Communities with Anti-Abortion Clinics See More Violence on Abortion Clinics

Here's an unpleasant correlation: reproductive health clinics in communities with "crisis pregnancy centers," anti-abortion clinics often run by Christians supposedly bound by Scripture to non-violence, are more likely to experience violence:

Just the presence of a CPC in the vicinity of an abortion clinic ups the potential for violence. A recent survey by the Feminist Majority Foundation of women’s reproductive-health clinics nationwide found 32.7 percent of clinics located near a CPC experienced one or more incidents of severe violence, compared to only 11.3 percent of clinics not near a CPC. (Severe violence includes clinic blockades and invasions, bombings, arson, bombing and arson threats, death threats, chemical attacks, stalking, physical violence and gunfire.) [Kathryn Joyce, "Right-Wing Christian Pregnancy Centers Linked to Violence," Ms. Magazine via Alternet, 2010.11.11]

If there are enough passionate Christians in a community to start a crisis pregnancy center, I would like to think there would be enough passionate Christians to strengthen the community's resistance to violence against fellow citizens. Alas, too many Christians appear willing to use un-Christian tactics to achieve their political goals.

Insurance Agent Noem Supports Denying Pregnant Women Coverage

Kristi Noem says the health care reform law has "some fatal flaws."

Funny—that's the same thing insurance companies say about hundreds of thousands of Americans to whom they want to deny coverage:

The nation’s four largest for-profit health insurers denied coverage to more than 651,000 people over a three-year period, citing pre-existing conditions, according to an analysis of insurer data detailed in a Congressional investigation.

Between Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, that averages out to a denial of coverage for one out of every seven applicants, according to an Energy and Commerce Committee memo about the investigation.

...Individuals were denied coverage based on “an extensive list of medical conditions,” the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list [Marian Wang, "Insurers Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions," ProPublica.org, 2010.10.13].

Pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. That's the status quo ante that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are changing. That's the status quo ante that purportedly pro-life Noem would return us to by repealing health care reform. If you get pregnant, Kristi Noem wants insurance agents like herself and her husband to be able to kick pregnant women, those darned financial risks, out of their office.

Blog Poll: Bartling Outpolls Barnett... and a Dems' Quandary

The latest Madville Times poll asked, "Who gets your vote for South Dakota auditor?" You, dear readers, gave Democrat Julie Bartling the nod:

Julie Bartling	74 (56%)
Steve Barnett	57 (44%)

Votes: 131

Not bad, although given the standard Madville Times bias and barn-sized margin of error, Bartling should keep shaking hands and kissing babies...

...which brings me to my quandary. Julie Bartling is notorious among South Dakota Dems for her work on the 2005 abortion task force and her primary sponsorship of the 2006 abortion ban. Bartling has since disavowed her 2006 legislation (which failed to pass muster with voters on referral that year). But some Dems don't like Bartling's politics on reproductive rights and may thus withhold their vote from her for state auditor.

When I first heard this Dem complaint, I thought, What's the fuss? She'll have a lot less opportunity to advance the Hunt/Unruh Handmaid's Tale agenda from the auditor's office than from the Senate chamber. Bartling will be a good state auditor. Her quals—18 years as Gregory County auditor—beat the pants off the other guy. Besides, we need every Dem we can get in state office so we can build a stronger bench of candidates for future races.

Yet I'm still considering my own protest vote against a down-ticket Dem over a similar hot-button political disagreement. Doyle Karpen wants to replace Dusty Johnson on the Public Utilities Commission. Doyle Karpen is a good Democrat with lots of good public service experience. But Doyle Karpen also thinks the Hyperion refinery would be "fantastic" for South Dakota and was instrumental as Union County Commissioner in opening the door for those Texas oil men to tear up a lot of good farmland and keep us addicted to fossil fuels. And a Public Utilities Commissioner has a little more say over other big dirty oil projects than an auditor does over abortion legislation.

But if I tell Dems to drop their political grudges and vote for Bartling, can they not bounce the same argument back to tell me to vote for Karpen?

