Vote No on Referred Law 6 -- Our Last Shot

A guest writer -- my lovely Lutheran wife -- submitted the following letter for publication in the Monday Madison Daily Leader, but it appears that only paying opinions got ink in that edition. I thus submit to your our final comment on the proposed abortion ban before an Election Day that promises to be a doozy:

I urge the citizens of Lake County to vote "No" on Referred Law 6 on Tuesday. I advocate this for a simple reason: I want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

Seems like fuzzy logic, doesn't it? However, the facts of the matter speak volumes. Let's compare the U.S. with Holland, which has the lowest abortion rate in the world. Holland's rate is approximately 6.5 abortions per 1,000 live births. In the U.S., the rate is approximately 21.5 abortions per 1,000 live births. Disturbing, isn't that?

Abortion is legal in both countries. So, what factors influence Holland's very low abortion rate? Among many factors are the following: free and widespread access to contraception since the 1970s, a cultural view that abortion is a last resort, and excellent access to sex education (which, by the way, does not result in more sexual activity; teenagers in Holland have a later age of first sexual experience and fewer partners than their U.S. counterparts).

Why not completely ban abortion? Although it seems contrary to reason, countries with very strict bans on abortion do not experience lower abortion rates than countries with more liberal abortion access. For example, Latin America as a region, has strict bans on abortions and an abortion rate of approximately 37 abortions per 1,000 live births, which is significantly higher than the abortion rate in the U.S. Peru, where abortion is illegal, has a staggering abortion rate of 56 abortions per 1,000 live births. (Excellent information on abortion rates is available from the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Biotechnology Information.)

Throughout the world, the two factors that have proven to drastically reduce abortion rates are access to contraception and sex education. The evidence shows that restricting access to legal abortions does not result in fewer abortions. If we're truly committed to reducing the number of dead babies, Referred Law 6 is not the way to do it. Let's start discussing and acting on ways to effect real change.

The Information Superhighway -- Still a Vital Metaphor

This morning's Argus Leader tells us the Regents are lobbying for the state to create a high-speed Internet system -- "Internet Three" -- to promote education and draw the big research dollars to our universities and the proposed lab at Homestake.

"This is not just a university issue," Regents President Harvey Jewett of Aberdeen told a legislative committee recently. "This is a full state issue. Without Internet Three, well, imagine South Dakota without interstate."

The price tag -- $8 million to build it, maybe $1.5 million annually to maintain it, if we cooperate with other states -- doesn't seem too bad. But if we build it, we should adopt the same philosophy as we do with the Interstate highways: everyone pays for it, everyone has access to it. If the state builds Internet Three, it should include access for every school, business, and home in the state so everyone can directly enjoy the benefit of this public good (and Erin and I can blog and promote the people's revolution even more efficiently).

How to Reduce Abortion -- the Dutch Approach

The Netherlands has an abortion rate around a quarter that of the United States. The teen abortion rate is one seventh that of the US. (South Dakota's reported abortion rate is also remarkably low, nearly the same as the Netherlands' rate, although the Guttmacher Institute notes that it's hard to be certain about the SD number, since it doesn't include the number of SD women who go out of state for abortions.) How do the Dutch do it? I suspect kicking out the Puritans four centuries ago might have helped. But research shows the reduced abortion rates actually come from starting further up the problem stream and reducing unwanted pregnancies, not by scaring, demonizing or punishing women, but by good old education and empowerment. The Dutch don't pontificate; they just solve the problem. Instead of just restricting abortion and then patting themselves on the back for being so darned moral, the Dutch educate their people, reduce abortion, and get other public health benefits -- less teen sex, lower STD rates, and fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to boot. Think about that when you vote on Tuesday.

Four Million Dollars Saves a Lot of Babies... or Does It?

This morning's Argus Leader reports that the two main groups battling each other on the abortion ban, Vote Yes for Life and the South Dakota Campaign for Health Families, have raised almost four million dollars. (Vote Yes for Life has taken the lead, 2.2 million to 1.8 million, which suggests it costs more to get doctors to lie.) Now imagine if, instead of ads and posters, these groups had put their money into a fund to support the children of any women who otherwise would have had an abortion. About 800 abortions a year, divide those into 4 million dollars... presto! $5,000 per saved baby. That would cover a lot of pre-natal check-ups and maternity costs. But instead of directly helping women, we throw our money at media campaigns.

