Rep. Fred Deutsch taking the pro-life message from SDRTL to campuses across South Dakota

Fred Deutsch, State Representative, and chairman of South Dakota Right to Life is certainly taking his role as head of the pro-life organization seriously.

He’s been making efforts and inroads at our Universities across South Dakota, and here he is at the University of South Dakota with a few gathered to support the cause:


72 Replies to “Rep. Fred Deutsch taking the pro-life message from SDRTL to campuses across South Dakota”

  1. Daniel Buresh

    One reason why young republicans are so few and far between. Pro-life is an anti-science position and hinges on morality defined by religion. Religion has no place in government. Science has proven that safe sex education and easy access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions. I’m not a fan of abortion, but I know what Republicans are trying to do and it is not going to decrease the numbers of abortions performed. The pro-life movement is completely wrong and Republicans should drop it.

    1. Lee Schoenbeck

      Dan, interesting comment that “religion has no place in politics” – it is an argument to get morality out of politics, but answer me this then — who’s values and what values get to be used then??
      See, here’s the problem with your argument. You want the values that you don’t like excluded from consideration. If somebody was foolish enough to agree with you, you would always get to have your value system – or version of religion (or anti-religion) control the policy decisions of the day.
      Dan, from an American experiment in self-governance perspective – you couldn’t be more wrong. Everybody gets to bring their values to the table to the extent they chose to – and then you have to win the battle of ideas and produce values with greater quality, to persuade.

      I happen to believe that you don’t have any more fundamental rights than the right to life. If you don’t have the right to the first breath protected, no chance that any of the other rights mean very much.

      1. Jaa Dee

        “interesting comment that “religion has no place in politics” – it is an argument to get morality out of politics,”

        “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
        ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
        “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
        ~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
        “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
        “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
        “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
        “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
        ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,
        “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
        ~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
        “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
        ~Founding Father James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
        “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.”
        ~Founding Father James Madison, letter, 1822
        No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
        ~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731
        . “God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
        ~Founding Father Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
        “Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”
        ~Founding Father Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789

        1. Steve Hickey

          John Adams: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

          Congress, 1854: The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

          There are scores and scores of Founding and Early American quotes that make the opposite point you are hoping to make with these proof texts.

          1. Jaa Dee

            “There are scores and scores of Founding and Early American quotes that make the opposite point you are hoping to make with these proof texts.”– That only proves your ignorance of the point of the quotes…I posted—NOBODY today nor those Founders were against any personal religious beliefs nor the freedom of expressing those beliefs, they thought one belief should not hold preference over another… that is the POINT sir, which “you people” choose to disagree with and cannot comprehend..I would remind you sir that some Founders such as Jefferson and others held religious beliefs and opinions that would be deemed as un-christian today by those like you

            Of course there are quotes by those individuals on their personal religious beliefs, the quotes I posted show clearly what they believed from their experiences and observations in that time of the intermingling of a particular or any religious belief in a government created for and by all, not a chosen few of the correct religious opinion…they were repulsed by that form of government which they had experienced as a colony of the Church of England and worked to prevent that with the Constitution and today there are those that would have this country be exactly what the Founders tried to guard against…. It is an insult to the Founders and the freedoms of this country…sir
            Sir, Do you claim the quotes I posted are not accurate? Do they NOT mean what they say? If so please correct them and tell us what they do mean

          2. Jaa Dee

            Mr. Hickey– Sir, if you are going to post a link to try to impress me you waste your time with something like “wallbuilders”, sites such as those have created dozens of phoney Founder quotes and are completely discredited as anything more than a fairy-tale for the faithful and gullible.
            Sir, perhaps you overlooked my response to you further down the thread on “life begins”… If you did see it and are not capable of a reply, so be it…point made

        2. Lee Schoenbeck

          Don’t confuse theocracy with morals. They aren’t the same thing or even in the same arena for debate

      2. Daniel Buresh

        Lee, it’s an argument that your religion based morals can differ from those who have other religions or no religions at all. I am against abortion, but I don’t feel it is my right to stop someone else from making that choice on their own. I find empty promises when I hear people speak about how abortion is wrong, then condemn any sort of assistance they may need to care for that child after they are born. I know all kinds of republicans like that, many friends and family that are all against abortion, but god forbid we have to pay more taxes to support the less fortunate. If they die, then it is just natural selection. You can’t be willing to force others to bring humans into this world and then just say “oh well” as they starve to death.

