Former Republican legislator and failed 2008 U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra helped pass South Dakota’s near-absolute abortion ban back in 2005. Now he’s helping Representative Jon Hansen and anti-abortion propagandist Leslee Unruh campaign against the proposed constitutional amendment that would restore South Dakota women’s Roe-era abortion rights:
Mercer: Currently there is a petition drive to initiate a state constitutional amendment that would restore abortion rights in South Dakota. It would overturn the 2005 trigger law. There is also a ballot-measure committee opposing the effort, to which you and your spouse have given $1,000. What are your thoughts on the attempt to ask voters to revisit the question?
Dykstra: “I think the issue will turn on how much the public understands about the radical application of the proposed amendment that would allow abortions up to the moment of birth. We support the effort to oppose the amendment and to educate the public about how far outside the majority’s desire for reasonable restrictions” [Bob Mercer, “Q&A: Former Legislator Joel Dykstra on Abortion Ban,” KELO-TV, 2023.03.31].
Remember: the amendment Dykstra and his deceptive misogynist allies are calling “radical” only resets South Dakota’s stance on women’s right to control their bodies to the status quo that existed under Roe v. Wade for 49 years before the Alito Court ripped that right away last summer. South Dakota voters affirmed that status quo ante Alito when they rejected abortion bans in 2006 and 2008. The circulating amendment writes the standards used in the 1973 Roe decision into South Dakota’s constitution. That’s not radical; Dykstra and his fellow women-controlling theocrats are.
When these “pro-lifers” make the statement “…..allow abortions up to the moment of birth……” the unspoken part of the statement subsumes “without cause.” Why? Because (ironically) their mode of moral “logic” is mostly done “without cause”, other to “because I say so”, I.E., from within an authoritarian framework or perspective. This is simply an extension of the logic contained in creationism vs. science. The universe exists “because I say so.”, says the biblical Yahweh. These folks are taking on the moral mantle of a God, leaving their own humanity in the dust. About as far from humility as one can stand.
Yeah, what Mr. Schriever said.
Also, the petition I am circulating, in fact, is , and, in my opinion, a nicely balanced compromise. Meaning Dykstra is a big, fat misspoken disinformant. Our petition is all about helping women and children and humanity’s ability to restore dignity. The first trimester is Woman’s choice. The second, Doctor and Government are the main decision-makers. Third trimester is Government’s call. You cannot make anyone more equally happy than that. The amendment does not include Woman’s choice in the third trimester atall. Rep. Hanson is dangerous to women and freedom. That I have felt certain of from day one.
Well, Joel’s been a Dyke since he was born, what can you expect?
Richard Schriever
Granted, any spoken statement leaves something unspoken as per your example so is always already but a half-truth.
Your further argument will have little purchase, however, insofar as the opposition will claim that you yourself are effectively doing the same that you accuse, namely speaking from some privileged standpoint of authority.
In other words, your argument devolves to “he said and she said.” One presumed authority versus another.
Of course. Women are radical….thank goodness. They are responsible for most of the progress the human race has enjoyed since the dawn of time.
Mammal – all that fancy “trimester” talk is nonsense to the authoritarians. So far as they are concerned these are all distinctions without a difference (see Dave FN’s discussion on how the argument devolves @ self-righteousness – above). All are one word – babies. There is no such thing as a zygote, an embryo, a fetus or any other sort of “devilish” scientific distinction necessary for one to have authority.
And Dave FN – there remains a distinction between the “they say” and I say (or he/she says) stance from their perspective. That being the good/evil dichotomy. He (pro-life) being the God and She (science) being the devil. There remains a moral distinction. Science in itself is amoral, but one may feel a personal sense of moral righteousness in supporting it. The pro-life side cannot bring itself to the point of self-examination long enough (which is what science is all about) to discover anything like a moral equivalence.
All knowledge of self is evil. That is why we call them witches, those who know moon phases and roots and herbal remedies (including abortifacients) keep cats around old grannies and babies for bone density and basically listen and speak with the good earth. To sync up with the moon phases, instead of fight against nature and strive to overpower the essence of women and water convinces scared little punks we must be in cahoots with the devil herself. But understanding all this is still just a man’s inflation of his own universe blah blah blah
Remember: This is the same Joel “Anything for a buck” Dykstra who campaigned hard to establish a South Dakota trade mission in Red Commie China and strongly encouraged a long-term economic relationship between South Dakota and Red China.
It’s interesting to see another has-been political cadaver Leslee Unruh is being resurrected to spew lies on our state. She must’ve found a new broom.
Richard Schrver
“there remains a distinction between the “they say” and I say (or he/she says) stance from their perspective. That being the good/evil dichotomy. He (pro-life) being the God and She (science) being the devil. There remains a moral distinction. Science in itself is amoral, but one may feel a personal sense of moral righteousness in supporting it. The pro-life side cannot bring itself to the point of self-examination long enough (which is what science is all about) to discover anything like a moral equivalence.’
Huh? As though you were the epitome of self-examination? Again, your claim is to speak from some privileged position and that be of an authority which you yourself decry?