State Fair Breaks Even?

After receiving a couple comments on one of my earlier posts on the State Fair, I went searching for updates. I found the trusty Huron Plainsman reporting on an October 19 meeting of the State Fair Advisory Commission. According to fair business manager Lynn Moller, the fair may break even this year! His figures at the meeting indicated a deficit of a mere $81,061, which may be erased once the Department of Revenue kicks in an expected $14,000 and sponsors write their checks for an outstanding $65,000. Hooray for good news! Perhaps the fair is on its way to reversing twenty years of decline and sustaining itself without continued backfilling and subsidy from Pierre.

Universal Health Care in 2008!

I'm not too anal retentive about the direction comments take on various entries. The discussion under my 2006 SD Voter's Guide has turned toward universal health care, and issue that, alas, hasn't come up on the South Dakota ballot. Maybe Erin and I will change that. After the election, we're going to call Jack Billion, whether he wins or not, and ask if he'd like to help us craft an initiated measure to create a statewide universal health care system. We invite any and all activists interested in the same issue to come help. Heck, if South Dakota is willing to spend tax dollars creating an unconstitutional abortion ban just to give activist lawyers and excuse to build their Supreme Court resumes, maybe South Dakota could create an actual program that serves genuine needs and challenges the status quo of corporate-capitalist health care. And note, if we can get universal health care on the ballot, it will not take the form of a constitutional amendment declaring health care a right. It will be an initiated law offering a specific policy solution to address the failures of the pseudo-free-market system. Below is the comment "Phaedrus" wrote (and my response) that got me thinking about this idea and spurred me to make it a separate thread:

Phaedrus said...

Universal Healthcare like every other kind of socialism saps the strength of innovation. There is no drive to improve such a system and it stagnates. Bread was 'universaly available' in the Soviet system as well. No hunger there ever right? Since it would be complete insanity for a government to try to provide the absolute best in medical technology and new therapy to every citizen - instant bankruptcy, what the people end up getting is the affordable mediocre medical treatment that won't stress the system.
It is only by opening it up to capitalism and the free market that the best things become available at all, and then those things eventually become cheaper and everyone benefits.

You are right when you say that democracy and the public good benefit by better health. You are wrong in thinking that can be achieved by declaring healthcare a universal right. It is the same as pretending that poverty could be eliminated if we took everyones money away and gave it back to everyone equally: causing productivity and economic growth to completely disintergrate. Canada's best doctors go the same place their best actors go. There's a very good reason for that.

coralhei said...

1. Note that I am not terribly uptight about keeping the discussion on the original topic. I wish universal health care were on the South Dakota ballot. South Dakota may lack the population necessary to create a statewide risk pool... although we already have the high-risk pool sponsored by the state to serve those good citizens whom the free market refuses to serve, so maybe we could cover everyone.

2. Phaedrus raises the red flag on declaring health care a right. Erin and I don't have to go that far. We can look at the matter purely in pragmatic terms. The private system isn't doing what Phaedrus says it should. Where are the absolute best technologies and therapies that the free market should be making cheaper and available to everyone? Health care costs are going up much faster than inflation. Fewer and fewer people can afford basic health care (like pre-natal check-ups, well-baby doctor visits, etc.). What good are the "absolute best" medical technologies and therapies if they drive families into bankruptcy even when they seek basic care for medical emergencies? Maybe "affordable mediocre medical treatment that won't stress the system" wouldn't be so bad.

By the way, Phaedrus makes analogies to the bread shortages in the Soviet Union. Why not make a better analogy, directly to the Soviet Union's universal health care system? Russians had better access to health care and better health outcomes under the Soviet system than they do under today's mafia-capitalism.

Phaedrus's analogy to the failure of food distribution in the USSR misses the point. Food distribution under the free market system works because we can make genuine free market choices. We have the time to decide which loaf of bread we want for supper, which bakery we want to buy from, or even whether we want to bake it ourselves. I can get all the information I need about bread costs and bread options from the bakery ads in the paper and by trying the bread from different bakeries each week to decide which bread best serves my needs. I don't need a complex insurance policy to obtain bread (and I don't get charged extra if I walk into a bakery to buy bread out-of-pocket). Take the preceding four sentences, try substituting "health care" for "bread" and "hospital" for "bakery," and you'll see the failure of Phaedrus's faith in the free market to provide health care.

