Blast from the Past – Kathy Tyler’s Bizarre testimony in favor of Aborting babies with Downs syndrome. Listen for yourself.

I was told at the Hobo Day parade that Kathy Tyler is flipping out about a postcard that came out with regards to her awful rating on life issues, and her bizarre testimony to the legislature on how Jesus was supposedly Pro-choice. So, I thought it would be educational to give her testimony a listen as noted in a previous post I had done:

If you read the guest post from Spencer Cody, the Vice Chair of South Dakota Right to life, He brought up State Representative Kathy Tyler’s bizarre testimony about House Bill 1240, and why she stood as the sole opponent to the bill which made it illegal to abort a child because of a disability, specifically children identified as possibly having downs syndrome.

I gave it a listen, and yes, it is absolutely bizarre. So much so, I extracted it to an audio clip so you can listen for yourselves:

Does any Catholic reading this believe that her parish priest actually told her that “Jesus was pro-choice?”

Does anyone reading this think she can realistically consider herself pro-life, while at the same time supporting the abortion of the disabled?

25 Replies to “Blast from the Past – Kathy Tyler’s Bizarre testimony in favor of Aborting babies with Downs syndrome. Listen for yourself.”

  1. Bill Fleming

    I hope everyone listens to the clip, and doesn’t just read what you wrote, Pat. Because she is telling the truth, and you,sir, are not. Not even close.

    Reply
  2. Pp at SDWC

    Bill –

    Kathy’s priest confirmed publicly he did not tell her that Jesus was pro-choice.

    So, who is lying now?

    Reply
  3. Bill Fleming

    Don’t know about the priest, of course, and neither do you, because priest’s conversations with confessors are confidential. And I didn’t hear anywhere in the recording where Tyler testifies in favor of aborting any type of baby.

    Reply
    1. sdsen_2014 Post author

      After She lied about it, he came out publicly:

      http://liveactionnews.org/rep-kathy-tyler-priest-said/

      Please understand that I am NOT in anyway supportive of any type of abortion. My conversation with Representative Tyler was in reference to free will. God gave us the choice to choose life or death – with the consequences of our choices.

      That’s hardly a ringing endorsement for abortion. And it seems that Tyler lied about what her priest told her. She took a conversation about free will and warped it into a defense of abortion, all the while insisting that she’s pro-life. It’s hard to make sense out of something so insane.

      Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Am I missing the bigger point!? “Pro-Life Republicans” voted to kill the bill! Not Tyler! If Tyler was wrong for expressing concerns about the bill, what about those who actually voted to kill the bill!?

    Reply
  5. Lee Schoenbeck

    If you are pro-life, you aren’t taking your time away from the work in the house you serve in , to go help the pro-abortion crowd on the other side. If you have any grasp of work loads and priorities if time, she’s already in a unique piece of atmosphere.

    Now as to the lie she spread about her priest. Bill, you know that there is no such thing as a privilege to her alleged conversations outside of a confessor setting. Here, she’s not even claiming that. Today in Milbank she politely admitted that she lied. So here’ s what you have to ask yourself – what kind of a sick mind makes up a lie like that???

    Reply
    1. Bill Fleming

      Okay, I’m confused. Did the priest say, ‘God gave us the choice to choose life or death – with the consequences of our choices.’

      Or not?

      Seems to me that unless a person is 100% anti-abortion with no exceptions whatsoever, they are in fact, pro-choice.

      In any case, are we really prepared to legislate that the state has the authority to force a woman to bear children against her will when, as the priest explains, even God doesn’t presume such authority?

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Bill, nice attempt getting back up after being knocked down by facts.

        So, you’ve pivioted from,, “she didn’t lie”, to “even if she did, so what”, to “it was bad legislation, and besides, all those pro-lifers are hypocrites.”

        I’m sure Cory’s Cronies appreciate your scattered “thinking.”

        Reply
        1. Fleming

          Never said anyone was a hypocrite. That’s your word. I do think people abuse the English language, and oftentimes fail to see the reality of their own moral positions. Choosing to end a pregnancy due to rape, incest and/or the life of the mother is still very much a choice. It’s not my fault some of you have distorted the language to the point where the words you use no longer carry their propper meaning.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            “Seems to me that unless a person is 100% anti-abortion with no exceptions whatsoever, they are in fact, pro-choice. ”

            And what do YOU call a person who claims to be anti-abortion, but allows for a certain number of specified exceptions?

            Reply
      2. Anonymous

        “to bear children against her will when, as the priest explains, even God doesn’t presume such authority?”

        Can you READ? The priest said absolutely nothing of the kind.