I have some thinking to do over the next four weeks. Your thoughts, dear readers, are welcome in that process.

Right-Wing Newspeak: "Authentic Feminism" = "Do What Men Tell You"

...now get back to makin' babies....

Oh, the word games. The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund has included our own Kristi Noem among eight women it endorses as candidates representing "authentic feminism." The SBA List are the same folks who bring you Team Sarah, which should tell you about the shallow cult-of-personality politics the organization is after.

So what would these conservative wordsmiths have us believe "authentic feminism" is? The only distinction their endorsement of Kristi Noem appears to make between her and the by-implication fake feminists of the Democratic Party (because, of course, all eight of the SBA List endorsees are Republicans) is that they want to ban abortion. SBA List's raison d'être is to promote "pro-life" female candidates. They doctor up their endorsement in all sorts of other amusing code words about restoring femininity to feminism (what, because Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is too butch for you?). They blow vagueries about returning to Susan B. Anthony's suffragist roots (what, because SHS wants to repeal the 19th Amendment?).

But all they really want is for government to control women's uteri, with the votes of useful women as convenient cover. They want to reinforce the patriarchal message that women can only achieve "equality" by fulfilling the traditional role of motherhood.

Feminism has room for strong women of opposing views. Feminism has room for women who would never choose to have an abortion. But feminism does not have room for women who would take that choice away from all women, as men have tried to do for generations.

Get real, Republicans. Sarah Palin and Kristi Noem and the SBA List are not feminists. The SBA List wants to put lipstick on the paternalist pig of abortion bans.

[Note: The author recognizes the irony (arrogance? contradiction?) of a man presuming to comment on the boundaries of feminism. The author pleads the court of feminist opinion's indulgence.]

Tea Party Throws Abortion Politics Overboard in South Dakota

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Teabaggers and 9-12ers and whoever else belongs to this weird mass of well-fed yet politically cranky people aren't completely politically impotent. Maybe the Tea "Party" really has changed the political landscape for the better... by keeping abortion off the South Dakota ballot.

Dan Hodges of ThePostSD reminds us that, for the first time since 2004, South Dakota does not have a ballot measure proposing restrictions on abortion. Pot, tobacco, cement, and union ballots, yes, but the April 6 deadline for initiated measures came and went. The 2010 Legislature didn't mention the word abortion in a single bill or resolution, so there's no legislation to refer.

Now that the Unruhs no longer get to live on the federal trough of abstinence funds, Leslee has gone strangely quiet, perhaps to avoid further contradicting husband Allen's newfound interest in masquerading as an anti-government freedom fighter.

Maybe the Teabaggers have slurped up all the energy to be had from the culture warriors. Where certain righteous demagogues spent 2006 and 2008 reducing politics to cries of "We love babies!" they now scratch their crusader's itch by crying "Obama's a socialist!" and threatening civil war.

So maybe the Teabaggers have done some good. Could they be the reason we have no abortion measure on South Dakota's 2010 ballot?

Reduce Abortions: Pass Health Reform Now

Neither the House nor the Senate versions of health insurance reform pay for abortions with tax dollars. Arguments to the contrary are flat lies. Pro-life pastors and theologians know this.

But if we want to reduce abortions, we should pay for them. And for health care. For everyone:

Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.

...The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1 [T. R. Reid, "Universal Health Care Tends to Cut the Abortion Rate," Washington Post, 2010.03.14].

The U.N. must just be lying. How could universal health care have any connection with reducing abortions? Let's get English Cardinal Basil Hume to straighten us out:

In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?" [Reid, 2010]

Yes, it is obvious. Cut the bull and abortions: tell Johnson, Thune, and Herseth Sandlin to pass health reform now.

Legislative Notes: Curd vs. Noem on Small Schools

Of interest to small-town voters: The South Dakota House yesterday passed HB 1150 on a 40–29 vote. Compare the votes of two of our Republican candidates for U.S. House: big-city doctor R. Blake Curd votes aye, while small-town ranch gal Kristi Noem votes nay.