Hospital patients cannot get the time or information they need to make genuine free market decisions about their health care. The doctors and nurses administering the care cannot tell the patient how much the shots and pills and procedures they are offering cost. When a man stumbles into the ER on a Saturday night with an appendicitis, the only people who can tell him how much the procedure will cost, the business office staff, are all at home sleeping and won't be in until Monday morning. South Dakota passes a law requiring hospitals to post their charges, but we only get a list of median charges for up to 25 most common general procedures, with no practical breakdown of specific charges within each procedure that a patient might reasonably be able to minimize through wise choices (assuming the patient is not unconscious, in labor, vomiting blood, terrified of dying, or experiencing some other distraction that might hamper her or his responsible free-market decision-making). The free market cannot work in a situation where real choice and information are not available.

I love the free market. I wish it worked all the time. But it doesn't. And when it doesn't, Adam Smith says government needs to step in and get the job done. Health care does not allow genuine free market decision-making. The free market is pricing more and more people out of health care. Universal health care might not get us the best erectile-dysfunction treatments, but it would get shots and check-ups to everyone who wants them and stop half of all bankruptcies to boot. When the free market can lower my health insurance premiums -- or heck, just limit the premium increases to the rate of my wage increases -- give me a call. Until then, I vote for universal health care, not because it's a right, but because it gets the job done better.

State Fair Attendance Up... and Down!

The State Fair board has apparently had enough time to coordinate their spin and get all the principals on the same page so they can release their attendance numbers, which remained a closely guarded secret for almost a month after the fair wrapped up. The Rapid City Journal reports that daily average attendance and vendor sales were up from last year. But remember, the fair truncated this year's event from eight days to five. So while daily attendance was up from 19,000 last year to 26,000 this year, total attendance dropped again, from 158,000 last year to 133,000 this year.

Fair manager Susan Hayward said attendance and other indicators show that the move to the shorter fair was a success.

"We are pleased with the figures that have come in, and this has been the most successful fair season we have had in my four years as manager," Hayward said Friday as officials released the attendance figures.

Now remember, this is the same Susan Hayward who is on record saying that attendance figures "are no indication of how well the fair is doing." I'm willing to give Hayward the benefit of the doubt and assume that her earlier comments in the Huron Plainsman during the fair were taken out of context. Surely she meant to say attendance figures are no indication of how well the fair is doing, at least not until we can cherry-pick the figures that make us look better. We'll see how well the spin from the fair board and the political forces from Huron goes over during the 2007 legislative session.

2006 Voter's Guide Begins!

Election Day, November 7, is fast approaching, and with 11 ballot measures to decide in addition to the races for US House, governor, and other state and local offices, we South Dakotans have a lot to figure out before marking our ballots. Over the coming weeks, I will offer my recommendations on the various races and issues. I will also create an index on my home page to compile all of the recommendations in one easy summary that voters can print and take to the polls with them as a checklist to make sure they're doing the right thing for this great state. Let the debates rage, and let's all get out and vote!

"We're Not Racing!" -- South Dakota State Fair Downplays Attendance

Summer is wrapping up, and in a state where tourism is the second-largest industry, we pay close attention to the success of our various efforts to draw tourists here for one last blast of fun and taxable spending before the leaves and the snow begin their race to the ground. We should pay even closer attention to the success of an event like the South Dakota State Fair, which the state subsidized last year to the tune of $1,000,000 last year, only to see a decline in attendance from 210,000 for the 2004 event to 158,000 at the month-early 2005 event. A tad disappointed, the state reduced the subsidy, handing the State Fair a meager (please read that adjective with sarcasm, thank you) $750,000 to keep the event afloat this year.

Now the State Fair has made efforts to improve over last year's performance. The fair moved back to the traditional Labor Day weekend and shortened its run to five days. But as a demonstration of its lack of confidence (either in its actual performance or in its ability to generate instant spin), the State Fair officials are refusing to release any attendance numbers until two weeks after the fair ends. Says State Fair manager Susan Hayward in the Huron Plainsman, "The No. 1 reason the attendance figures will not be released is because they are no indication of how well the fair is doing." Hayward complains that "sometimes the press relies heavily on the attendance figures as a measuring stick on how the fair is doing."

