Tim Johnson jumps into South Dakota abortion debate with both feet
I thought this was kind of unusual. According to the Argus Leader, U.S. Senator Tim Johnson is inserting himself into the HB 1215/Referred Measure 6 abortion debate by recording a message for the "No on 6" forces:
Aside from the fact that whether or not the measure contains exceptions is still up for debate (and debate, and debate), I don't recall it as typical for a US Senator to jump into a matter like this?
Why? South Dakotans are evenly divided on the issue, and by making a clear stand with one side he risks making the other side really, really mad come time for the next election. Lest he forget, the measure was originally introduced by members of his own party as well as Republicans.
That could cause him headaches in 2008. At least one of the two people I've spoken with who are looking at the race would potentially consider this an issue to debate and argue over. And in his previous races, Johnson has managed to avoid a major (and ugly) campaign battle over the abortion issue.
In 2008? Jumping in with both feet in 2006 might leave them a little dirty.
The campaign against a proposed law that would make most abortions illegal in South Dakota has gained a well-known politician as a spokesman against the measure.Read it all here at Argusleader.com.
U.S. Sen.Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has taped an automated telephone message that urges voters to reject the legislation.
South Dakota’s senior senator said the proposed ban on most abortions should be dumped because it contains no exceptions for women who have been victims of rape or incest.
Aside from the fact that whether or not the measure contains exceptions is still up for debate (and debate, and debate), I don't recall it as typical for a US Senator to jump into a matter like this?
Why? South Dakotans are evenly divided on the issue, and by making a clear stand with one side he risks making the other side really, really mad come time for the next election. Lest he forget, the measure was originally introduced by members of his own party as well as Republicans.
That could cause him headaches in 2008. At least one of the two people I've spoken with who are looking at the race would potentially consider this an issue to debate and argue over. And in his previous races, Johnson has managed to avoid a major (and ugly) campaign battle over the abortion issue.
In 2008? Jumping in with both feet in 2006 might leave them a little dirty.
Comments
As for Johnson, I don't think this will cost him many votes since most of the people supporting the ban probably didn't vote for him in the first place.
Abortion may be a controversial issue. But HB1215 is less so. More and more people are moving toward the opinion that the law needs to be overturned.
Johnson has clearly staked out his position on 1215. And it's with the majority of South Dakotans. His potential opponent had better hope they aren't on the opposite side and those behind the legislation become active in opposing Johnson. It could end up being the kiss of death for that opponent.
Rape is a tragedy, and it is a crime. The same is true of incest. The perpetrators should be locked up for a long, long time. However, there are people walking down the streets who were conceived in either rape or incest. Every time a politician or a layperson says "...except in cases of rape or incest..." they must feel terrible. Or mad. Or defeated. It's really no different from talking down about any other group of people. What if a person was to say, "I'm pro-life, but I think there should be an exception for Whites or Blacks or Hispanics or boys or girls or kids whose parents are fat....?" The list goes on and on.
And before you hastily fire back, think about this. What if your best friend was conceived in rape? How about incest? Could you look him or her in they eye and tell them that because of how they were "made" they are a little less important than everybody else? Every time you talk about how extreme 6 is, and that it should have had certain exceptions, that's exactly what you're saying.
When it comes time to vote, think of it as a chance to stop the killing of more than 820 South Dakota babies each year. AND over 800 of those babies are NOT conceived in rape or incest.
Regardless of the political rhetoric, a Yes vote is a vote for life. A no vote is for the status quo, and it ensures that ALL the killing will continue, including the 99% of children not conceived in rape.
Johnson is hardly thinking "What's the South Dakota legislature's 'Democrat' mindset/position on this one..." Duh!
Because the issue is so evenly divided, he can't (or perhaps shouldn't) take a political stance?? Because it's a tough question? Is that what you're saying?? Maybe I'm confused.
Last year, Senator Johnson wrote me a letter which indicated he supported medical marijuana or, perhaps, he at least supports not criminalizing those persons who smoke dope for medicinal purposes. How many Democrats in the South Dakota State Legislature have supported Medical Marijuana in past votes in Pierre? None. How many Republicans in Pierre have stood up for those peoples' right to smoke marijuana with a DOCTOR'S recommendation? None.
How will Johnson's support of medical marijuana impact the voters in 2008? Will he actually have more support in 2008 because he support of medical marijuana is a rational and thoughtful idea, and which a majority of South Dakotans, if provided all the facts on this issue by November, will vote in favor of this fall.
Nope. I know haggs is against the marriage amendment. How about Chad?
Where are they on legalizing marijuana?
How about on taking away guns?
Probably right there with Johnson and all the other lefties.
What about Bob? and kelsey, k, joan, newquist, et. al.?
Speaking of Bob, where has he been? Did he get jailed again?
