Rep. Gordon Howie pushes HB1293

This is unedited video from this morning's crackerbarrel at SDSMT in Rapid City. Rep. Howie claims that South Dakota voters are clamoring for the State to take over control of all pregnant women's bodies.

Our families are trusted to give their children firearms, but not to make their own medical decisions. Ya have to savor the irony of that.

The new abortion law, HB1293, sure has exceptions, but the exceptions are even more demeaning and hurtful to women than last year's all-out ban... for more details on this arrogant law, known around CHAD as "the Handmaid's tale law", visit visit Coat Hangers At Dawn.

HB1293 is being totally re-written and a new version will be presented tomorrow will be heard Monday morning in House State Affairs in Pierre. We're hoping the committee will choose to defer it for now, we've had enough in this state. Howie says it has a good chance of passing--we hope he's wrong. (About whether the bill could even reach the floor, we know he's absolutely wrong on the issue.)

Can you tell I'm kind of upset? I had some pretty strong words with Rep. Mike Buckingham and the spunky Jean French. They kind of looked at me with their calm "I'm so sorry with disagree" face. (French even told me she was sorry I felt that way. I told her that if she really was sorry she would urge everyone to stop this and give it a rest for a year.) Sorry, it's YOU trying to set the rules for MY life, not the other way around. The arrogant supposition that I should just let these laws be passed without a fight, in the interest of "getting along" is just a bit more than I can take. You're going to have to fight abortion in some other, more effective, compassionate way then your current strategy of encouraging illegal abortion and jailing doctors, I'm sorry.

By the way, sort of on-topic: My question at the Crackerbarrel this week was to Rep. Alan Hanks (R-Rapid City) mentioning his contention during the 2006 campaign that lots more happens than abortion in the Legislature--and that this year it looks like the Legislature is full steam ahead on divisive, unproductive legislation, and I include Buckingham's guns-for-tots bill in that group. Hanks' reply was to blame the media for over-covering these "moral" issue debates. Of course you can't follow up, at the crackerbarrel, so here is my response:

1. The media has been strangely silent on the abortion legislation this year--its like it's under the radar. If it wasn't for groups like DIA and blogs like CHAD this awful legislation would be passed with no controversy--at least in committee.
2. Mr. Hanks, I take exception to calling abortion and gays etc. as "the moral issues". Taxes, wages, education, and healthcare are moral issues too, and making progress on them is a stronger moral imperative (in my opinion) than fighting the "good fight" to force your particular ideas on others. At least the Bible told me so. You read different I guess.

Enough lies about Planned Parenthood, enough easy moral stands. Get to work on the moral stands that are more difficult and will really change things, like funding public schools, providing health care, and fairer taxes.

Another Open Letter (regarding 1293)

Sounds like, sadly, another number will become part of our vocabulary.... My dear spouse wrote this letter today to State Sen. Ryan Maher, (D-Isabel) co-sponsor of the abortion bill, just brought forward today (HB1293). This new one, although it has exceptions (ugly condescending ones, but they are exceptions) is in some ways is more devaluing, disrespectful, and condescending to women than HB1215 was last year. The language used is quite telling--see the excellent summary and analysis provided over at CHAD. I'm trying to find the strength to saddle up and ride--hopefully cooler heads will prevail in Pierre and the smart folks there will find of a way to keep this from becoming law.

Dear Senator,

I am so disheartened to see that you are on the list of sponsors for this bill. I know that you are "pro-life," and I respect that, because I, too, am adamantly "pro-life" as well. Abortion is a painful reality in today's society, a decision that is not usually come to lightly. Many of us who believe in choice also believe in protecting life, and also know that legislating and imposing morality simply does not solve the problem of abortion. It is a problem rooted in deeper issues, and as a Democrat, I would have hoped that you would understand that. Once again, the restrictions in this bill will not address these issues, and they will certainly not reduce the number of abortions performed in South Dakota. If this bill is passed and eventually challenges Roe V. Wade, as it is certain to do, it will only strengthen the Supreme Court's decision, rather than address the issues that contribute to the reasons women and children seek to have abortions in the first place.

I know that you follow your heart and your convictions, and I have met you and know that yours is a kind spirit. Please, I urge you, withdraw your name from this bill. Do you really want your name associated with the likes of Van Etten, Hunt, and Howie? I know that you are different from them. I know that your ideals and values are not in line with theirs. And I know that you believe there is a better way. You were not elected to be a crusader on this issue, and you do the state of South Dakota and your constituents a disservice by acting as such.

Most sincerely,

Beth Wojahn
Rapid City

p.s. I encourage you to read a piece written by my mother. She is an ordained pastor, and she wrote this during the election in response to the question, "Can one be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time?" Not only is my mother an eloquent writer, she is wise, and has seen the suffering of many. Please consider her words prayerfully.
http://rr57701.blogspot.com/2006/11/pro-life-and-pro-choice.html