Ow. This one is kind of interesting to mention in terms of the current debate on abortion.

In 1991, for House Bill 1126 (An Act to prohibit abortion as a means of birth control), Campaign for Healthy Families co-chair Jan Nicolay offered the following amendment. And another medical procedure that some might consider painful (Well, I would, at least):
"The performance of a hysterectomy does not constitute the performance of an abortion pursuant to this Act. Any woman who desires a hysterectomy, but who is unable to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons, is entitled to demand a vasectomy of her spouse."
I'm pretty sure the measure failed.

(Ow. )


Anonymous said…
So, Jan Nicolay wants women to be free from the evil hand of government when it comes to abortion but men better protect thier gonads, cause she wants to sick the law on them.

Anonymous said…
Hey I have an idea..stop having sex ...stop trying to reproduce......No sex= No reproduction.
Anonymous said…
Come on people....that is pretty funny.
Anonymous said…
Nicolay proves herself to be the biggest, angriest man-hater in South Dakota once again
PP said…
Life is good. Another off comment excised.
Anonymous said…
Be careful what you ask for, anon 9:17--that's the next thing the legislature will attempt to outlaw.
Anonymous said…
Right. Because it's only okay to control WOMEN'S reproduction.

I get it now.
Anonymous said…
This is hilarious! Wonder where men's right to choose comes in regarding a vasectomy? She is constantly spouting off about a woman's right to choose, in fact it's her main argument, but doesn't sound like she wanted a man to have the same right.
Anonymous said…
Every organization should have a pledge to recite. Here is one for all of you Vote Yes people.

Repeat after me -

I, (insert name here), will not be satisfied until every woman in South Dakota is forced to carry to term every pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances, unless she is on the brink of death.

I believe that a 2-inch embryo is more important than the welfare of the woman in whose womb it resides.

I believe that a woman should be victimized twice by forcing her to carry a rapist's child against her will. To endure this will give her character, and if she commits suicide from the stress of carrying a rapist's child or dies from an infection caused by an illegal abortion, so be it because I KNOW that is God's will.

I believe that an 11-year-old child who weighs 80 pounds should be forced to carry the developing child forced upon her by an act of incest. I KNOW this is God's will.

I believe that it should be illegal to save one fetus by aborting the twin, parasitic fetus; let them both die instead because I KNOW that must be God's plan.

I believe in restricted government unless it involves personal decisions. That is different, and I KNOW that is what God wants.

I believe I have the right to make decisions that affect the health of total strangers because I KNOW that is what God wants me to do.

I believe that certain religions have the God-given right to force their religious beliefs on society as a whole and that legislation is the proper way to do this.

I believe that religions that disagree with me do not know how to interpret the Bible correctly. It matters not that abortion is never mentioned in the Bible.

I believe that if you disagree with me, you just don't get it.


God bless America, land of the free - except for in South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
How about the pro-abortion people recite this pledge:

"I believe in the right of every woman to have abortion on demand for any and all reasons. I believe in abortion as a form of birth control. I believe that no life exists before the actual moment of birth."

For this is what we have now, no restrictions, abortion for any reason, and that is what you want to retain. And of course, if you believe that an unborn baby is truly LIFE, you wouldn't be pro-abortion.
Anonymous said…

Since you already agree with abortion I am sure you would have no moral or ethical qualms about taking that pregnant woman across state lines for an abortion.

Nothing in 1215 prevents women from crossing state lines to seek an abortion. And since Sioux Falls, the only location where abortions are performed, is only minutes away from Sioux City and Minnesota there should be no real problems.

After all what's a hour longer drive? Is that really a great imposition when there is so much hostility towards abortions?

Really end the divisiveness by agreeing to support 1215 and then agreeing to go acroos state lines to get the abortion. We could call it the South Dakota comprimise.

At the end of the day nothing is stopping women from jumping the border to terminate that little life.
Anonymous said…

Your logic is niether compelling or persausive. I beleive that you think you are some sort of voice of reason in the sea of mental slaves here in South Dakota.

Unfortunately you're manifesto to the freewill termination of life proves just the opposite.

You probably fashion yourself as a progressive who believes that society moving forward includes the at-will termination of life.

Ending life regardless of how it's created is not progressive. It is caveman like and barbaric. Savages who cannot control themselves or are unwilling to face the consequences thereof resort to methods like abortion.

And while you do present some emotionally charged reasons for terminating life, you are still promoting an act of death that is grounded in what can only be described as barbarism.