And if believing that rape and incest victims and women with serious health problems should have access to rape within the state where they live and pay taxes makes me a "lefty," I am proud to assume the title. (What do you call all of those moderate Republicans who believe the same thing?)
If the anti-choice people are claiming there are other "options" then call them that. Don't go around calling them "execptions." It's dishonest.
Let's assume that the woman who needs an abortion lives in South Dakota and pays property taxes here. So do you.
You can't become pregnant, but you can develop a kidney stone. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that you have a kidney stone.
You need to have treatment for that kidney stone, but the South Dakota legislature has passed a law that bans treating kidney stones in the state. Your only option is to drive to Mpls., Omaha, Fargo or where ever else to get the treatment that you need. Finding the money for gas and lodging will be difficult if not impossible, and there is the additional problem of getting time off from work for you and the person who will accompany you.
How are you going to feel about that? Don't say there is a difference because you have already implied that it is okay for women to go out of state for an abortion. That negates any moral argument on your part and puts both medical treatments on the same level.
How would you like being treated like a second class citizen? Not much, I would guess. Then why is it okay to treat women like that?
You must be connected to Planned Parenthood - they're always trying to pass abortion off as "health care." That is just as dishonest at the pro-1215 people saying there are exceptions for rape and incest.
Re: Planned Parenthood - There's no connection. I don't even know where the clinics are located in the cities close to me.
At least you admit that HB1215 contains no exceptions for rape and incest. That's a start.
Maybe a kick lower down would be more appropriate. If well-placed, it might eliminate some of those problems.
By including the three exceptions, the number of abortions would have gone from somewhere around 850 per year to something less then 50. Now that would be progress in reducing the number of abortions.
But no, they said no exceptions, almost assuring that it would be thrown out in the courts, or as it turns out, thrown out by the voters.
It appears that they are so blinded by the idea of stopping all abortions, they passed up the opportunity to stop over 90% of them.
Hunt and crew are more interested in glory for themselves than stopping the vast majority of abortions by allowing for exceptions.
And as for the argument comparing an abortion to a kidney stone, not even close. One involves a life, one involves a stone!
And as long as abortion is available in another state, it is simply that, available. Doesn't mean that we are in favor of the abortion, just that there is that option for a woman wanting an abortion. And if that makes it difficult, well, taking a life should be.
Had he not thought it was okay, he would not have mentioned it.
The comparison between treatment for a kidney stone and for an abortion was made merely to point out that people who pay taxes have a right to expect medical treatment within their own state instead of having to spend more money to go somewhere else to obtain it. (When a doctor does something in his role as a physician, it IS medical treatment.) It did not deal with the moral issue because the earlier remark implied that going out of state was an acceptable option for "desperate" women.
If you believe the garbage that women would claim to be raped in order to get an abortion, then it is obvious that you are going to believe whatever someone says that you believe bolsters your position.
The good news is that intelligent, well educated people who are in positions of authority and/or respect are speaking out against Referred 6.
HB1215 is going down.
Wake up Chad, it's time to get up from your nap.
Numbers are moving in favor of VoteYesForLife.
The more people understand the bill the more likely they are to vote for it. People just need to be educated on the bill and understand the provision in the bill to protect women who have been victims of rape and incest.
I'm willing to bet any amount of money that Johnson hasn't even read the bill and is just barfing up what planned parenthood paid him to say.
Senator Johnson, what does it feel like to be a puppet for the largest abortion provider in the US?
I see your point, but I disagree. I should maybe wait until after I sleep to post a comment. Here's a better explanation of what I was trying to say.
There are 2 basic types of abortions - elective and therapeutic. Elective would be in the case where no health problems with the mother existed, but she chooses to have the abortion (for whatever reason). Therapeutic would be an abortion to improve or safeguard the health (or life) of the mother when the pregnancy posed a serious threat.
Calling an elective abortion "health care" is the same as calling a rhinoplasty for someone who doesn't like a bump in their nose "health care." HC is a general term, but I think you can find obvious differences between elective and therapeutic abortions. To me, the therapeutic is health care, while the elective is something else -- It's not meant to care for the woman's health.
If a medical doctor uses his or her professional skills to perform any type of procedure, I believe it is safe to say that is medical treatment.
"I support a ban, with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother," he said.
Rapid City Journal,9/27/2006
When you pass a law with these types of exceptions it won't pass the due process logic of even the most conservative judge.
The liberal judges won't support it anyway, because they rule on what they think the law should be not what the law is. The conservative judges who actually abide by the law can't support a bill with exceptions because the bill must apply to everyone (i.e. every child in the womb) not just the ones that are excepted out.
In the end at least we have all the pro-aborts on the record now as wanting to support a bill with exceptions. I guarantee you that if the legislature passed a bill with exceptions most of the same people hollering about this bill would be at the courthouse the next day.