Dr. R. Blake Curd evidently feels it's perfectly acceptable to punish small schools for their success in attracting open enrollees. Evidently supporting school choice isn't a big issue for this conservative. Noem apparently feels we can find budget savings for the state somewhere other than on the backs of successful school districts.

Locally, District 8 Reps. Mitch Fargen and Gerry Lange joined Noem in voting against HB 1150. Let's see where our senator Russell Olson goes on this school-choice issue.

In other news from the Legislature yesterday:

• HB 1222, the farmers market bill, got unanimous support from the House (yay!).
• SB 21, a rather mushy bill that sort of bans social investing with the state investment funds and sort of doesn't, passed the State Senate unanimously. The more direct SB 134, stopping state investment in Iran, has passed the Senate and awaits attention from House State Affairs.
• Even deferred to the 41st day does not mean dead! Senate Appropriations resurrected SB 193, the pro-life bill that would extend Medicaid to all pregnant women. Alas, they made that effort just to give the bill a formal "Do Not Pass" recommendation.
• Oh yeah, and HB 1277 & HB 1278, those silly little anti-blogger bills, went nowhere in committee. Thank you, Mr. Powers, for your testimony. And thank you, members of the committee, for your rationality. Now, back to the counterplans....
  

Legislature Kills School Admin Consolidation, Free Delivery, and Kids Texting-Driving Ban

A couple things you won't have to worry about state government doing:

• HB 1247: Pierre won't be consolidating school administrations. The House Education Committee cared enough to water the bill down with a couple amendments, but then gave up and deferred it to the 41st day. The only folks voting to keep this bill alive and reduce local control: three Republicans, Reps. Bolin, McLaughlin, and Sly. Darn: I was looking forward to Dr. Fahrenwald's promotion to Tri-County Superintendent.
  
• SB 193: Three Dems took the pro-life position of helping pay for healthy babies; four Republicans thought otherwise and killed the bill. Erika Powell will be relieved that we won't ruin personal responsibility with more government health care; now if we could just get Grandma and Grandpa off that soul-sapping federal money. Oh, wait, I hear Republicans are working on that....
• HB 1133: Your kids will still be able to call you from the road to tell you where they are. House Health and Human Services defeated this bill, which would have banned kids with learners permits from calling or texting while driving. But sit tight: the House is working on better legislation, HB 1178, that will apply said ban to every driver. Remember: talking on the cell phone quadruples your risk of having an accident. Texting sextuples that risk (for truckers, the risk 23-tuples). Behind the wheel, that Blackberry in your hand might as well be a bottle of beer.
  

One Pro-Life Bill Before SD Legislature: Extend Medicaid to Pregnant Women!

Unless someone pulls a hoghouse on us, we might have made it: for the first time in years (Carmen, can you document this one?), the South Dakota Legislature will not take up a bill dealing with abortion. Thank you, dear friends in Pierre!

There is one piece of pro-life legislation, and I'm actually glad to see it. Senator Adelstein and Representative Moser are sponsoring Senate Bill 193, a bill to extend Medicaid eligbility to pregnant women. What could be more pro-life than a statewide free delivery policy?

The bill appropriates $1,350,000 in state funds and $2,517,086 in federal Medicaid dollars for the program. That's less than was spent campaigning for and against the 2006 abortion ban. Four million dollars, and we provide health care for every woman in the state to help her have a healthy baby.

Now that's the kind of policy that would truly make South Dakota the pro-life state.

James and Joyner Respond to Tebow: Women Know Best

As you savor this evening's misogynist bacchanal ("Yay, violence! Watch my boobs! Government should rule my tubes!"), take a moment to watch a couple of athletes speak up for respect for women:

Health Insurance Surprise: Republicans Pay for Abortions

Did you know the Republican National Committee offered its employees health insurance that covered abortions? Neither did the Republican National Committee. Their health policy had covered abortions since 1991... until last Friday, when Chairman Michael Steele realized the GOP needed a Stupak Amendment of its own. The RNC is thus opting out of coverage for a legal, Constitutionally protected medical procedure (or, as the RNC calls it, "a fundamental assault on innocent human life").

