Is this a list of who's in and who's out on the impending abortion bill
Here's a hot one -
Republican District 6 Representative Kristi Noem sent out an e-mail plea yesterday to people in her District. It regards the abortion measure that I've noted is going to be filed in the legislature, supposedly by Representative Gordon Howie.
Why is this interesting? It contains a run down of (allegedly) who is, and who isn't on board the measure in the senate:
Is it time to strike while the iron is still warm from last November's attempt, or is it better to sit back for a time to avoid abortion-issue weariness?
I do note that Representative Noem points out that she doesn't "have the battle scars some of these legislators do." Regardless, with a bold line in the sand such as this, she may earn one this session.
Republican District 6 Representative Kristi Noem sent out an e-mail plea yesterday to people in her District. It regards the abortion measure that I've noted is going to be filed in the legislature, supposedly by Representative Gordon Howie.
Why is this interesting? It contains a run down of (allegedly) who is, and who isn't on board the measure in the senate:
Abortion bill update from Rep. Kristi NoemWow. This is particularly interesting because not only is Kristi taking a poke at Senator Brock Greenfield for his not supporting the measure as state Director of South Dakota Right to Life, she's also married to his cousin. It also shows some of the deep divisions within the pro-life community of the state.
I would like to ask you all to pray. There was an impromptu meeting today of all legislators in the House who have taken a strong pro-life position.
One of our house members is considering filing a bill that would ban abortions in the state with exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. These are the issues that most people had objections to during the initiative vote on November 7th when the Vote yes for life campaign lost its battle.
There was some dissention among the group that some did not want the bill to be filed unless we could be assurred that it would pass. They feel that a loss in the legislature would doom this cause to the point where it would be beyond the point of salvation and would forever be written off as a lost cause.
We know we have the support needed in the House. The problem is the Senate. Here is a list of the Senators that DO NOT currently support an abortion ban bill.
Duenwald
Greenfield
Grey
Hauge
Lintz
Gant
Tom Hanson
Hunhoff
Garnos
Turbak
Knudson
Dempster
Ed Olsen
These legislators need to have a change of heart. Some are past supporters and don't feel it is the right time for such a battle. Some are very pro-choice and won't even discuss the bill with us. Greenfield in particular is the Right to Life chairman for the state and it sends the wrong message for him not to be supporting this legislation.
I realize I am new to the Legislature and don't have the battle scars some of these legislators do. But this is why I ran for office. I planned to wait another 8 to 10 years, but decided now was the time for me to become involved in the moral issues facing our state. I welcome the opportunity to be a part of seeing 99% of the abortions outlawed in our state.
If we take time off from this battle, our opponents won't. They will keep working. Every week we do nothing, another 33 children in our state are killed. Pray for these legislators. Pray they will have a change of heart and a steadfast conviction that this legislation is needed. Pray that we remove this curse from our land. Pray we will have wisdom as we enter this battle, and grace and fortitude to see it to a victorious end.
Pray that these legislators that are on the fence or sitting on the other side will take a true step of faith and make a decision to do what is right.
Tell everyone that you know to email these legislators or call them.
There needs to be an outcry from supporters in the next 24 hours or this bill won't see the light of day. Their email addresses and phone #'s are on the South Dakota Legislative Research Council website.
Thank you so much
Rep. Kristi Noem
Is it time to strike while the iron is still warm from last November's attempt, or is it better to sit back for a time to avoid abortion-issue weariness?
I do note that Representative Noem points out that she doesn't "have the battle scars some of these legislators do." Regardless, with a bold line in the sand such as this, she may earn one this session.
Comments
I am happy to hear that Kristi will be involved with the issues that are important to the citizens.
So politics in general are just a moral issue?
And a nice dig to her husband's cousin. They are in the same district too.
Isn't the committee that would hear this slanted toward no votes anyway? I thought it had to pass a committee first?
The legislature is not elected to push personal or special interest agendas, they're elected to represent the people of South Dakota. It is anti-democratic for a legislator to put his or her own "moral authority" ahead of the clearly expressed will of the people they are supposed to represent.
In 32 of the 35 districts, the voters rejected the abortion ban. Of course, those representing Districts 19, 23 and 25 should support the bill. Those from every other district are putting their own personal agenda ahead of the clearly expressed will of the people who 1) elected them, and 2) pay their salaries and per diem. Because we know the vote from each district, we'll know exactly who respects their constituents, and who (like Noem) view themselves as morally and/or intellectually superior to the regular people they are supposed to represent.