So the number of people attending an event is not a measure of an event's success? State Fair officials are certainly bucking conventional wisdom here. The Lifelight Christian music festival in Sioux Falls just wrapped up its three-day run, and event coordinators Mike Samp and Nathan Schock offered the media attendance estimates each day, rain or shine, from the 50,000 who braved the logistical nightmare of Friday's rain and mud, to Saturday's rebound to 93,000 concertgoers losing flip-flops in the mud, to Sunday's 120,000 who came for partly sunny skies and the Newsboys and set a one-day attendance record for Lifelight. Across the border, the Minnesota State Fair posts as the second "Quicklink" on its home page a chart comparing daily attendance between last year's fair and this year's. These successful events don't hesitate to make attendance numbers public, even though neither is supported by public money. (The Minnesota State Fair has received no public funding of any kind since 1949.)

Fair manager Hayward can likely make a strong argument that the State Fair is more than a revenue-generator. The fair is the "state tournament" for 4-H-ers who compete in a diverse array of fun and practical events. The fair brings families and friends together for an enjoyable traditional event, sort of a South Dakota family reunion. We certainly shouldn't judge the success of every aspect of our culture in terms of numbers and dollars. However, when $750,000 of state tax dollars are involved, taxpayers are entitled to ask for practical policy results. The state doesn't spend $750,000 on the state debate, football, or basketball tournaments that Secretary mentions (in today's Argus editorial) in justifying state funding for the fair. When the state throws that much money at a project, it expects a return on that investment.

To claim that attendance numbers aren't a measure of the fair's success defies good business sense. Success in tourism is increased visitor numbers. Visitors equal dollars and good word-of-mouth. Visitors are votes, people signaling their support of an event with their wheels and their wallets. As a publicly funded event, the State Fair has an obligation to inform its stockholders (us taxpayers) of the results our money is producing. To keep those numbers hidden, even for a couple weeks, smacks of little kids who see they are falling a step or two behind in a game and whiningly declare, "We're not racing!" Even if the attendance numbers aren't good, the State Fair should deal straightforwardly with us and conduct its business as openly as possible.

Rounds Chooses Technicalities, Not Life

When Governor Rounds stayed Elijah Page's execution last night, the news carried comments from relieved protestors, including one woman on KELO TV who said she knew that the Governor had it in him to spare Page's life. She averred that Rounds is a good man, as demonstrated by his support for the abortion ban (now Referred Law 6 on the November ballot). Others now may draw the conclusion that Rounds holds a consistent pro-life vision.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In his press conference yesterday laying out his reasons for the stay, Rounds said absolutely nothing about sparing Page's life or even sparing the convict cruel and unusual punishment. Rounds couched his decision entirely in terms of the particularities of South Dakota statute. South Dakota's death penalty law, written in 1984 (and evidently not reviewed by the governor until yesterday afternoon around 4 p.m.), specifies the use of a two-drug combination in the lethal injection chamber. Board of Corrections officials had made plans to use the 3-drug combination that apparently has become the standard in other states. The only reason Governor Rounds postponed the execution was his concern that state employees participating in the execution might have faced legal penalties afterward. He thus has stayed the execution until July 1, 2007, by which time he expects the legislature will have addressed the issue in its winter session and cleared the way for the execution to take place in a legal fashion.

As he did on the first abortion ban to come to his desk in 2005, Governor Rounds has avoided making a moral decision and instead played the bureaucrat. He has successfully delayed the execution, South Dakota's first since the 1940s, until well after the election, when he can calmly oversee the state's killing of a man without facing any awkward questions from his voters on their way to the polls about the depth and consistency of his pro-life stance. Governor Rounds has not answered anyone's prayers besides his political consultants, who know that the two-drug mix of abortion and the death penalty, while perhaps not guaranteed lethal, could cause Rounds some cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of his fellow Catholics and other riled voters in his effort to be re-elected governor.

