By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« Music Video of George Bush Singing "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" | HomePage | Time, Orientation, Universalism, and Vocab: Notes from Chapter 2 of "Adapting Minds" by David J. Buller »

Tuesday, June 13, 20061150229153

A Pro-Life State

"Republicans opposed to abortion ban lose in S.D.," by Judy Keen, USA Today, 8 June 2006, http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060608/pl_usatoday/republicansopposedtoabortionbanloseinsd (from Mainstream Coalition's leader: Vote proves need," by David Kranz, Argus Leader, 13 June 2006, http://argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060613/COLUMNISTS0102/606130320/1131.

Imagine a legislative caucus whose ever member up for reelection lost. That's the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition, a bi-partisan group of legislatures whose main issue in the last legislative session was a defense of abortion. Their spin, as reported by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader political correspond (and close friend of Tom Daschle) David Kranz:

Frequent discussion since four Republican state Senators lost bids for re-election last week centers around its impact on the Mainstream Coalition.


The defeats opened the door for ridicule from anti-abortion critics saying the organization got its just dessert.

This isn't the setback that some gloaters think, says state Sen. Ed Olson, a Mitchell Republican and executive director of the Mainstream Coalition.

Senator Ed Olson (R-Mitchell)

"What does it say about the future? It points to why we needed to start Mainstream," Olson said. "Look at the turnout. You had some districts with 11 and 12 percent. I think it is unbelievable, the voter apathy."

The poorly attended primary was not an indicator of strength or weakness of the group, he said.

"It's onward and upward," Olson said. "I know there was a tremendous amount of work done by those who staunchly oppose us, but the premise was we wanted to be a group people were comfortable with, Republican, Democrats, pro or anti-abortion, whatever. I look at that turnout and say now more than ever, something has to change."

While Senator Olson characterizes the SDMC's cataclysmic defeat as "onward and upward," the national Gannet news organization has a different perspective:

"There's certainly no good news in the outcome for pro-choice advocates," Bob Burns, a political science professor at South Dakota State University, said Wednesday.

The defeat Tuesday of half of the eight Senate Republicans who opposed the nation's most restrictive abortion law might mean trouble for a planned referendum in November to rescind the ban, Burns says. The other four had no primary challengers.

The results "mean that the state of South Dakota is very pro-life," says state Sen. Bill Napoli, who voted for the ban and won his primary.

I previously reported on the Pro-Life Sweep in South Dakota's primary election. I did my part, and voted for the successful reelection effort of Senator Gene Abdallah (R-Sioux Falls).


Way to go South Dakota -- You are in my prayers.

Here are some stories called Life Jewels which are One-Minute audio message that promotes life from conception to natural death.

Life Jewels were produced by Life Issues Institute and is hosted by Dr. John C. Willke, MD.
on Radio ADS. I have converted them for internet use with permission, there is seven hours of Life Jewels
each being 60 seconds along with the Text

Posted by: bernie | Sunday, July 02, 2006

South Dakota has had a run of good luck -- getting rid of Daschle, the ban, and now the primary results. The next big test will be the November ballot, where the ban is up for public vote.

I'm not entirely happy with the wording, but the explicitly antidemocratic motives of the abortionists (who have announced that if their initiative fails, they will so) combine with their unpopular pro-DC stance (the lawsuit will be in federal court, of course) probably will combine to uphold the ban.

Whatever the result, I'm happier with it being decided locally than Roe v. Wade-style imposed.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, July 02, 2006