If what Noem is saying is true, you have to at least respect Brock Greenfield. He saw the action his constituents took, respected it, and is not willing to put his own personal (and professional) agenda ahead of the will of the people.
Your numbers are interesting. Do you have the actual counts by legislative district precincts, or did you use counties? I'm not challenging you. I'm interested in the methodology behind the numbers. Also, which districts voted for the ban?
The voters rejected Referred Law 6, not this new legislation. You can't use those numbers anymore buddy!
Look a the KELO/Argus poll. The ban passes by 75% if there are clearly definid exceptions for rape and incest. This is exactly what they should do is follow what the people want and that is a ban with those exceptions more clearly laid out this time for people to understand.
Yes, what a great source that is. That poll also had Amendment E, Jail 4 Judges, winning in a landslide.
If you need to pray for anything, Mrs. Noem, it is wisdom!
46% said BAN ALL ABORTIONS--EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE STATE.
Another 20% including Jon Thune (and President Bush) said ban all abortions except the few that are not birth control related--rape, incest, maternal morbidity.
We spoke LOUD AND CLEAR and it is good that Kristi Noem and others heard us.
You left winger--sore losers--go home!
3:54 PM
I guess it is true that the far right is ignorant. They obviously can't count either.
We all saw what fun you people brought to the state last year. Trucks with pictures of fetuses all over them. Crazy people on the FBI's wanted list. People getting assaulted by out of state anti-abortion crazies that came here to start trouble. Yea last summer was oh so much fun and we owe it all to the far right who can't get a clue.
I seriously can't wait to see who votes NO on this bill. They will be labeled as a complete pro-abort.
People keep saying they are NOT listening to the people. The people of South Dakota want abortions limited as much as possible. This is just the bill for that.
GREAT WORK TO ALL THOSE WHO VOTE YES ON THIS BILL!!
The people of South Dakota stand behind you to protect women's health and human life.
The legislature passed an abortion ban. Thousands of South Dakotans signed a petition to put it on the ballot. The vast majority of voters rejected it.
And now the people who lost the vote are calling the winners "left winger--sore losers."
What color is the sky in your world?
Some of the biggest margins on the abortion ban came from West River counties that can hardly be called liberal. That's because there are a lot of us conservatives who don't think it's the government's job to push these religious type issues on the people. I was dissappointed to see many of the West River Republican legislators -- people I've always thought of us as small government conservatives -- align themselves with the "government as moral watchdog" crowd. If my Rep joins them this time - after getting a clear message from the voters - they won't get my vote. And if the party keeps encouraging these crusaders, they'll lose someone who has been a conservative his whole his life.
The whole refrain from that abortion campaign made clear that they're as bad as liberals who want to protect us from ourselves. What was their message? "Abortion hurts women," they said. So what? Smoking, alcohol, and red meat "hurt" women too. And I wouldn't think it very conservative to argue that they ought to be banned as well. That's the kind of reasoning that you hear from "left wing losers," not from true conservatives.
Especially since the people have spoken, this kind of garbage has no place in the legislature. If you want to pray to reduce abortions, do it at church. If you think it's wrong to have an abortion, don't have one. If you want to convince others not to have an abortion, be my guest. But leave the government out of it.
What is surprising?
Gant's district voted against the ban 55% - 45%. Maybe he thinks he has some sort of obligation to represent the people he serves. I think they call that "democracy."
What is truly surprising is all the people who are supporting the second bite at the apple and ignoring the will of the people they're supposed to serve.
Please tell me your kidding with the "this doesn't have place in legislation".
This is exactly why we have a legislature. So they can look at what effects our state and see how they can improve it. If they can eliminate 90-95% of abortions and still include full exceptions for rape and incest that is exactly what the majority of people in South Dakota want.
I so glad they are going at this again and playing offense instead of playing defense.
Let's compare apples to apples.
This new law if it does have clearly defined exceptions for rape/incest and health are completely different from the old numbers you are quoting.
You can't quote numbers from a completely separate law and apply that to this law.
Best. Comment. Ever.
If you were conservative before I was born--that make you an old guy.
Let's just put your abortion ban thinking on end of life stuff.
The government should STAY OUT OF IT if one of your grandkids decides to kill you to get at your money sooner. They should look the other way if your daughter-in-law wants to take away your oxygen because it is expensive and the sooner you go the sooner her husband can quit looking after your affairs.
Our laws should PROTECT the most vulnerable.--both the unborn and the elderly need protection from those who would murder them for their own convenience!
Only the Senators who are no votes are on the list--read the post again.
