More preview on why South Dakota Right to Life is opposing Senate Bill 6

Dale Bartscher with South Dakota Right to Life spoke with KELO Radio this week on why they intend to opposed the Nelson forced sonogram mandate being proposed in the state legislature, and will be heard in committee soon:

“We are opposed to any piece of legislation that South Dakota would lose in court and wind up paying Planned Parenthood’s legal fees.”

and..

SB-6 would require abortion providers to show pregnant women sonograms. Bartscher says the bill would replace a perfectly good law with “vague and uncertain” mandates.

Read it all here.

I’m hearing there’s more coming on this..  stay tuned.

38 Replies to “More preview on why South Dakota Right to Life is opposing Senate Bill 6”

  1. Anonymous

    There’s not much substance to Dale Bartscher’s article. He claims the legislation will create “vague and uncertain mandates” yet he never explains what about the mandates are vague and uncertain.

    Reply
  2. Tara Volesky

    Dale, what does RTL do with all it’s money? How about stop with the excuses and challenge the courts…….When does life begin?

    Reply
    1. duggersd

      Sometimes a good general knows when to engage and when to pull back. One of the complaint of the British during the Revolutionary War is that General Washington would disengage rather than fight when things were not to his suiting. The same can be said in this case. It appears SDRTL believes a bill such as the one proposed will probably not pass legal challenges and in being on the losing end of the argument, the state of SD would be required to pay legal bills to PP or whoever challenges the law in court. Putting forth a bill that can stand legal challenges is more likely to win in the long run, similar to General Washington’s strategy during the Revolutionary War.

      Reply
      1. Tara Volesky

        So why are they putting any bills through when abortion it is the law of the land. The only way to change things is to determine when life begins.

        Reply
      2. Tara Volesky

        Any anti-abortion bills will have legal challenges. RTL should have all kinds of money to fight the legal battles.

        Reply
        1. duggersd

          Um, notice I said a bill that could stand up to legal challenges. BTW, SDRTL would not be spending the money, the state of SD would be spending the money to defend the law.

          Reply
            1. duggersd

              OK, TV, you are just messing with me. Surely you have the ability to use logic. In any case, here is your answer. Um, because it is a South Dakota law? The AG would be required to defend the law. People suing would not sue SDRTL. SDRTL would not pass the law. The SD state legislature would have to pass the law and the SD Governor would have to sign the law. I am not a lawyer, but if I was planning to sue someone, I would sue the people and bodies responsible for the law. BTW, SDRTL is opposed to the bill. Their money IS where their mouth is.

              Reply
              1. Tara Volesky

                OK, Duggersd, that makes sense. I would like to know what Senator Nelson’s reason for bringing this bill if what you said is true.

                Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Not liberal at all. Dale’s quite conservative, he’s just a poor organizational leader. He focuses too much on using whatever group he’s part of to promote himself.

      Reply
      1. Anne Beal

        Dale is not the person I heard this from weeks ago. SDRTL is not the only pro-life organization opposing this. We already have a sonogram requirement. This one is completely unnecessary, will not accomplish anything.

        The bill requires the physician to explain all sorts of things “in a manner undertstandable to a layperson.”
        Since there are no specifics concerning the language or vocabulary to be used, does this prevent the physician from using words like “fetus” and “gestation?” It doesn’t say. It’s vague.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Thank you, Anne, for bringing useful information to the conversation. I agree that the language you cited is vague to the point of being meaningless. That said, isn’t an important part of the legislative process to work in a collaborative fashion to fix the deficiencies of otherwise sound legislation? Amend the problematic language.

          Reply
          1. Anne Beal

            But a sonogram requirement is already on the books; we dont need another one.
            The legislative session is too short to waste time voting on duplicative legislation. Is there so little to do in the state capital they want to vote on new laws that do the same things the existing laws do?
            If they start doing that, it’s time to send them all home.