The PP crowd is against any restriction on the right to abort a child. So I hope that after this ruckus that Jan Nicolay and Kate Looby and Tim Johnson are the first to support a bill with exceptions and that they will decry any and all efforts to opposed such a measure in the courts.
Regarding your statements about a PP lawsuit in Pennsylvania and conservative judges, please state your sources - and only articles from valid news sources or professional journals count.
Rhetoric from anti-abortion groups cannot be taken seriously since their statements are often self-serving to help them meet their agenda.
Who has determined that liberal judges rule on what they think the law should be instead of what it is? Judges interpret laws, and all of their interpretations are subjective. So anyone's claim that liberal judges incorrectly interpret the law is only that person's opinion and nothing more.
All of your other statements also are pure conjecture and not proven facts. There is a difference.
If the bill is so great, how come all of these people oppose it?
He also said this a state issue not a federal one.
Thune is also taking the politically safe route on this one. It doesn't mean that he won't vote for it, but he certainly is chickenshit when it comes to this type of stuff.
So much for Johnson using that old line about not commenting on state issues anymore. He has used that line to duck having to comment on state issues now he won't be able to do so with crediblity.
I have said this before, that this issue has put people on the record and in the future they are going to held to that position. And while 1215 may go down, what about when the bill to outlaw abortion with the exceptions comes to the floor? Will Johnson and Looby and Nicolay and Plnd. PH be there supporting it. hell no.
As to the reader wanting sources for that dude's post go google it yourself lady. This website is not the bar exam or legal brief its place to bs and say what you want. Take your conjecture language and smoke it. You are probably wound so tight you could turn coal into diamonds.
It's presumed that when writing or speaking about abortion that we can an informed discussion. This also implies a certain level of intelligence and education. Both of which you didn't come with to this debate. If you had you would know that the PA case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 505 US 833 1992. And while this cite is not a journal or a respected article it is a Supreme Court decision. It's the decision in which the due process analysis which I speak of was laid out like a road map. I encourage you to read it.
Now about conservative judges. If you are making the implied claim that conservative judges will allow a bill like 1215 to pass due process analysis you are smoking crack or you don't what the hell you are talking about. Most constitutionalists i.e. conservatives on the Supreme Court will not allow a law that selectively chooses only select lives to spared to pass constitutional muster.
Go read the pre and post Lochner decisions regarding substantive due process analysis. Go google it because I don't have time to educate you on 50 years of SDP analysis.
And in regards to liberal judges. There is a reason why Planned Parenthood always files its cases before Judge Schrier in Rapid City and never in any other federal court in Sioux falls, including Piersol, because Shrier is a sure bet for striking down abortion laws. It's like asking if the sun will rise. It's common knowledge in the SD bar that you go to Schrier with these types of issues.
To totally ignore the liberal/conservative bent of a judge is to deny your own logic that a judge's decision is indeed subjective. What is not subjective is the degree to which a judge will distance him/herself from precedent and circuit court rulings.
Further, many lawyers based on my informal discussions feel that while Schrier will strike it down if it passes the 8th circuit would uphold 1215 because the bill requires a traditional and formulary analysis of due process law which even the most liberal and anti-constitutional judge would be strained to not follow.
Remember the case of Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court? That was a due process analysis case. The liberals were up in arms because the Justices decided to actually use the liberals definition of due process analysis. It was great! Liberals thought that they had won that case because the "conservative" court would follow through on its "pledge" to analyze the case how they wanted to. Instead the justices simply applied heretofore established due process analyses thereby allowing Bush to win the case. Simply put, liberals were outraged because the court refused to decide the issue in a "conservative" manner and instead used the liberal orthodoxy of due process case law against them i.e. Gore.
Actually, I'm not wound tight at all. I loosen up by reading these blogs. Some of it is funny stuff.
(Conjecture means speculation.)
Are you always this cranky, or has Sen. Thune's refusal to endorse HB1215 made you this way?
Thune and his support is irrelevant to me. What he does doesn't put food on my table. The guy shot himself in the foot with his most recent statements.
You always danced around this issue, but now it is clear. YOU ARE FOR ABORTION!
Timmy how are you going to win this time? You will have to find another way to switch ballots after dark. We won't allow it twice. Ask your buddy Tommy, he even tried to go to court to keep his "right" to switch votes after dark.
The margin pro lifers will not be with you this time. And hunters will be informed of your voting against us.
Enjoy your next two years. I don't think Tommy will be riding in on his white horse this time. He is having too much fun running with his fellow LIBERALS.
How many of you plan to stand by Sen. Thune while he casts his vote to see which way he sways when the time comes?
Or are you saying nothing else matters as long as your representatives oppose abortion?
You can't even be certain where Sen. Thune stands on HB1215 as he sways back and forth.
The fact that guys like you can vote is scary.