Jack, as far as the referred law vote goes, the pro-kill-babies side lied and the media helped. The AG's explaination confused people.
The same language should be sent to the people for a vote. South Dakota voters will have additional information to consider.
This abortion ban with restrictions is exactly what Planned Parenthood, South Dakotans for Healthy Families and many no vote legislators in 1215 said they wanted.
I can hardly wait for their endorsement. Or were they misleading us about their true beliefs?
You are right when you say "Pray that these legislators that are on the fence or sitting on the other side will take a true step of faith and make a decision to do what is right."
God is on your (our) side and that's what matters in the end!
Government should get involved only when your actions infringe on my rights. Drunk drivers and murderers kill people. Drug dealers profit from the weaknesses of others. People who steal should be punished for obvious reasons. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens.
But those who subscribe to your way of thinking believe government should bestow the rights of citizenship on an embryo, and that those rights supersede the rights of a conscious adult female to decide how to run her life.
foxgrandma said it quite well - It isn't the right choice for everybody, but for some people it is.
I detest abortion. I detest flag burning. I detest people who don't wear seat belts, but I don't think we need to make it a law. I don't like a lot of the personal choices that people in this country make. But America stands for freedom, and as long as those decisions don't infringe on my rights, conservatives should insist that government not interfere with their right to make those decisions.
Remember God created all, including our legislative process. His will trumps all.
So, if you truly abhor abortion - you must go to where the fight leads you. And in this case, it is in the halls of our government. There can be no surrender.
Or you can continue to live a life of Republicrat hypocrisy.
The "choice" is up to you.
Our party, and the conservative movement, lost its way when we sold out to those who wish to use the government to force their morality onto others so that we could win elections. We are (or used to be) the party of LIMITED government.
Now, we've got so-called Republicans supporting legislation forcing parents to put second graders in car seats. Who cares about parents? Who cares about personal responsibility?
And we've got so-called Republicans telling us that the government should make decisions regarding abortion because abortion hurts women. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to seat belt laws, helmet laws, and the other liberal crap that insults the intelligence of the individual and ignores the entire concept of personal responsibility.
It's time to take our party back.
The facts don't seem to support your claim that libertarian Republicans who opposed the ban are a bunch of Sioux Falls moderates.
In fact, the ban lost in Custer County by 32 points. It lost in Lawrence County by 30 points. It lost in both Fall River and Pennington by 22 points.
Each of those counties is overwhelmingly Republican, and if you called the Republicans in those counties "moderates" you'll likely get your rear end kicked.
The fact is, it's people like the Unruhs (from Sioux Falls) that are taking our party away from our limited government roots and trying to use the Republican Party to push their own version of activist government.
You want to do Christ's work, more power to you. But trying to force your version of Christ's will on others through an activist government is not conservative. It's merely a different flavor of liberalism.
Introducing this bill again will further divide our party, and drive the libertarian types out West and the more moderate types out East out of our party.
Yes, drunk drivers and murderers kill people. That’s why we’ve passed laws against those actions. Abortions also kill people. Why should a tiny baby with it’s own DNA, who is a totally separate human being than it’s mother (and half of the time a different sex), be treated with any less concern because he or she is on the wrong side of the birth canal?
Aren’t our laws supposed to protect those among us least able to protect themselves? If not, why do we imprison someone who rapes a three-year-old or beats a toddler to death?
I don’t know Kristi well, but I certainly admire someone willing to stand up for what she feels is right and take the kind of verbal garbage folks like you throw at her anonymously. She has been very upfront with her beliefs. Do bad you folks don’t have the same courage.
Lead on, Kristi. We’ll try to watch your back.
I'll pray that Kristi Gnome is not as wacky as I fear.
VJ, why didn't He deliver the bill the first time round?
I haven't heard that story before. Please provide documentation, including the name of the judge and the source for this "information."
Pro-life publications do not count since they have been known to be quite creative in presenting so-called facts that just happen to bolster their arguments.
These publications are good examples of why you shouldn't automatically believe everything that you read. And I'm not just talking about slanted or subjective journalism.
Some of these publications should be required to have a disclaimer that says they are turning out nothing but fiction.
You can't pick and choose your battles. You can't be a Christian at Church and then forget about it when it comes to governing. You can't say that you want to protect unborn life and then forget about it if the child was conceived in a sad and unfortunate way. Simply put, you cannot have it both ways.
I wonder which way will the GOP choose?
Abortion isn't just a word that appears on the news. It is the killing of a living human being. It appears that those who are pro abortion don't want to realize what they are really advocating for.
