A few further Tiller updates...

The suspect: 51-year-old Scott Roeder, a man with connections to various right-wing fringe organizations, including - you guessed it - DooHickey's BFFs at Operation Rescue. A note to the right-wingers in the SD blogosphere: guys like Roeder are why the Obama Administration thinks it's important to keep an eye on extreme right-wingers. In fact, it sounds as though attacks on Tiller's clinic had ticked up in recent weeks, causing him to ask the feds to monitor the "picketers" who "peacefully protest" in front of his clinic more closely. Maybe closer attention on the part of law enforcement could have prevented this. Who knows.

Thankfully, I've heard tonight that Dr. Tiller's clinic will open tomorrow, with two other doctors serving his patients. It's a fitting tribute to a man who, as Kelsey observed, put his life on the line more than once to help women facing crisis pregnancy situations. (It's important to note that, despite crazy people bleating to the contrary, "Tiller performed therapeutic abortions for women who wanted children" and who faced medical problems later in pregnancy that prevented them from bringing the fetus to term.)

I'm hoping that those of us who peruse local blogs will see those who minimize or equivocate about or obfuscate what happened today for what they are.

Tiller murder suspect in custody.

Police arrested a suspect in the murder of Dr. Tiller this afternoon.

The usual wackjob suspects in the anti-abortion movement are attempting to wash their hands of the situation. Operation Rescue, which is based out of Wichita and updates a regular "Tiller watch" on the doctor and his employees, appears to have taken its website offline today. They released a statement earlier in the day distancing themselves from the murderer, on a webpage that had an image of Dr. Tiller with flames around him, and the caption, "America's Doctor of Death." Classy.

I echo Kelsey's wish that the murderer be brought to justice, and that we hold accountable those in the "pro-life" movement who enabled and encouraged the blind hatred that led more than one person to attempt to murder Dr. Tiller.

George Tiller Murdered at Church

Late term abortion doctor and hero George Tiller was gunned down this morning as he walked into his church.

Dr. Tiller risked his life every day to help women and girls. He knew what could happen to him and he never backed down. I really don't even know what to say about his loss. It's just too awful to even begin to understand.

George Tiller was truly pro-life -- he saved women's lives and was willing to sacrifice his own life for them. The people who have targeted him and who fuel the hatred that sparks a mentally unstable person to do something like this need to be held accountable. There is nothing pro-life about them. They bring death.

Hunt back in court.........again

The Argus reported today that Roger "What do you mean, 'Spirit of the law'??" Hunt is going back to court on Monday.

If, like me, you can't believe this case is still going on, here's a quick recap of where we're at:

*2006: Roger Hunt sets up corporate shell, to hide identity of $750,000 donor.

*Also 2006: Chris Nelson notices, and sues.

*2007(ish?): Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell rules in Hunt's favor. Nelson appeals.

*Fall 2008: Supreme Court heard case, ruled in Nelson's favor. Ordered Caldwell to rule whether or not Promising Future, Inc. constitutes a ballot question committee.

*Monday: Hearing in circuit court about the ballot committee issue.


In my opinion, Promising Future, Inc. absolutely constitutes a ballot question committee. Legally, a ballot question committee is "a person or organization that raises, collects, or disburses contributions for the placement of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question." (Although there were some changes to campaign finance statutes in 2007, I'm pretty sure this definition didn't).

Had the donor given directly to VoteYesForCupcakes, this wouldn't have been an issue. However, as the donor clearly gave the money to the shell corporation that existed entirely to alter the outcome of a ballot question, it seems pretty clear to me that it's a committee, and is therefore legally required to file finance reports (with, among other things, the name of the $750k donor).


In other words, Hunt is toast. Man, I love the circus.

Leslee Never Wanted All That Money to Begin With!

Today's Argus features a story about local abstinence organizations preparing to lose their funding. Some are worried they'll have to shut down, several are willing to embrace a more comprehensive message, and Leslee admits she never wanted any of the government's dirty lucre anyway:

Leslee Unruh, Abstinence Clearinghouse director and Alpha Center founder, said she'd rather pay for Truth 4 Youth with private donations.

"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."

Also, she thinks struggling South Dakota schools will pony up cash for the honor of having her disrupt their curriculum for a week:

"The schools will pay then because they love the program," she said. "I think, actually, our movement will be stronger."

