06:10

    Kurt, ascribing rights to non-sentient cells leads us to rights for animals and plants and the immediate starvation of our species.

    The pregnant woman’s rights override the rights of any organism hitching a ride inside her body. See bearcreekbat’s point about forcing women to serve another being.

  22. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2022-09-21 06:11

    JKL, I’ve heard the usual bullying committed by sniggering youths continues, demonstrating the bad influence of Trump and the willingness of Trumpist parents to let their kids become moral monsters for the cause of fascism. Let us hope the Trumpist bullies do not bring their bullying to these public demonstrations… or that if they do, the press gets those thug tactics on camera.

  23. Kurt Evans 2022-09-21 19:46

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    One point that I have never seen an attempt to refute (by Evans or any other anti-choice advocate) …

    Abortion deprives the child of the liberty to make any choice, ever. I’m not “anti-choice,” and you’ve seen me repeatedly refute your “point” at least since 2017.

    … there is no apparent rational explanation why a woman should be denied the right to defend against that “person’s” use of the woman’s body against her will. No other man, woman, boy or girl is denied the right to defend against the involuntary use of their body, even if parts of their body are needed by someone else to survive.

    That claim is absurd. Except under certain circumstances, neither fathers nor mothers have the right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.

    Cory writes:

    Kurt, ascribing rights to non-sentient cells leads us to rights for animals and plants and the immediate starvation of our species.

    I’m ascribing rights to the child, not to the child’s cells, and even if I were ascribing rights to the child’s cells, I’d see no logical connection to animals, plants, or the starvation of our species.

    The pregnant woman’s rights override the rights of any organism hitching a ride inside her body.

    Again, I’m not seeing any logical basis for that claim.

  24. Bearcreekbat 2022-09-22 20:46

    Kurt, to the best of my knowledge fathers and mother have the absolute legal right to “right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.” While there are laws requiring a parent not to abandon or neglect a child, any parent can voluntarily petition a court or sign a consent to give up his or her parental rights from the moment of birth, or any time thereafter, and be free of any future obligation to the child. Indeed, many states have enacted safe haven laws that allow a parent to abandon a newborn at some designated location with no court involvement and no questions asked.

    Safe haven laws generally allow the parent, or an agent of the parent, to remain anonymous and be shielded from criminal liability and prosecution for child endangerment, abandonment, or neglect in exchange for surrendering the baby to a safe haven.

    https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/safehaven.pdf

    Plus, there is no law that I am aware of that would ever require a parent to involuntarily give his or her own blood, an internal organ, nor any other body part to a living breathing child, even if needed to save that child’s life.

    Your attempted refutation to my point appears to be contrary to fact and without any legal basis. But if you actually have legal authority that supports your claim please share it and prove me wrong.

  25. Kurt Evans 2022-09-23 22:02

    I’d written:

    Except under certain circumstances, neither fathers nor mothers have the right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.

    “Bearcreekbat” writes:

    Kurt, to the best of my knowledge fathers and mother have the absolute legal right to “right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.” While there are laws requiring a parent not to abandon or neglect a child, any parent can voluntarily petition a court or sign a consent to give up his or her parental rights from the moment of birth, or any time thereafter, and be free of any future obligation to the child.

    It isn’t an “absolute legal right” if it’s only legal under specific circumstances.

    Indeed, many states have enacted safe haven laws that allow a parent to abandon a newborn at some designated location with no court involvement and no questions asked.

    How would you say parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies? Telepathy?

    Plus, there is no law that I am aware of that would ever require a parent to involuntarily give his or her own blood, an internal organ, nor any other body part to a living breathing child, even if needed to save that child’s life.

    We were talking about rights, not civil laws. Would you say a parent has the unconditional right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life?

  26. Bearcreekbat 2022-09-24 01:21

    Kurt, you are correct that there are typically pre-requisites (i.e. “specific circumstances”) to be met before exercising any right. Once the requirements are met, however, the State cannot legally interfere with the exercise of that right, hence it has become “absolute” in a legal sense. As noted, safe haven laws require the parent to leave the child only at specific locations, but once the parent does so the parent has the “absolute right” to be free of any responsibility for that child.

    Kurt asks:

    How would you say parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies? Telepathy?

    I wouldn’t say “parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies.” All human beings must “use their bodies” in some way to complete all physical actions, including the action of leaving the child. Of course when the parent uses his or her body in that manner it is a voluntary action. As I understand “telepathy,” it does not concern the physical movement of things, rather it addresses the passing of thoughts. You may be thinking of so-called “psychokinesis or telekinesis,” which is generally considered only an illusion.

    Kurt asks:

    We were talking about rights, not civil laws. Would you say a parent has the unconditional right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life?

    Throughout our conversation I have been referencing legal rights, which include rights granted or denied by civil laws. After all it is only the power of the State exercised through civil and criminal laws that denies by force the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. If you are thinking of some sort of “rights” outside of the law, then that is the matter for a completely different discussion.

    If your question were referencing the civil law, however, then I would answer no, to the best of my knowledge a parent cannot exercise parental control to deny a child a needed life-saving blood transfusion, so long as the blood comes from someone that consents to give the blood. But a parent can refuse to consent to using his or her own blood for the transfusion. The State gives the child no right to use either parent’s blood (nor to the use of any other body part) without the parent’s consent.