Just what do they think happens during an abortion? that a person walks into the clinic, someone waves a magic wand, and poof the baby disappears and it's like it never was, no blood, no body parts,nothing. Sorry, but that's not the way it happens.
Since you believe people shouldn't object to the bloodied fetus photos, would you have a problem with people placing graphic photos of persons performing sex acts on vans that are then driven around town? After all, that is what happens when people have sex.
People can't just wave a magic wand to make a baby appear. The sex has to come first.
Sorry, but that is the way it happens.
So the sex act photos should be allowed to be publicly exhibited too. Right?
Yes, polling shows that most people in South Dakota support restricting abortion to cases involving rape, incest or the life of the mother. That does not translate however to the vast majority of South Dakota voters firmly standing behind this bill at this time. Promoters of this legislation are citing polling done by the Argus leader as a MANDATE for action. It is not. It is simply a reiteration of what most of us already knew; South Dakotans are, by and large, pro-life. Just as true is the fact that most voters across the state would rather not debate the issue less than six months after an election defined by abortion.
The legislature, even pro-life members, is not inclined to take up the issue of abortion this session. They feel the mood of their constituents and know the time is not right. For all things there is a season. Now is the time for rest.
I fear supporters of this legislation may be more interested in proving their willingness to fight, even their allies, than they are in making progress on the issue in the near future.
The point of the last bill was to equivocally state that life begins at conception and to provide a clean bill to challenge Roe v. Wade. If one truly believes that life begins at conception, and that the termination of a pregnency results in the death of a human being, why would you say it's OK to kill a human being conceived out of rape or incest but morally wrong to kill a human being conceived out of consensual sexual activity?
If abortion truly is murder, why have exceptions that allow for the state santioned termination of human life based upon the actions of one or both parents?
Last year, a majority of legislators made clear that they think exceptions for any purpose other than to save the life of the mother would be sanctioning the killing of a human being. It was not politics. It was a matter of principle. Now some of the most articulate defenders of life, are talking about exceptions as if they're the best thing since sliced bread.
If you believe life begins at conception, you cannot support a "death penalty" based upon the actions of parents. If you think it's OK to do so, why not make a three year old liable for the actions of his or her parents? Why not send a 14 year old to prison for the crimes of his or her parents?
We know the liberals will do or say anything to win a political battle. I truly hope we aren't turning into them.
The majority of South Dakota voters went to the polls and told the legislators they did not want an abortion bill that did not have compassionate exceptions. Of course some of those voters did not want an abortion ban at all, but the "no" votes all count the same way.
The legislators are elected by the voters. If they want to keep their jobs, they have to do what the voters want. That is, after all, what they were elected to do: represent the wishes of the voters.
All the rants about morality are not going to change what the majority of South Dakotans want.
That is how democracy works, whether some people like it or not.
Were they lying to me? If there were exceptions in last year's bill, how is this bill different? I'm so confused.
I don't know if abortion hurts women or not, but I feel very hurt that I may have been lied to by Roger, Leslee and a whole bunch of doctors on TV. What is this world coming to?
And if we were all told over and over that there were exceptions, yet 56% of the voters rejected the abortion ban, why do these legislators think this new ban is a good idea? Good grief!
Misleading people is the right thing to do if that is what it takes to save all of those two and three month fetuses. That way Leslee will have some more babies to sell and then she can use the money to push her - I mean God's - agenda.
Roger said it's okay to launder money - I mean hide the donor's identity - when you are doing God's work too.
And then we wonder why some people are turned off by religion....
The current proposed legislation is a shoot from the hip, exceptions included, compromise, the prime supporters of which I doubt very much expect to see signed into law.
Most backers of the current proposal are well meaning individuals who view stopping most abortions as the better alternative over allowing all. Unfortunately, the driving influence behind this initiative appears to be ego induced frustration at last November's defeat of the state's attempt to ban abortion across the board.
No there weren't exceptions in HB1215.
Yes there are, some would argue, necessary exceptions in this latest attempt.
No this isn't the right time.
Yes it is the right goal, that of reducing abortions in South Dakota.
Anon 11:21, if your intent is to say that Roger and Leslee excercised poor judgement in believing the end justifies the means, just say so. In that regard, I would agree with you. But, just now, you're rather hard to take seriously.
A bit of decorum please.
"Sir, Hell is paved with good intentions." - Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1775
What is the most effective way of reducing the number of abortions in this state and why haven’t you done something about decreasing them
The number of butchered babies increases every year and if you know a way to prevent these abortions that you haven’t used, the blood of those innocents is on your hands every bit as it is on the hands of the out-of-state abortionists.