As an American taxpayer, let me just say, considering the level of our national debt and our current economic situation, if you don't want federal money, please don't take it. We could've used that money for something else -- we could've given it back to the hardworking people it came from. This woman took $635,000 this year alone for her Truth 4 Youth program. In 2007, the Abstinence Clearinghouse received $1 million and the Alpha Center has gotten about $240,000 per year from the feds. And now she's acting like she was pissed off about even having to take it?

I hope all the folks at the big tea party who were complaining about government spending and waste give Leslee and Allen a call about this. They've been living like the ultimate welfare queens and now that cash cow has dried up, they've got the nerve to bitch about how much they've been given. Unbelievable.

Palin Media Whoredom and Insanity Continues...

And Bonnie Fuller's article over at HuffPo nails it. Here's a preview excerpt, though I recommend a full reading:

As a mom of two teen girls, I can hardly believe the fairytale crock the Palins have cooked up about unwed teen motherhood, with the help of People mag.

A quick recap: Bristol preggo. Bristol getting married. Bristol not getting married. Bristol preaches abstinence. Bristol explains how unrealistic abstinence is via the media. Levi Johnston also explains how unrealistic abstinence is via the media. Sarah Palin continues to preach the importance of abstinence. Messy media feud between Palins and Johnstons ensues. Bristol returns to preaching abstinence. Obama administration takes initial steps to axe ab-only sex ed because it's a public health nightmare. Bristol does People.

And...that brings us up to the present. What a circus of denial! Can the Palins just go away?!

Another take on the "ZOMG Pro-Life PWN" poll

Last week, Gallup released a poll that said for the first time since 1995 that more Americans identified as "pro-life" than pro-choice.

If you take a stroll around the South Dakota blogosphere, you can see what earth-shattering news this supposedly was, according to PP at the War College, DooHickey (DW no linkage policy), and Dakota Voice.

After reading them, you might think this poll is some kind of nail in the coffin. But, if you've been paying attention to South Dakota politics in the last several years, you might wonder what's caused such a disparity between poll numbers and voting patterns.

Chicago Tribune writer Eric Zorn does some comparing. Remember folks, according to Fox News, this poll was in line with their own polling, so it must be true--ha! However, Zorn points out that a Quinnipiac University poll done in April with twice the sample size of the Gallup poll showed 52 percent of respondents saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

For the record, this isn't the first time a major poll has reported a "pro-life" lead: as Zorn reports, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll from two years ago showed a 50-45 percent lead. Face it: this just isn't groundbreaking news.


We've been hovering around the middle for quite some time. However, a weekend CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll did show one pretty decisive tidbit: that 68 percent of respondents DO NOT support overturning Roe. I guess I'm a little less concerned with how people identify, and a lot more concerned with how many of them support basic privacy rights. Love it.

I Guess Elephants *DO* Forget

Remember when the John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and Republicans suddenly hated sexism?


If you've seen any of the right-wing's attacks on Pelosi lately, it seems "elephants" forget pretty quickly. Via Feministing:




Obviously, it's one thing to say "I disagree with Pelosi's positions on X, Y, and Z." But the constant botox references? Limbaugh's "let's lower the birth rate by putting pictures of her in cheap hotel rooms"? It's just flat-out sexist.

SDP and marriage.

It's been a long time since Ken or Jon at South Dakota Politics and I have gotten into it. So for old time's sake, I have to take issue with a couple of recent posts on gay marriage over there.

(Amazingly, SDP seems to allow comments these days - but I'll say what I have to say over here, instead.)