The debate on an issue as serious as the death penalty, the state-sanctioned pre-meditated killing of individuals who have already been contained and deprived of their state-given rights, should not center on technicalities. True political leaders would engage us in a conversation about the fundamental values involved. True political leaders would face up to and either defend or resolve the apparently contradictory position of forbidding a rape victim from seeking an abortion because of our dedvotion to the sanctity of life but allowing a brutal criminal to dictate the terms of his punishment and assisting in a suicide. Governor Rounds is failing to show that leadership on this moral issue.

Comment Moderation -- The Madville Times Policy

Update 2009.05.01: I'm trying out a new comment policy. Given my experience that anonymous comments foster unneighborly, unproductive, off-topic ranting, I'm banning anonymous comments. Very simply:

1. Leave your real name with your comment.
2. If I don't recognize your name, and if you don't provide a hyperlink to a profile or other identifying information, I delete the comment.
3. If you have something to say but are unwilling to say it publicly, send your info privately, and we can talk.
4. Don't like it? Get your own blog. It's easy, it's free.
   

My rules of civility outlined below are worth reading. And if you think I'm picky, feel free to compare comment policies from NPR, Huffington Post, and New York Times.

----------------------------------------------------------
--earlier comment moderation policy, repealed 2009.05.01--
sections rendered wholly irrelevant by nymity policy
appear in red italics
----------------------------------------------------------

The Madville Times does not moderate comments. If you submit a comment—pro, con, or neutral—it will appear (barring gremlins) uncensored. The Madville Times reserves the right to delete comments at whim, but will use that right sparingly. The Madville Times assumes no responsibility for illegal content (e.g., libel); commenters retain sole legal responsibility for the content of their submitted material.

Cuss words are generally unnecessary.

On anonymous comments: The Madville Times recognizes that some citizens want to participate in public discourse but are afraid that other citizens may retaliate in some fashion against them for expressing unpopular views. The Madville Times does not share such fears and urges all citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights respectfully yet fearlessly.

Nonetheless, recognizing that a call to fearless speech is more easily said than done, the Madville Times is currently willing to tolerate anonymous comments. Please note that this policy runs counter to established practice for most social institutions:

1. The Madison Daily Leader, as well as nearly all newspapers, will not publish anonymous letters to the editor and requires verifiable contact information with every letter.
2. The school districts I have worked for will not act on anonymous complaints.
   
3. The legal system permits witnesses to testify anonymously only in the most extreme cases where a clear threat to the witnesses' safety can be demonstrated.
4. People who show up at public meetings wearing masks are generally viewed with suspicion.
   

In general, the Madville Times frowns on anonymous comments because they represent a weaker form of civil discourse. As members of a community, we should speak with each other as equal partners in the great endeavor of maintaining and improving the quality of life in the city and state we share. Even when exercising the privilege of anonymous commenting, readers should moderate their own comments by the following criteria:

1. Would you be willing to say these same words in a face-to-face conversation with the person to whom you are directing your comment?
2. Would you be willing to say these same words in person with other people listening?
   

SD Schools Throw Money Away on Outside Speakers

School is resuming at Montrose. We had two days of in-service, Tuesday and Wednesday, which consisted entirely of a presentation by Dr. Ed Porthan, a former teacher and administrator who now makes an apparently better living in the private sector as a consultant who presumes to tell teachers who stick with the profession how to do their jobs. I was hoping the money spent ($1500, according to one administrator) to bring Dr. Porthan down from Minnesota would turn out to be well spent. Alas, I found myself sitting through yet another in-service that offered no new information or practical knowledge that left me better prepared to step into the classroom and educate children next week Wednesday. For my assessment of the debacle (the address of which I have already mailed to the profiteering Dr. Porthan), see my essay "Teacher In-Service: More Taxpayer Dollars Down the Drain -- A Review of Dr. Ed Porthan's Educational Consulting."

The question for taxpayers to consider is this: if funds in our school budgets and small towns really are limited (and the proliferation of expensive boats and RVs sometimes leads me to question even that premise), wouldn't school boards better invest those limited funds by paying their teachers more, knowing those dollars will turn over more as local teachers spend that money locally, rather than handing spare funds over to out-of-state consultants with litte knowledge of our school districts' specific needs who will take the money and run without leaving us with any useful knowledge?