    2. Anonymous

      Wow, do you sound like a secular, pagan moron. Anti-science? What is to understand about the fact that a life begins at conception, Danny boy? When does life begin, then?

      Trying to get out the message that for every abortion an unborn baby is killed isn’t that difficult to understand.

      Pretty much anything you post now is going to be irrelevant to me; not because I’m a one-issue conservative, but because reading your post gives me a good idea of your worldview, and I don’t support your belief system.

      1. Daniel Buresh

        That doesn’t say much when you can’t even attach your name to your belief system. Having my beliefs criticized by someone with no integrity……please don’t feel bad while I laugh a little harder. Such devotion and dedication to the cause I tell ya….bahaha

  2. Troy Jones


    The science of behind the theory of evolution is that the species is in a state of constant improvement via natural selection. Thus, the science would dictate species improvement would be such that allowing those with physical or mental handicaps to reproduce would be “anti-science.” Or, feeding or providing shelter to the homeless would encourage those genes remaining in the gene pool would be to the detriment of species improvement and thus “anti-science.”

    Every single law and every single action of the government is a statement of a particular morality. And, every political division on an issue is division of a morality. For instance, is it moral to for the government to kill via the death penalty or it immoral to not kill via the death penalty? At its core, no matter how you believe on this issue, it is a statement of your particular morals. Why do my morals have no voice my government? Is it a government only for your morals?

    The prohibition against theft is a moral statement on property rights. The prohibition against murder is a moral statement on the dignity and value of each person as is the principle of individual rights.

    In this Constitutional Republican Democracy, each individual is entitled to bring their particular morality to the public square no matter the basis of its formation. An atheist’s formation of morality is just as legitimate in the public square as my formation as a person of faith. Thus, your statement “Religion has no place in government” directly implies my morality is inferior to yours. That violates the basic principle undergirding our Constitutional Republican Democracy.

    1. Daniel Buresh

      If the goal is to reduce the # of abortions, the pro-life movement has it wrong. Prohibition doesn’t work, or have you forgotten your history? Morality based on religion alone is false. Morality based on religion and back by science is different. Science says the way to reduce abortions is through education and access.

      1. Anonymous

        Are you equating the wholesale murder of babies to making alcohol illegal? Are you suggesting that if abortions are made illegal that people will take more concern about sleeping around, that they won’t give the baby up for adoption, that they won’t have the baby and have a change of heart when they see that what liberalism has classified a bunch of cells has turned into a beautiful baby?

    2. crossgrain

      Evolution does NOT work towards improvement, while natural selection MAY work towards improvement. Evolution describes change over time, while the mechanisms by which that change occurs include natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration, and other factors.

      1. Anonymous

        Your description of “evolution” is not Darwinian evolution but something quite different.

        Darwin was clear: those organisms that developed the most useful traits in a given environment would be the most successful in terms of offspring. Those organisms that don’t, don’t survive.

        Are you now claiming that Darwin was wrong, crossgrain?

        1. crossgrain

          Uh, what? Evolution is the change. The process by which that change occurs are the mechanisms. Natural selection is one such mechanism, and yes, it was described by Darwin and others of his time.

          Oh, and Darwin was quite wrong about a number of things, pangenesis for example.

    3. Bill Fleming

      Sorry, but that’s a strawman argument, Troy. You draw a false equivalence between “religion” and “morality” or “ethics” and then attack Daniel’s argument with your false assumption. Tsk. 😉

  3. Heisenberg

    You can see him out there winning the hearts and minds of South Dakota’s young people! Persuasion not Coercion…

    1. Anonymous

      Fred still needs to work on being taken seriously in the legislature. He isn’t bad at self promotion, but I’m told he hasn’t accomplished much so far in the House.