No word on whether the RNC plans to keep coverage for abortion in cases of health risk to the mother— the National Republican Congressional Committee insurance policy makes such exceptions—or in cases of rape or incest.

Apparently private insurance is so complicated that 18 years can pass before political experts realize that their health policy includes procedures that they find morally repugnant. I don't hold that against them: I take it as more evidence that the private health insurance is too arcane to operate according free-market rules.

And think about this: the Stupak Amendment seeks to keep abortion opponents from suffering the moral indignity of seeing their tax dollars pay for abortions... but if you pay health insurance premiums, your dollars are paying for abortions. Do you think your insurer puts your money in a separate pot so it only covers people and procedures you like? Think again.

The Republicans can grandstand dropping abortion coverage for their employees from their insurance policy, but as long as they keep buying insurance from Cigna, their money, good Republican money, will continue paying for abortions.

"Nothing Threatens the Future of the Next Generation More Than" Unruh's Rhetoric about Abstinence Education

Dr. Allen Unruh falls into his usual pattern of hyperbole, absurdity, and misunderstanding of political reality with a screed on his wife's Abstinence Clearinghouse blog. He opens with this exaggeration:

Nothing threatens the future of the next generation more than defunding abstinence education.

Unruh likes threat-maximization rhetoric. Recall how he addressed a July Tea Party in Sioux Falls:

Nothing threatens our freedom more than the government taking over health care because it will never be reversed.

Or this Dakota Voice essay from Unruh in 2005:

Decades of judicial activism have made the Supreme Court the greatest threat to American Freedom.

(Note to Allen: greatest is a superlative. Like in Highlander, there can be only one.)

Step one when you know you have a weak argument: inflate the danger to unparalleled proportions. Forget that your own actions demonstrate you don't believe what you're saying. After all, if the Unruhs believed that defunding abstinence education was the greatest threat to our future, they would have poured time and treasure into state ballot measures that would have promoted abstinence education, not abortion bans. Never mind that. Just stoke the emotions of the moment.

Unruh's "argument" only gets worse:

The principles of teaching abstinence are the only proven and tested ways to promote a life of success, health and happiness.

I really don't recall abstinence education forming the bedrock of my education at Madison HS. My curriculum revolved around an axis of arts, science, free and creative expression, and healthy doses of butt-chewing from tough teachers who kept my nose to the grindstone while keeping their noses out of my sex life (which really wasn't all that lively in high school). And here I am, twenty years later, feeling successful, healthy, and happy.

Unruh doesn't just commit logical fallacies: he embraces them:

Let’s look at the slippery slope.

The good chiropractor proceeds to associate a lack of abstinence education with drug use, divorce, depression, suicide, and gangs. (If he'd have just thrown in nuclear war, he'd be ready for a high school policy debate round.) He can never draw the actual links between this one minor education policy and all those massive harms. He simply avers that only abstinence education—only!—can offer kids "hope... freedom... a future... reality." Only abstinence education can warn them away from ruin and improve their lives.

Forget all that bunk about good nutrition, plenty of sleep, competition, sports, and better teacher pay helping our kids learn more. Fund abstinence education, or we will all die!

As gravy, Unruh also says single parents, who in his world probably didn't pay attention to their abstinence education, are unfit to raise kids:

over 60% are raised in a single parent home before they are 15 years old leaving them with a skewed view of relationships and emotional depression.

In other words, single moms, how dare you put your self-gratification above the well-being of your children? If you're knocked up, get married! Stay married! If you don't have a husband, we'll all die! (At least I think that's the subtext here. I could be wrong.)

I won't go so far as to claim that Allen Unruh's rhetoric is the single greatest danger our children face. But pumping them full of bad science and illogical arguments certainly won't prepare them to be intelligent, responsible citizens... unless, of course, they have teachers who can effectively use Unruh's rhetoric to train the kids to tune their B.S. meters.