Both Ken and Jon (but mostly Jon) seem to entirely miss the point of the debate. Lots of Jon's comments, such as:

Why does same-sex marriage not fully demonstrate self-giving? ...First, same-sex marriage cannot create new life, a profound act of self-giving. Second, same-sex unions involve someone of the same sexual nature, another self. Traditional marriage involves the adventure of discovering someone who is profoundly different from you. Of course, this assumes that men and women have differences that go beyond how they pee, or put differently, that the differences in our bodies represent a difference in our natures. Surely there is a common human nature, but perhaps there is also a male nature and female nature in addition and the differences in these natures are socially and politically relevant in ways skin color is not. But perhaps I am all wet and male/female biological differences are meaningless and with the right social arrangements all male/female differences can be eliminated.

belie, at worst, a really ridiculous amount of unchecked heterosexual privilege and heterosexism, and, perhaps at best, an entirely ahistorical interpretation of "traditional marriage" and the "traditional family." Someone as smart as Jon is above this kind of sloppy analysis. Unsurprisingly, I seriously question the notion of a "male nature" or a "female nature" that are so different that heterosexual relationships deserve rights and privileges that homosexual relationships don't. Longtime readers of DW will recall, however, that Jon also thinks it's unwomanly for females to participate in sports, so I suppose we have to keep in mind who we're dealing with here.

In fact, both Ken and Jon throw around this phrase, traditional marriage, as though marriage hasn't changed drastically in the last century and a half or so - and as though "the family" that Jon is so worried about protecting - a nuclear family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their immediate offspring - isn't a product of the 1950s. Jon mentions same-sex marriage, no-fault divorce, single motherhood, and increasing acceptance of pre-marital sex as evidence of the threats to marriage, but he fails to see our modern notion of what a marriage should be as a drastic break from tradition.

I have major issues with the institution of marriage, as it is now and as it has been used in the past - but I'd be wary of throwing around "traditional marriage" and the "traditional family" too often in your arguments for and against gay marriage in the future. Traditionally, marriage has transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Anything beyond that is a relatively new development. Traditionally, family has been much different than a husband, a wife, and their children.

Just something to keep in mind.

Among the many words Leslee doesn't know the meaning of...

Apparently one is defeat. One thing you can say for Leslee -- even when she's beaten, she just keeps going. Remember "We're not conceding! I'm never conceding!"? Here's the thing, though: it's a lot easier to keep pushing your crazy agenda when you've got resources with which to push it. It's hard to organize when you have no money. It's even harder when it's for a cause almost no one supports. What will the Abstinence Clearinghouse do when they can't afford three separate giant booths full of crap at the Sioux Empire Fair? When then can't have their conferences at beachfront resorts? When they can't afford to gas up the Fleet for Little Feet?

Hopefully Allen can pay the bills with his back cracking and historical impersonator fees.

John Thune = homophobe

In the wake of Justice Souter's impending retirement from the Supreme Court, some news outlets are discussing the fact that a couple of the judges on President Obama's short list for possible Supreme Court nominations are...gasp...lesbians!

Our junior senator finds this unacceptable:

One Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.

“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune (S.D.). “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”

I'd like to think we're at a point as a nation where it would be unacceptable to admit in public that you'd oppose a gay nominee to the Supreme Court only for being gay...or, wait, "polarizing." Guess not, though.

An end to abstinence-only funding?!

Ben Smith at Politico is reporting today that there's a passage in the president's proposed budget for 2010 that hasn't gotten much coverage yet: an end to Title V Community Based Abstinence Education, which I'm pretty sure is basically the lifeblood of Leslee's abstinence operation.


Happily, as Ben points out, abstinence-only "education" will be replaced with education programs that are...oh, you know...medically accurate:

The 2010 Budget proposes a new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative to support community-based and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence-based and promising models. In addition, a new Strengthening Communities Fund will help build the capacity of non-profit organizations and State, Local and Tribal entities to better serve low-income and disadvantaged populations. This Budget also proposes funding for (1) a new child welfare initiative, and (2) a human services case management system for Federally-declared disasters. This Budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education, the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program, the Compassion Capital Fund, and Rural Community Facilities.

(emphasis mine)


As we've seen with lifting the stem cell ban, reversing the Mexico City policy, and the FDA approving access to Plan B for 17-year-olds, science once again rightly trumps ideology in the Obama administration. Love it.


Update: Remember Derek the Abstinence Clown? On Twitter today: Derek the Abstinence Clown was just spotted in the unemployment line..

Now that's progress.

Torture sucks. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Some interesting numbers from The Pew Forum:


Seems like some churches could benefit from focusing a little more on the WWJD. I really feel for the many evangelicals and Catholics who do oppose torture and work actively against it (I have a number of friends who fall into this category). How do we reach the people that still don't see why torture is never okay?