As for jumping state lines...that does seem to defeat the whole purpose of the anti-abortion movement. However, this election involves the constitutionalally sovereign state of South Dakota and NO others. If informing people that women can still jump the border to seek an abortion will help to pass this thing so be it.

I would think Joan would support such methods in order to achieve the finallity she seeks for pregnant women.
Anonymous said…
First of all, 7:48, what about that pledge do you disagree with? That pretty well sums up everything I've read on here.

As far as suggesting that women cross state lines, isn't that rather hypocritical?

Twist the truth about whether or not there are exceptions and suggest that women cross state lines to get abortions elsewhere.

Anything to win, right?
Anonymous said…
On this one. Anything to save the babies and prevent more women from being coerced and hurt.
Anonymous said…
In other words, the end justifies the means. So that is what family values are all about!

Silly me. Here I thought we were talking about truth and honesty.

So, Mom, how do you justify an 11-year-old child who weighs 80 pounds having to endure a pregnancy? She is a child too. Doesn't that count for anything, or is she supposed to suffer more than she already has?

Oh, that's right. She can take emergency contraception. Trouble is, she's scared to tell anyone what happened so that 72-hour time frame flies right on by.

These situations might not happen often, but it happens.

I guess I shouldn't puncture your idealism with cold, hard facts. Do those little complications make it a tad bit harder for you to sleep at night? Or are children like that meant to be sacrifical lambs for your overall plan?

The important thing is to win and save those embryos so there will be more poor children who can grow up and fight our wars for us.

If we don't privatize Social Security, there will be more people to pay into it.

There also will be more poor people who can work those low income jobs that the brown-skinned people from down South are taking now. Let's get busy and produce those white babies and keep America white!

Maybe there will even be a few babies available for Leslee Unruh to buy so that wealthy white families can snap up what they want instead of settling for children who are older, of minority races, or handicapped.

"Yes, they'll know we are Christians, by our love, by our love. They will know we are Christians by our love." - Peter Scholtes
Anonymous said…
Holy crap! I've heard 100's of times from the Campaign for Healthy Families that the other side is "radical" or "extreme," yet their co-chair authored this kind of amendment!

Boy! I guess they have different sets of standards for what is over-the-top. Do they all feel this way?
Anonymous said…
10:47 - Please let us know what you are talking about after you have sobered up.

Or don't use recognize the use of irony when you see it?
Anonymous said…
Silly me, how many of the 814 abortions in the state of South Dakota last were performed on 11-year-old 80-pound girls?

The pro-abortion activists attempt to be so compassionate. They come up with the most extreme cases. Why not 70 pounds, though? What about a 10-year-old? Come on, your industry is going down in flames. Is that the best you can do? If Referred Law 6 fails, and the Legislature would rewrite the bill to include an exception for 80-pound 11-year-olds, would you support it then? How about if they allowed an exception for anybody under the age of 18 with no weight requirement. What about if it included the above under-18 exception and a broad provision for rape? Would you support it then?

Save your time. We know your answer is "No."
Anonymous said…
There would be people who would still fight abortion restrictions, but you wouldn't have the backlash that is present if exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother had been included.

I, for one, would not have objected to an abortion ban that had restrictions. And yes, instances where young, physically small girls are impregnated do happen.

An 8-year-old girl (Yes, eight years old!)in New York became pregnant by her mother's boyfriend a couple of years ago. It made national headlines. Do you think she should have been forced to see the pregnancy through to its finish?

Telling a child that the law doesn't make exceptions for rare instances like hers should be a lot of comfort for her, don't you think?

Why don't you go talk to people at some of the shelters for abused children, and to rape counselors? I'm not talking about Leslee Uhruh's "we buy babies" organization, go to the groups who have nothing politically to lose or gain by telling you the truth. Then you just might get some accurate information instead of stories that have been sanitized to suit someone else's agenda.

Most of the people who work with rape and incest victims aren't going to stick their necks out and comment on this mess. My daughter did that last March, and she heard from every nut job around. Now she remains silent out of fear that some crazy will come after her or her children if she again speaks out.

She knows that life for some people is uglier than most of us could even begin to imagine. I've heard the stories, and the knowledge of what some women and children must endure is the basis of my concerns.