Dr. Unruh cries out for some enviro-mental-ism:

In an age where environmentalists are passing countless laws to eliminate all pollution of the air and water, why is it that pollution of the mind is epidemic and not a concern?

Au contraire, Dr. Unruh. Pollution of the mind is very much a concern. That's why I blog, to clean up the mental pollution that comes from outlets like the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

Oh yeah, and did I mention abstinence education doesn't work? Why yes I did. More than once.

Harvard Backs Judge Schreier: No Such Thing as "Abortion Trauma Syndrome"

Judge Karen Schreier got one thing right in her ruling last week on South Dakota's law putting bureaucrats and ideologues between women and their doctors. Her Honor declared that the portion of the law "requiring doctors to tell pregnant women that abortion increases the risk of suicide and suicide ideation is 'untruthful and misleading.'"

Funny: that's what I said last year about the sloppy science cited by abortion-ban proponents. And that's what the Harvard Review of Psychiatry said just this week:

In a review of 216 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of abortion and mental health, the authors of this study found that “the most well controlled studies continue to demonstrate that there is no convincing evidence that induced abortion of an unwanted pregnancy is a per se significant risk factor for psychiatric illness.” (p. 276) [cited by "Serena", "New Study Debunks 'Abortion Trauma Syndrome,'" Feminists for Choice, 2009.08.24]

But I'm sure Harvard is biased. They're just liberals who want women to kill their babies so there will be fewer kids growing up to go to college and pay tuition... oh, wait a minute....

Some more interesting facts from Feminists for Choice:

• The percentage of pregnancies termianted by induced abortion is about the same in the U.S. as worldwide, about 22%.
• In terms of physical risk, women are more likely to die from childbirth, appendectomy, or tonsillectomy.
• If women who have abortions suffer any depression, it's more likely caused by the very anti-abortion protestors professing to protect them:
  

  "[Entering] abortion clinics through a group of anti-abortion demonstrators [is] a stressor that has been shown to be associated with psychological distress . . . [And] increasing a women’s belief in her ability to deal with having an abortion decreased her likelihood of experiencing depressive symptoms following abortion. Such findings suggest that insofar as inaccurate “informed consent scripts” undermine a woman’s belief in her ability to cope after an abortion, they may contribute to her risk for depression [p. 270 of the Harvard study, emphasis Serena's]."

The whole anti-choice movement appears to be doing more harm than good. If Leslee Unruh and Steve Hickey are truly worried about women's well-being, they'll at least stop trying to bad laws based on bad science.

Dr. Tiller's Murderer Is Not Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Speaking of rigorous German theologians, an eager reader sends me this article about abortion violence, moral reasoning, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The writer, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, confronts questions he's been getting about a possible analogy between the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the violent resistance Bonhoeffer ultimately advocated and conspired in against the Nazi regime.

I find any analogy between Bonhoeffer and a whining, perhaps mentally unbalanced domestic Christian terrorist repugnant. Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite Lutherans. For one thing, he bears a striking resemblance to my Brookings college pal Erik Johnson, not just in looks but, more importantly, in brains. Bonhoeffer took his theology seriously. He had to: he entered his career as a theologian and pastor in the gravest economic and political conditions. He denounced Hitler in a radio address two days after Hitler took the chancellorship. (The radio broadcast was cut off mid-sentence.) His resistance to the Nazi regime never flagged, until the Nazis executed him in April 1945. Even in prison, against seemingly overwhelming power, he fought to keep hope alive with words and big ideas. He is a fascinating historical character, at least as worthy of study (and celebration) as King and Gandhi.

Dr. Mohler agrees with me that Scott Roeder is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

So many readers are familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's decision to take action against Hitler. Fewer are familiar with the moral and theological reasoning that led Bonhoeffer, quite reluctantly, to this conclusion. Even then, Bonhoeffer was not certain he was acting rightly. He felt that this decision, made under extreme moral conditions, was the best he could understand.

