Kathy Tyler tries to explain her pro-choice record to SDRTL, while claiming to be pro-life.

State Representative Kathy Tyler spent sometime on Facebook in the last couple of days trying to explain why she keeps going over to the Senate to testify against pro-life legislation (and it has been more than once), while at the same time calling herself pro-life.

You can read the entire thread for yourself here, but it goes something like this:

  • Valerie Johnson Votes should reflect belief. Words matter; actions speak louder than words. We might be forgiven but there are temporal consequences to our actions. I hope this bill encouraged conversation and that hearts and minds were opened to the understanding that the voiceless must be protected.
  • Kathy Tyler Please realize that I am one the best supporters of RTL in the Democrat caucus and always will be. I sincerely apologize for any and all consternation my comment caused. You can be assured that I have and will continue to support anti-abortion bills that come before us in the SD Legislature. Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments: kathytyler2012@gmail.com. Thank you and take care.
  • South Dakota Right to Life If you are pro-life, why did you testify against this bill? It doesn’t matter that the bill didn’t make it out of committee. What matters is you urged defeat of it. Why?

    If you are pro-life, why did you testify against John Hanson’s pro-life bill last year? Hanson’s bill had great support in the House. Your House vote wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome. But it was very close in the Senate. Your testimony against the bill in the Senate could have been the difference between the bill passing or failing – and the difference between more babies being aborted versus being born alive.

    You testified Hanson’s bill was a terrible bill for women and urged Senators to vote against the bill. Why? Did you ever consider the benefit of the bill to the unborn baby?

    This session, when an amendment was offered to gut the gender-selection bill, our RTL lobbyist asked you to vote against the amendment. Why did you vote for the amendment? Why did you vote contrary to the RTL position?
  • Kathy Tyler One thing I need to make clear, my testimony and the vote of most of the members of the committee was not a pro-abortion testimony or vote. The bill was unenforceable. How would one ever prove that an abortion was done for this reason? The doctor can’t tell, and the mother wouldn’t admit it. I understand the why of the bill and support the why, but some bills that we see are..how can I put it…just not good bills for one reason or another–unconstitutionality; lack of enforcement; duplication, inevitable court case, etc. And in talking to the RTL lobbyist, the national RTL wanted this one left alone also. As for Hanson’s bill, I didn’t see the necessity for it–the waiting period and counseling were already covered in statute. Again..I voted for the bill on the floor. As for the amendment on 1162, there was no amendment offered on the floor that I can find. Thanks for asking the questions; I appreciate it.
  • South Dakota Right to Life Rep. Tyler, we beg to differ with your interpretation. You have two buttons to choose from when voting, a red one and a green one. You either vote a bill up or down. There is no third choice. When testifying in committee, you either urge legislators to vote for or against a bill. When you urge legislators to vote down a pro-life bill, in direct opposition to RTL, you choose to take a pro-abortion position. The enforceability argument is not a valid argument in our opinion. But it’s the Hanson bill that perhaps best illustrates our differences. Of the 70 House members, you were the only House member that saw the need to go to the Senate to testify against it. Is that the action of a pro-life advocate or a pro-abortion advocate? You could have gone about your business in the House, but of the 70 Representatives, you alone traveled to the Senate to speak against the bill. We view that as the action of a pro-abortion advocate. You may not have believe the bill was necessary, but RTL believed it was, as did the majority of the legislature that voted for the bill and sent it to our Governor who signed it. As a “pro-life” legislator, we expect you to work with us, not against us. Should the voters return you to the legislature next year, we sincerely look forward to an improved relationship and a new, positive pro-life voting record.
  • Kathy Tyler Yes I was the only House member to testify, but not the only one there; we were limited in testimony. I will work with you…not an issue..but you need to work with us also. The bills need to be enforceable, not duplicates, and not political statements. Please don’t put us in a tough spot of having to support a ‘bad bill’…that doesn’t mean anti-abortion…not at all..a bill as described above. As a legislator, one learns what valid arguments are and are not; and I can see we disagree on that point. Please keep in touch. Your passion is appreciated.

5 thoughts on “Kathy Tyler tries to explain her pro-choice record to SDRTL, while claiming to be pro-life.”

  1. The term “Democrat” and “Pro-Life” cannot legitimately exist together. Neither can “Catholic” and “Pro-Choice”. They are completely antithetical to each other. It is lies and hypocrisy otherwise.

  2. We should all pray for Tyler’s soul. Let this woman serve as a living example to others…by that I mean, I hope her ignorance inspires others to stand up for gods blessed children. Let us all find the motivation through her to speak against those that share the same views as “Hitler”.

  3. I don’t care what her position is. I’m sure she thinks she is actually “pro-life” but it does bother me that she misrepresented a Priest’s position on abortion.

    1. Her language gives her away, though. Notice the term she uses isn’t “pro-life”, but “anti-abortion”.

  4. The exchange between them is hilarious… Tyler campaigned as pro-life thinking that would help her win. She’s not pro-life, and she got caught!!

    Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Comments are closed.