  27. Kurt Evans 2022-09-25 21:30

    “Bearcreekbat” writes:

    Kurt, you are correct that there are typically pre-requisites (i.e. “specific circumstances”) to be met before exercising any right.

    That isn’t what I’d said, and it isn’t true.

    I’d asked:

    How would you say parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies? Telepathy?

    “Bearcreekbat” writes:

    I wouldn’t say “parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies”… Of course when the parent uses his or her body in that manner it is a voluntary action.

    Complying with civil laws under the threat of government punishment is a “voluntary action”? Would you say it was a “voluntary action” when Planned Parenthood stopped aborting children in South Dakota?

    You may be thinking of so-called “psychokinesis or telekinesis” [rather than telepathy] …

    No, parents using telepathy could theoretically ask someone else to transport the child.

    I’d asked:

    Would you say a parent has the unconditional right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life?

    “Bearcreekbat” writes:

    If you are thinking of some sort of “rights” outside of the law, then that is the matter for a completely different discussion.

    Actually it’s a matter for this discussion.

    But a parent can refuse to consent to using his or her own blood for the transfusion.

    Would you say such a parent has the moral right to let the child die for no reason?

  28. Bearcreekbat 2022-09-25 22:34

    Kurt, rather than simply declare “that isn’t what I said” it would be helpful for continuing this discussion, if that is what you want to do, for you to clarify what it was you intended to say. Likewise, when you declare “it isn’t true” it would be helpful if you would explain why you believe “it isn’t true.”

    Kurt asks

    Would you say it was a “voluntary action” when Planned Parenthood stopped aborting children in South Dakota?

    No, because PP did not want that result, so it’s stopping was compelled by the threat of force and interfered with their goal of helping women in need. In contrast, parents complying with safe haven laws, however, seek the end result and want to comply because compliance with the requirements serves their goal of getting the child completely away from them and any responsibility for the child.

    Kurt then says:

    No, parents using telepathy could theoretically ask someone else to transport the child.

    Actually there would be no need for telepathy in that situation because as noted above as the parent is permitted by law to directly ask for the help as the safe haven laws apparently permit “an agent of the parent” to drop off the child

    Kurt asks

    Would you say such a parent [that refuses to consent to using his or her blood for a needed transfusion] has the moral right to let the child die for no reason?

    In my view for an act to be deemed moral or immoral that act must be an intentional choice made by the actor. Someone that claims to do something for “no reason” is either refusing to disclose the reason for the choice to act, or is acting without thinking and choosing. So If that hypothetical parent in fact had “no reason” for letting the child die the parent’s act would be neither moral nor immoral since it would be an act without thinking or choosing.

    For future discussion, perhaps it would be helpful for you to clarify when you are referencing some sort of “rights” outside of the law, as that approach raises different questions than a discussion of why the law should treat one class of persons (pregnant women that do not consent to another person using their body) differently than every other person that has a legal right to take whatever action is necessary to stop another person from using their body without their consent. That is a question I have not yet seen answered with a rational factual reason.

  29. Kurt Evans 2022-09-26 21:56

    “Bearcreekbat”

    In contrast, parents complying with safe haven laws, however, seek the end result and want to comply because compliance with the requirements serves their goal of getting the child completely away from them and any responsibility for the child.

    They could abdicate their responsibility for the child without complying with safe-haven laws, and contrary to your claims, it isn’t a “voluntary action” to comply with those laws under the threat of government punishment.

    Actually there would be no need for telepathy in that situation because as noted above as the parent is permitted by law to directly ask for the help as the safe haven laws apparently permit “an agent of the parent” to drop off the child

    You argue that fathers and mothers have the “absolute legal right” to withhold their bodies from the care of their children. How would you say parents could theoretically “ask for help” without using their bodies?

    So If that hypothetical parent in fact had “no reason” for letting the child die the parent’s act would be neither moral nor immoral since it would be an act without thinking or choosing.

    Would you say such a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?

  30. bearcreekbat 2022-09-27 01:12

    Kurt says:

    . . . it isn’t a “voluntary action” to comply with those laws under the threat of government punishment.

    I am not sure how you come up with that involuntary idea where the parent does not object to compliance, unless you take the position that compliance with any law carrying a sanction for noncompliance can never be voluntary. For what it is worth, I generally comply with most laws voluntarily – not because I feel compelled to by threat of punishment by the government for non-compliance. Is the only reason you don’t go out and start raping and murdering strangers because you know the government will punish you if they catch you, i.e., “it isn’t a “voluntary action” [for you] to comply with those [rape and murder] laws under the threat of government punishment?”

    Kurt asks

    How would you say parents could theoretically “ask for help” without using their bodies?

    I already answered this in my comment at 2022-09-24 01:21 above.

    Kurt asks,

    Would you say such a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?

    Your question contains the implied premise that a parent has a moral right not to care about the child. If that wasn’t your intent then your question is only rhetorical as you have already answered it with the premise that “the parent doesn’t care about the child.” In the former case where you posit as an implied premise that a parent has a moral right not to care about the child, my judgment would have to be based on the specific situation (like your response in your drawbridge hypotheticals).

  31. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2022-09-27 06:29

    Fetuses are not children with moral claims. They are part of the pregnant woman’s body, over which we have no legal claim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.