Other readers have seen the film "Valkyrie," and jump to some of the same conclusions. We must realize that Bonhoeffer did not come to his decision to resort to violence against the regime out of a moral vacuum. He and his brothers and sisters in the Confessing Church had long before come to the conclusion that they must oppose the Nazi regime in totality, risking imprisonment and far worse. It is nothing less than embarrassing to see American Christians make arguments citing Bonhoeffer while they fail to engage his moral and theological reasoning -- and when arguments are based in sloppy analogies from a position of cultural comfort [R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Moral Reasoning in Light of Wichita," originally published in the Chicago Tribune, 2009.06.07].

Cultural comfort: opponents of legal abortion have numerous avenues to pursue their agenda well short of violence. The ballot box, the press, and the blogosphere are open to their efforts (and mine). We still have free and fair elections, not to mention an active (if blubbering) opposition party.

Mohler notes that Bonhoeffer himself opposed abortion. But Mohler also makes crystal clear that the murder of Dr. George Tiller (and any of the future violence Tiller's suspected murderer says is planned) is wrong:

America is not Nazi Germany. George Tiller, though bearing the blood of thousands of unborn children on his hands, was not Adolf Hitler. The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dr. Tiller’s murderer did not serve the cause of life; he assaulted that cause at its moral core.

Ohio blogger and Operation Rescue veteran Julie Bogart further fleshes out that America–Nazi Germany distinction:

First of all, Bonhoeffer's mission to overthrow the Fuhrer was philosophically supported by the similar objectives of a concert of nations in the war effort. Bonhoeffer didn't act as a lone agent of justice, but rather cooperated with a consensus of justice-seeking governments, individuals and organizations bent on ending the evil plot of the Third Reich (a mission created by one individual leading a nation and abusing his power to coerce the extermination of entire races, as well as taking over sovereign nations through acts of war).

Though erroneously called "the culture wars," the debate about abortion is not a war! It isn't even war-like. The right to an abortion is rooted in respect for the individual's ability to exercise choice at the deepest level of personal conviction. The choice to have an abortion is not coerced by a tyrant, but is made within the privacy of an individual woman's heart, in concert with her beliefs, her physician's recommendations and her spiritual/ethical values. To prevent this "choice" is to coerce. Certainly the baby (or fetus - you choose) has no choice and is coerced into birth or death based on that choice (the crux of the debate is really - does the fetus/baby have rights? Not, is it a baby or is it alive?). Still, the question isn't about the abortionist. It's about what individuals believe about conception and pregnancy (which is nothing like the death camps of Nazi Germany!) [Julie Bogart, "Tiller, 'Operation Rescue,' and Bonhoeffer," Julie Unplugged, 2009.06.02].

We should all take heed of Bogart's distinction between our petty cultural bickering and the real war Bonhoeffer had to fight. Dietrich Bonhoeffer engaged in a moral and theological struggle that took enormous courage and ultimately took his life. Scott Roeder took a break from whining about having to buy license plates to walk into an unguarded church and shoot an unarmed man.

Scott Roeder is not Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Frank Schaeffer, Penitent for "Pro-Life" Provocation

Frank Schaeffer was an active anti-abortion activist in the 1970s and early 1980s. He and his evangelical father Francis Schaeffer campaigned through books and film to overturn Roe v. Wade:

In the early 80s my father followed up with a book that sold over a million copies called A Christian Manifesto. In certain passages he advocated force if all other methods for rolling back the abortion ruling of Roe v. Wade failed. He compared America and its legalized abortion to Hitler's Germany and said that whatever tactics would have been morally justified in removing Hitler would be justified in trying to stop abortion. I said the same thing in a book I wrote (A Time For Anger) that right wing evangelicals made into a best seller. For instance Dr. James Dobson (of the Focus On the Family radio show) gave away over 100,000 copies [Fran Schaeffer, "How I (and Other 'Pro-Life' Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder," Huffington Post, 2009.06.01].