This will lose, and it will lose even worse than the last one. You can't force your church onto our state capitol and get away with it.
Encouraging abstinence is good, but it is not enough.
Everyone needs to know how to use birth control measures correctly, and they need to understand the importance of using it consistently. Then if plan A (abstinence) doesn't work, they can go to plan B (birth control).
You cannot control what other people do, but you can educate them on how to protect themselves and prevent unwanted pregnancies if they decide to become sexually active.
If you don't like this answer, then explain why so many of these good, church-going girls and boys face unwanted pregnancies. When their hormones are raging, it's not enough to tell them to "Just say no."
Freshmen like Kristi make promises in their campaigns, then come hellbent to Pierre to make a difference.
It takes quite a while to understand the give and take necessary to pass a bill. It also takes quite a while to understand the overall dynamic of the issue.
This is a classic example. Right now, the voters of SD are certainly suffering from a case of "voter fatigue". They've had enough of this issue, for now, and will likely react negatively if they have to vote on it again.
Once that happens, the issue is all but dead for many, many years to come.
If voters turn down an abortion law "with exceptions", there isn't a lawmaker out there that won't vote no for the rest of their tenure.
I'm a pro-lifer, and would love to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, but I'm convinced that now is not the right time to push the issue.
I hope the pro-life legislators of SD realize this too, and kill the bill before it does more harm than good....
This one would have the broader type exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother that the pro-aborts were calling for last time. Trouble is that these excuses could be used by anyone wishing an abortion of convenience, but at least it would be better than nothing, which is what we have now.
The pro-choice side lied when they led people to believe that the majority of abortions were for rape/incest when in actuality they only accounted for about 2% in SD.
So get over the "they lied" mentality, OK. This is a new legislature, a new year, and a new bill. Let's get on with it.
It's his website and he alone makes the rules.
If Leslee and Roger weren't lying, they were being deliberately misleading.
Weren't you one of the people who said it was okay to lie about the exceptions because the end justified the means? If you did, it's in the War College archives....
From the week of Oct. 21, 2006 -
nonnie said...
"Oh good grief. You accuse the vote yes people of lying. The vote no people lie all the time when they deny that an unborn baby is alive. That is the biggest lie of all. In order to avoid this issue, they focus on rape and incest which account for less than 2% of all abortions."
"That is the biggest lie of all"? Was she implying that it was okay for the pro-life people to lie since (in her opinion)the other side was lying?
At least at that time she wasn't accusing the pro-choice people of lying about how many abortions were from rape and incest.
I guess she kind of forgot some of the details.
If now is not the time, when will it be? How many unborn children will be killed in the meantime?
Saying "Now is not the time" is tantamount to watching someone get murdered on a busy sidewalk.
And to think that some people think we are fighting for the soul of the Republican party. After reading some of these posts- and watching the actions of our legislators, I seriously wonder if there is even a soul left to fight for.
Pray for the safety of unborn life. Pray indeed.
Please let the voters re-group, get over their bitterness, and try again in a year or two. I know that means more babies will die, but it's been going on since 1976, and it may go on for ever if we don't do it right this time.
#1 - stick to documented truths or opinions
#2 - have the class to leave non-political spouses out of it.
Any comments to the contrary are gone, and I will kill them as they are caught.
And for the statement: "'That is the biggest lie of all'? Was she implying that it was okay for the pro-life people to lie since (in her opinion)the other side was lying?" NO, I WAS NOT. The pro-life people weren't lying. There were exceptions but only in a very narrow window. However, the pro-aborts do lie when they say that a fetus is not a human life.
And I never said it was okay to lie because the end justifies the means. The next time you accuse me of something like that, have the proof, not just an unsubstantiated accusation. I guess I must have touched a nerve there, huh?
There were no exceptions, and you know it. Sen. Thune said he wouldn't vote for it because there were no exceptions. Governor Rounds said there were no exceptions. Even Roger Hunt admitted there were no exceptions.
Enough now.
Thune initially stated that he would not vote for the bill because it lacked exceptions for rape and incest victims and for the health of the mother.
Then all of the conservatives said they would never vote for him again when he was up for re-election.
Thune then changed his stance and said he wished there were exceptions in the bill, but he would vote for it anyway.
Let me be very clear that while I believe this is the wrong time for action, and though I think this jeopardizes potentially successful future efforts to challenge abortion in our state, I support this legislation's aim and will cheer with the loudest of its sponsors should it succeed.