Compassion shouldn't be reserved solely for embryos and fetuses. Victims need to have control over their own bodies, control that they didn't have when they were impregnated. They need to be able to make their own choices, whatever that might be. They need to know that we think they have value too.
Anonymous said…
And there's "Silly me" playing the victim card again. His/Her daughter who spoke out by her own volition is a victim because she was contacted for her pro-abortion position.

Everybody's a victim in your Silly world. Don't you think that people on the pro-life side were probably contacted by "nut jobs" too? They don't count, though, do they?

Stick to the facts. About ninety-eight percent of the babies dismembered by abortionists are for birth control. Aren't those lives worth saving?
Anonymous said…
12:47 - How many people on the pro-life side do you know who have been shot at, murdered or had their offices bombed?

And if a rape-incest exception was in the bill, that would not affect that other 98 percent that you are trying to save, would it?

Like you said - Stick to the facts.
Anonymous said…
silly me:

you know that no court would uphold a law passed that contains the exceptions.

Stop feigning comprimise and face facts. Abortion is almost exclusively used as birth control in South Dakota and since you apparently are opposed to using abortion for birth control join with us in voting yes on 6.

Look, I don't want abortion in my state or any other. But, I'm only a resident of South Dakota and only vote in SD. As for other states, that's up to them. It's also the law (you know that whole you can only vote in one place thing).

And what about that crap we hear from people who say, "I'm personally oppossed to it but I don't want to tell others what to do."

Well for all you who are sitting on the fence and who are personally opposed to abortion vote for this bill to get rid of it in South Dakota and then let the "others" go across state lines to terminate the pregnancy. After all its only about you right?
Anonymous said…
HB1215 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If they want people to approve an abortion ban, they need to write one that the majority of South Dakotans will approve.

Why should women who live in South Dakota and pay taxes here have to cross the border for a service that is available in all other states?
Suggesting they do that is hypocrisy on your part, but it's also an admission that abortions are going to happen one way or another.
Anonymous said…
In the interest of fair and full disclosure Jan should admit she hates men.
Anonymous said…
And in the interest of fair and full disclosure Leslee should admit she hates other women.
Anonymous said…
Silly Me asked, "How many people on the pro-life side ... have been shot at, murdered or had their offices bombed?" Get real now, how many on the pro-abortion side has that actually happened to? A very, very, VERY small number. It isn't right and 99.9% of the pro-life people would agree wtih this.

Then Silly asks, "And if a rape-incest exception was in the bill, that would not affect that other 98 percent that you are trying to save, would it?" Actually, yes it would because anyone seeking an abortion could claim rape as an excuse and get the abortion, no questions asked, and so the over 90% abortion on demand could continue on its merry way virtually unchanged.
Anonymous said…
If one of those "numbers" was your family member who was shot, murdered, or injured when their workplace was bombed, it would matter, wouldn't it?
Anonymous said…
5:41. Of course it would. But, when is the last time you heard about this? Seems to me a long time ago. It is NOT condoned by pro-life people.

And BTW if you are so concerned with the very small number that this happened to, I am sure you are just as concerned with the greater number of babies killed by partial birth abortion. And the hundreds of babies killed by all other abortions in the state.
Anonymous said…
nonnie, I am not suggesting that shootings, murder and bombings are condoned by most pro-life people.

As you should know, this stems from an earlier post here when I stated that my daughter, who works with sexual abuse and domestic violence issues (not Planned Parenthood), would not publicly discuss the abortion ban because she feared for the safety of her and her family. She talked to a reporter who called her last March, and she heard from 40 to 50 disturbed people from across the nation afterwards.

Another poster suggested that pro-life people received threats also, and I asked how many pro-life people had been shot at, killed or had their work places bombed. I mentioned that to underscore why my daughter was frightened.

Then you tried to minimize my concern by saying it hadn't happened to many people. Thus my response that it would matter if it happened to your family member.

Now if you can't understand that, you either don't have children or you need more help than what I can offer here.
Anonymous said…
Silly, how many times has your daughter been shot at? How many times has her workplace been bombed?

The answer is zero. Neither of you is a victim. Stop trying to play the victim card.

Before, you said that your daughter had been contacted by all the nut jobs. Really? Did Kate Looby contact her? Only 40 or 50? I would've guessed there were more nut jobs than that.

Oh yeah. Most of the nut jobs are on your side. They're led by the man-hating Jan. Does she represent your view? Are you a nut job too?
Anonymous said…
Believe what you want to believe. That's how it's been for you all along anyway. There's no point in straining your brain now after such a long period of non-use.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.