In the mid 1980s, Frank Schaeffer left what he now calls "the so-called pro-life movement and... a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America." He now takes a very clear position on the responsibility he bears for the murder, in a church, of Dr. George Tiller:

The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for performing abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

I am very sorry.

Schaeffer still expresses disagreement with Roe v. Wade and calls for changes in American abortion policy. Yet he unequivocally takes repsonsibility for his own words and what he perceives as his responsibility for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

We could use more direct language like that. It just might stop the next wacko from shooting a law-abiding doctor.

Leslee's Latest Laughable Lie: "I've Never Liked Federal Money"

Big hat tip to DakotaWomen for pointing out the biggest whopper Leslee Unruh has ever told:

"I've never liked federal money," she said, decrying the restrictions attached to such grants. "If I had my way, I'd want no federal money going for this" [Josh Verges, "Abstinence-Only Focus Loses Favor, Money," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.05.24].

Never?!?

Abstinence-until-marriage education was first given federal money in the early 1990s. The introduction of abstinence funds and abstinence education in schools coincided with the dramatic decreases in the teen pregnancy and abortion rates [Leslee J. Unruh, expressing no distaste for federal funds at all in testimony before U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, 2001.11.15]

The U.S. government has increased funding for the the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) grant program by $11 million for 2006. Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told the Dakota Voice that the decision was “a victory for America's children.”

The increase was made to the appropriations bill by the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

President George W. Bush had initially requested an increase of $39 million for abstinence education in his proposed budget. But Unruh said she is grateful for the $11-million increase in this year of fiscal restraint.

Unruh said the increased funding is “a clear mandate to improve the health of the next generation and abstinence education is the best way to do that"[Catholic News Agency, "Federal Funding Increased for Abstinence Programs," 2005.06.14].

“The million dollar question remains: What will lawmakers do on the floor?" Unruh asked. "Are they going to continue to take the evidence to heart, stand up for the health and well-being of our young people, and fund programs that work? If the increase in abstinence finding is any indication, I think the answer is yes. Unfortunately, more than a billion dollars remain in the budget to fund ideologically driven programs that put youth at risk by promoting promiscuity."

"The Abstinence Clearinghouse thanks Members of the House of Representatives who paid close attention to the mounting research, and appropriated an increase to responsible education about sexual integrity. Tonight’s decision was a clear mandate to improve the health of the next generation. Abstinence education is the best way to do that," Unruh concluded ["Lawmakers Hear Students' Voices Loud and Clear, Says Abstinence Clearinghouse," available at strangely malfunctioning Dakota Voice webpage, 2005.06.17. Also posted at "This is not a job for superheroes: Voices carry" 2005.06.25].

But Unruh's agenda does not rely on elections going her way. It's cash she's after, and she feels certain she can get it, whoever occupies the White House. "If we can't get abstinence money, we'll apply for education grants or antidrug funds," she says. "I know how Washington works now" [Amanda Robb, "Leslee Unruh's Facts of Life," More, September 2008].

I cannot conceive of telling lies as big as the ones Leslee Unruh is willing to put in the press. To lie that big, I would have to abandon any sense of a coherent, integral self.

Leslee Unruh has actively lobbied to win federal funding for her preferred social programs. She has praised such funding. And now she says she never liked that federal funding. Nothing describes this turn of phrase more aptly than one word: lie.

-------------------
Update 14:55 CDT: Doug Wiken offers more good perspective on Leslee's lying, as does SD Humanist (thanks for the mention!). Pat Powers conspicuously avoids commentary.

Victory for Tea Parties: Obama Defunds Abstinence Education!

Hooray and hat tip for DakotaWomen, who give first SD press to President Obama's proposal to eliminate funding for abstinence education, which, as we all know, doesn't work. Further kudos to DakotaWomen for keeping an eye out for Leslee Unruh's inevitable denial of reality:

Leslee Unruh, President and Founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said "I believe there will be a political backlash for those who oppose these life saving abstinence programs. The enemies of sexual integrity programs will feel the heat from the army of youth who have seen the light through these programs as they approach voting age" [Abstinence Clearinghouse press release, 2009.05.07].