  4. Troy Jones


    1) Prohibition of theft and murder doesn’t “work” either. Are you saying we should legalize both?

    2) Your “if” is a presumption of my position and its rationale. I equate the murder of a born person and an unborn person. I see no scientific issue in this moral question.

    3) Science is amoral. The application of biological science can be moral (drugs to cure disease) or immoral (killing people).

    1. Daniel Buresh

      1. Prohibition of theft and murder are threats against individual rights people hold. Unborn children hold no rights and science does not consider them viable on their own based on SD’s abortion restrictions. Show me the science that says outlawing abortion will make it less likely to happen….I’ll be waiting.

      2. Stating both a born and unborn child are the same is scientifically inaccurate.

      3. If the end result is to reduce the number of occurrences, removing abortion clinics and teaching abstinence-only education is only going to make the problem worse.

      1. Anonymous

        So science is an entity with thoughts, feelings, and morals? Dumb statement, Danny. You are simply showing you have no basis of morality but the shifting sands of humanism.

  5. Troy Jones

    “Unborn children hold no rights”: At one time neither did slaves. Doesn’t make it moral.

    “Science does not consider them viable:” Neither are those premature babies, sick people, and elderly who live because a machine keeps them alive. Rights applied to only those who are “viable” has some rather significant implications.

    “Show me the science that says outlawing abortion will make it less likely to happen.” Huh? Are you really asserting there will not be fewer abortions if it was outlawed?

    “Stating both a born and unborn child are the same is scientifically inaccurate.” They both are distinct genetic beings. What is the scientific distinction you assert besides viability?

    The “problem” is the murder of innocent people. Outlawing this currently allowed form of murder will make the problem less prevalent. I’d like to see the “science” where outlawing something actually increases its incidence.

  6. Troy Jones


    Darwin’s theory asserts each of those mechanisms over time lead to species improvement as any change (regardless of mechanism) weaker than those stronger will ultimately be crowded out.

    That said, I get your point as improvement has a subjective component. But Darwin’s point was objective for the reasons I mention above.

    1. crossgrain

      Then use the right words. Call it ‘natural selection’ rather than ‘evolution’. Conflating the two might be viewed as ignorance. 😛

  7. Steve Hickey

    Daniel has obviously been hiding under a rock since 1973. Science has entirely validated prolife arguments, all of them. We didn’t know then when human life begins, now we do. Of course he apparently holds the slaveholder mentality that some biological humans are more human than others. We don’t need religion anymore on this matter. Science has settled it and in no instance has the pro-abortion vantage point been validated. In our informed consent lawsuit the 8th district court concluded Planned Parenthood was able to provide no evidence to the contrary of human life beginning at conception. No evidence, not just insufficient evidence– none. There isn’t any in biology, fetology etc. and with regard to the data we now have on abortion hurting women (data we didn’t have in 1973) the science says abortion is Russian Roulette for women- studies range from 8-30% of women regret abortions and some contend it’s higher as denial can be a long period for any in grief. And we know when a child feels pain and we know in the first two weeks of development all the DNA is in place even for things like hair color and personality.

    I’ll shut up now. The point is Daniel is clueless on this one.

    1. Jaa Dee

      Steve Hickey— “—-We didn’t know then when human life begins, now we do”.— It doesn’t take any profound scientific discovery to tell most people that. Spermatozoon are the beginning of a zygote, of human life If it is when ” human life begins,” that is your concern that is it.
      Your god agrees

      Genesis 38:9
      Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.…
      Where is your outrage? Where are the demands from the faux-lifers that every male with a hand be put to death as was Onan? If y’all believe your claims.
      —Mr. Hickey, what does your bible say about abortion? If you choose not find those quotes, I can.

  8. Troy Jones

    Crossgrain, I thought I did “use the right words” when I said “The science of behind the theory of evolution is that the species is in a state of constant improvement VIA NATURAL SELECTION (emphasis added).”