            Reply
      2. C.Ermle

        Are you serious? The guy focuses on “promot(ing) himself”? If that’s true, God help us all. The movement needs strong leadership, organizational and otherwise.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          He’s also vindictive. When Dale left FHA he actively worked to make certain donors would not contribute in his absence. Dale is toxic.

          Reply
  3. Troy Jones

    Tara, you sure have a lot of strongly held opininions without even though you don’t even have knowledge of the most basic information, information one would have if they spent 15 minutes with someone who is a subject matter expert. And, if they didn’t inform you of this, they are a subject matter idiot.

    Now, to answer your most elementary question. If passed it would be a law of the State of South Dakota. When a South Dakota law is contested, it is the obligation of the State of South Dakota to defend it. It would be chaos if private citizens or groups were left to defend laws of the State of South Dakota. Was this clear enough for you or do I need to make it even more simplistic for you?

    Reply
    1. Tara Volesky

      I am answering your elementary comment Troy from researching the issue from the Late Patrick Duffy……people need to face the truth about abortion….Whether or not a South Dakota state legislator supports or resists a woman’s right to abort effectively means nothing when measured against the constitutional reality of that right: the right is a constitutional one and cannot be legislatively conditioned.

      Reply
  4. Tara Volesky

    Well maybe SDRTL should take it to our Congressmen….and how many Congressmen brought a bill to over-turn Roe vs Wade over the last 46 years? I rest my case. Let’s hear it Troy. No excuses.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      Tara, let me speak really slow. You again don’t have a grasp of the most elementary matters. Your case you prove is you are the most uninformed poster on any subject you speak about.

      Roe is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. It can only be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Congressmen are not members of the United States Supreme Court so they have no authority to overturn Roe.

      Reply
  5. Tara Volesky

    Factual statement from the late Patrick Duffy……….so argue that on Troy…………now read it very slowly ………..Both parties exploit this issue. The GOP has no intent to introduce a constitutional amendment declaring that life begins at conception. If John Thune or Mike Rounds or Kristi Noem believed otherwise, they’d have introduced an amendment to the constitution long ago to overrule Roe. The undeniable fact is that Roe was decided by a Republican Supreme Court. Every significant judicial advance toward Roe and in its support has been augured by a Republican court. It is a bitter political irony that the political party whose rank and file are least disposed toward the right to abortion is the political party whose jurists created the right in the first place, and who have maintained it since.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      Wow, you don’t even grasp what Patrick (who I knew well for 40+ years) said is wholly on conflict with your earlier statements.

      Reply
      1. Tara Volesky

        You have a point Troy I never claimed to be an expert on abortion laws. But, I do respect and agree what Mr. Duffy had to say on this important issue. He was one for not exploiting the issue for political gain. So Troy, do you agree with Mr. Duffy?

        Reply
      2. Tara Volesky

        What do you mean Troy I don’t grasp what Patrick said. I am the one that posted his statements on the politics and history on abortion. Now off the name-dropping and name calling………do you agree with Mr. Duffy’s facts when it comes to abortion?

        Reply
        1. Troy Jones

          Pat describes a well-reasoned opinion and analysis of the set of the abortion debate but it is not a fact. That said, I agree too many people on both sides use the issue for their own purposes. Feel better?

          The reason I said I knew Pat is simple. Pat was a man of deep intellectual vigor and even deeper personal convictions. Only to the degree you know those two things can you grasp the nuance and context of what he said.

          Reply
              1. Troy Jones

                Agree with what? Pat is a smart guy or what he is saying? I agree with the former and have no idea on the latter. It would take literally hundreds if not thousands of hours of reviewing information to make such an assessment.

                One more thing: Pat is both a good lawyer and is speaking on behalf of his client. It until one hears the other side, it is foolhardy to make judgement.

                Reply
    1. Pat Powers Post author

      When you post things in their entirety from elsewhere, I’m going to yank it. Use a snippet to make your point, and a link.

      Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Kill this in committee if this is true. Stace probably wrote this just to attack those that vote with SDRTL in defeating this bill, calling them pro-abortion (like he and his cronies have done in past elections). Classic Stace. (Insert negative Stace rant here)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.