Army of youth. Yeah. The kids I've heard expressing opinions about abstinence education aren't taking that one to the voting booth.

Alas, Leslee has no one to blame but her husband Allen*. He put on the tricorner hat, roused the rabble for that tea party, and howled for an end to wasteful government spending. Be careful what you wish for....

But hey, the Unruhs are resourceful. I'm sure they'll find some donors to bring Bristol Palin to South Dakota to keep our faith in abstinence alive.

*O.K., Allen and a majority of the American electorate.

Dems Acting Like Dems: Va. Gov. Candidate Pledges Work to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Standing up for equality and inclusivity: Virginia's Brian Moran is my kind of Democrat. Of the three Democrats vying for Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the June 9 primary, Moran is the only one who has pledged to work to repeal the state's 2006 constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. The other Dem candidates are wetting their fingers to a conservative breeze: former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe says seeking a repeal would just be too hard; State Senator R. Creigh Deeds has said the amendment is discriminatory but made no argument against it in 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly.

So South Dakota Dems: which one of you is willing to run for office—governor, House, Senate—on a genuine Democratic platform? Which one of you will stand up against the yahoo-lery that we stuck in our state constitution in 2006 and call for a repeal of our same-sex marriage ban? Which of you will actively oppose whatever abortion nuttiness the Unruhs throw up on the ballot in 2010? Which of you will make an unapologetic pitch for a progressive tax system that ends the food tax and expands the ag land income tax to apply to the productive value of all commercial property? Your base eagerly awaits your response.

Big Ag Kills Babies?

Concerned about abortion? How about involuntary abortions caused by industrial farming and the chemicals it relies on?

“When a farm chemical like methoxyclor gets into the body of a woman — and it gets into the body because it is present in the environment in which she lives — then she can abort a pregnancy,” [ecologist Sandra Steingraber] said. “I think there is room in this debate for a big conversation about these chemicals. We need to talk about farm chemicals as chemical abortionists, or chemicals that have the ability to extinguish human pregnancies.”

Steingraber said this type of discussion is one that can “bridge the gap of the divide in our culture” for abortion.

“Sometimes you can drive in rural areas and see a big pro-life sign and right behind it will be a farmer spraying chemicals that might very well be linked to reproductive problems,” she said [Lynda Waddington, "Can Chemical Abortions Be Linked to Midwestern Agriculture," Iowa Independent, 2009.04.06].

Pass the organic potatoes, please....

Palin Ties Paul... for Third... Among Conservative Base

Sarah Palin in 2012—yeah, right, say conservatives. At CPAC 2009, the just-concluded gathering of hardcore conservatives (also known as the base the GOP is playing to), Governor Palin placed third in a straw poll that asked attendees whom they would nominate as GOP 2012 Presidential candidate. Full results (in PowerPoint format):

• Mitt Romney: 20%
• Bobby Jindal: 14%
• Ron Paul: 13%
• Sarah Palin: 13%
• Newt Gingrich: 10%
• Mike Huckabee: 7%
• Mark Sanford: 4%
• Rudy Giuliani: 3%
• Tim Pawlenty: 2%
• Charlie Crist: 1%
• Undecided: 10%

What? No John Thune?

The big point: Sarah Palin tied with Ron Paul. That means one of two things: Ron Paul has a shot (Madison Libertarians, rejoice!) , or Sarah Palin doesn't.

---------------------
Underview: even the rabid CPACkers may be ready to get off the abortion horse. When participants were asked to name their top two issues, abortion came in fifth, behind shrinking the federal government, reducing spending, the war on terrorism, and lowering taxes. Gun rights comes in #10. Could Obama be driving conservatives to get back to fiscal nuts and bolts? Let's hope so!

The straw poll doesn't represent all conservatives: it actually skewed young, with a big student contingent making up a majority of respondents. But I find it interesting—and encouraging?—to see the youngsters on the other side of the aisle focusing on practical policy issues over the contrived and unproductive culture war.