    Maybe you should read closer lest one think you can’t read. 🙂

    1. crossgrain

      D’oh. You are correct sir. If I could edit to hide my shame, I probably would. Instead my sincere apology will have to suffice:

      Sorry! I’m an idiot. 🙁

  9. Campaign Strategist

    I am not interested in getting into a disagreement over deeply rooted opinions. I am interested to see if anyone believes Dr. Deutsch’s political career has climaxed as a SD Rep or if it has more life ahead in the future in another office.

  10. Jaa Dee

    Abortion is legal women are not stupid and it none of our business..”you people” have lost, the government has not the power nor right to forced pregnancy..
    Why are the faux-lifers—pro-birthers not offering to support women contemplating abortion through their pregnancy and adopting and raising the breathing kids ( if they believe their claims) instead of demanding some kids be born into situations where the pro-birthers then consider them welfare moochers and advocate the cutting or ending and SNAP and WIC programs?

    How many of the pro-birthers have the scars or arrest records for attempting to save those “babies from “murder”? Would they be that reluctant to leave their comfort zone to intervene in the murder of a 2 year old? Would they just let that 2 year old be murdered and do nothing but whine about it on line? Assuming they might actually try to stop the murder of a 2 year old, why the difference, IF they believe their claims?

  11. Jaa Dee

    If in 2 years the faux-lifers should have what they want, abortion illegal with no excceptions, can they tell us what the punishment should be for a woman getting an illegal abortion AND for the person performing that illegal abortion?

    1. crossgrain

      Lengthy prison for sure because: murder.

      I’m also interested in what the charges will be for having a glass of wine while pregnant or has sex with someone – contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Child endangerment? Or what if a pregnant woman doesn’t eat enough, will CPS be called and the fetus placed into foster care? If she fails to report a miscarriage, will there be a wrongful death investigation? Will ultrasound images be considered child pornography? Can the state force you to get prenatal care?

      1. Jaa Dee

        “If she fails to report a miscarriage, will there be a wrongful death investigation?” Sir, that is happening now–search–miscarriage as a crime, I’m sure the faux-birthers are thrilled..

        I didn’t expect one of the faux-lifers to answer the most basic and first question to be answered if they should ever get the America they

  12. Troy Jones


    I drew no such equivalence. All I said is MY morality is formed by my religion. I made no statement or inference my morality (thus my religion) is superior to anyone else’s. But, I will make a strong clear statement that my morality is not inferior to another’s and I’m fully entitled to bring it to the public square.

    Me thinks you presumed some things and didn’t read what I said. 🙂

    1. Bill Fleming

      Always possible. Please clarify. I read you as saying that your religion and your morality are the same thing. If I misread you, I apologize, but I really don’t think I did.

      1. Bill Fleming

        Ps, full disclosure, I think moral and ethical system provide the basis for religions, not vice versa.

  13. PorterLansing

    You’re not a baby until you’re born just as you’re not a corpse until you die.
    Women’s rights are being disrespected in SoDak by those practicing intolerance and selfishness for their own political gain.

    1. Steve Hickey

      Wow. Porter must not have any children. He doesn’t just want to go back to 1973, he wants to go back to 500BC, Athens… let’s hold a public ceremony shortly after birth like they did then to both mark the parents’ decision to accept the child and also society’s conferral on it of the status of a person.

      In contemporary terms this is the logic of the shopping mall… I want what I want,,,,,,, except people are commodities.

      1. Steve Hickey

        And I should mention the unwanted babies were tossed away and died by exposure or from a head injury. Just the society Porter would like.

        Do you have kids Porter? I can’t imagine anyone who has had a front row seat to the miracle of human life would be so callous. And what about the rights of unborn women?

  14. Troy Jones


    I aspire to form and conform my morality and ethics to the Natural Law I believe is imprinted on my soul/conscience/heart by the Holy Spirit and the Teachings on Faith & Morals of my Church.

    P.S. I believe God provides the basis for religion, Faith, Morals, and Truth. I read your “p.s.” to imply/assert that morals, ethics and ultimately religion to be a creation of each person which I reject.