        Good gawd, do you just make it up as you go?

        Reply
        1. Fleming

          Of course I can read. Can you? The priest’s point is that we have the divine gift of free will and so, must make our own choices and be willing to accept the consequences. Were it otherwise, abortion wouldn’t even be possible. Other animals don’t consciously have them. If that’s not what the priest said, he didn’t say anything.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            “, must make our own choices and be willing to accept the consequences. Were it otherwise, abortion wouldn’t even be possible. ”

            1. Agreed, but your extension of that (“even God doesn’t presume such authority”) is NOT what the priest said.

            2. Why would Tyler even consult her priest? She was looking for CHURCH guidance on the issue. If all it took was a default position on free will & responsibility, then according to you & Tyler, EVERY human decision that affects others (or not) would be divinely inspired, and God would be unconcerned about the process or results since He simply gave us “free will.” For Tyler or you to claim that all human decisions are divine (because God gave us free will) ignores the DAMAGE done when humans act using free will in a way that is contrary to God’s will, And that’s what the priest was telling Tyler.

            And that’s what the law tells us: criminal law, like God’s laws in many cases, tells us that you are free to act as you please, but the consequences will follow.

            So yes, God does claim the authority to hold people accountable for their choices (as does the law), IN SPITE of acting out of free will.

            “even God doesn’t presume such authority” is morally and theologically wrong.

            Reply
            1. Bill Fleming

              Nope, it’s not wrong. You’re just having trouble grasping the accuracy of it. Personally, I’m not sure I agree with the priest, but there can be no question that he was asserting that free will and the ability to choose are divine gifts. I myself wouldn’t make that assertion. I’m not fully convinced that there is such a thing as ‘free will.’

              Reply
  6. Lee Schoenbeck

    Bill, glad you are big enough to admit you were wrong, and to quit defending Tyler’s lies. From an old debater perspective, I believe what you did is called a shift, and well played my friend

    Reply
  7. Bill Fleming

    Thanks, Lee… I think. Fact is, I don’t know either Tyler, or her priest. But it seems to me, both were attempting to have a reasoned discussion about an extremely emotion laden issue having to do with the mystery of life, and the separation of church and state.

    Difficult stuff.

    I don’t envy anyone whose job it is to make such decisions on behalf of society at large. I have a hard enough time trying to choose between serif and sans serif typefaces.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “I don’t envy anyone whose job it is to make such decisions on behalf of society at large. I have a hard enough time trying to choose between serif and sans serif typefaces.”

      Such a trite comparison between laws affecting human life and choosing a font is utterly despicable.

      Par for the course with small minds.

      Reply
      1. Bill Fleming

        Thank you. I’m glad you grasped the essence of my comment. Compared to what I do for a living, making life and death decisions on behalf of another human being is trite indeed.

        And, unlike you, who won’t even share your name, much less your occupation, I have no problem admitting it.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          “Compared to what I do for a living, making life and death decisions on behalf of another human being is trite indeed. ”

          I doubt you even understand what you just wrote.

          Can you formulate and express a coherent thought?

          Reply
          1. Fleming

            It’s clear that it’s you who doesn’t comprehend what I wrote. Why don’t you stop pretending to be smart, stop typing and drooling, and go off in a quite corner and think about it?

            Reply
            1. Fleming

              To clarify:

              I wrote” “I don’t envy anyone whose job it is to make such [life and death] decisions on behalf of society at large. I have a hard enough time trying to choose between serif and sans serif typefaces.”
              _____________________

              …and again,
              What I do for a living (graphic design), is trite by comparison compared to anyone’s whose job it is to make such [life and death] decisions on behalf of society at large.

              Got it?

              Reply
              1. Anonymous

                Sorry chump! But that’s not what you wrote fior you CHANGED the subject!

                Here are your words:

                “Compared to what I do for a living, making life and death decisions on behalf of another human being is trite indeed. ”

                The conditional phrase, “Compared to what I do for a living”, is NOT the subject of the sentence for it is a DEPENDENT clause, dependent on the main clause that folllows.

                The main (and independent) clause–” making life and death decisions on behalf of another human being is trite indeed ”–contains the SUBJECT of your sentence.

                Subject: “making life and death decisions”
                Verb: “is”
                Followed by the predicate: “trite indeed”.

                Thus, the only proper reading of your sentence is that you were comparing what you do for a living to the triteness of making a living by making life & death decisions.

                As I told you, you did not and do not understand what you wrote. One hopes that you’re a better graphics artist than writer, but this is the internet so maybe you made that up too, “Bill.”

                Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.