  15. Troy Jones


    1) As I said before “I believe God provides the basis for religion, Faith, Morals, and Truth.” You are conflating the vehicles/institutions man uses to pursue Holiness with that which is Truth and Perfect in all things.

    2) The Fall. Genesis 3:5.

    3) 1 Corinthians 1:25

    4) Romans 8:28

    At the end of the day, we are to live the teaching of Romans 12:12.

  16. Bill Fleming

    Sorry to be picking on you Troy, but your reasoning is circular here. Now you’re using your religious text to explain how your religion is not in fact religion. It might be better if you just go ahead and admit that you have morality, ethics and religion all bound up in the same mental and spiritual file folder and would be hard pressed to tell us the difference.

  17. Troy Jones


    You are not picking on me. But by parsing words (e.g. religion between my particular set of beliefs/morality/ethics and that of my Church) you are making suppositions and presumptions that fail to appreciate the nuance which is significant. My morality and ethics (and to the degree I live up to that which I aspire) is not perfect as I’m not perfect. But, the source of morality and ethics to which I aspire is Perfect.

    God is the source of everything Good that flows into my conscience where the moral and ethical code is formed to which I aspire to live. To the extent, my code conforms to the Will of God and is unable to be distinguished (by me or you) in my thought, word and deed is, by the Grace of God, a miracle, gift and blessing. To the extent my code is defective is my fault and not that of God.

    1. Bill Fleming

      And I would classify that assertion as a statement of your religious belief, Troy. All I’m saying.

    2. Anonymous

      –my code conforms to the Will of God and is unable to be distinguished (by me or you) in my thought, word and deed is, by the Grace of God, a miracle, gift and blessing. To the extent my code is defective is my fault and not that of God.

      You’ve displayed some rather unchristian words on this forum that by any objective standard did not conform to the will of God, or Jesus. You have purposefully misstated the positions of others, engaged in gossip, and tried to shame others.

      You also acted out of spite by censoring any and all comments that you did not like.

      Wholly undignified of one who writes such flowery creeds, but without fertile soil beneath them.

      –God is the source of everything Good that flows into my conscience where the moral and ethical code is formed to which I aspire to live.

      Then its time to start acting like it.

      “They’ll know we are Christians by our love…”


    3. Anonymous

      What does St. Matthew have to say about all of Troy’s ongoing public sanctimony?

      Matthew 6:5-6:
      And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners [and on DWC] to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

      Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5)

      St. Augustine on humility:

      Humility is the foundation of all the other virtues hence, in the soul in which his virtue does not exist, there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance.

      Thomas a Kempis:

      Do not think yourself better than others lest, perhaps, you be accounted worse before God Who knows what is in man. Do not take pride in your good deeds, for God’s judgments differ from those of men and what pleases them often displeases Him. If there is good in you, see more good in others, so that you may remain humble. It does no harm to esteem yourself less than anyone else, but it is very harmful to think yourself better than even one. The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger.

      Fancy words wrapped in self-righteousness ring hollow.

      Christians live the words.

  18. Bill Fleming

    Interesting that you bring up ‘code’ though Troy. There is a parallel there that ties us back into the topic and Hickey’s arguments about DNA equalling humanity. Is it the code that is human or the expression of that code? Feel free to answer from any perspective you choose, religious, secular or both.

      1. Bill Fleming

        To be clear, Troy, are you saying that DNA — in and of itself, without expressing itself as an organism — is a human being? A person? Or are you saying that your answer is both religious and secular in nature? Or both/and. 🙂

  19. Troy Jones

    LOL. You really are something. Rather than worrying about me and my morality/ethics or attacking me, argue with my points.

    Give me a single sentence in this thread where I was sanctimonious or self-righteous. All of my statements were to defend the right of the faithful to participate in the public square or to explain my understanding of how God/religion form our conscience/morals/ethics or to answer a specific question of Bill. They have nothing to do with me personally.

  20. Troy Jones


    You asked a question and made a point that I missed.

    1) I agree one can hold an ethic or moral without a corresponding acceptance/belief in a higher power. In fact, I believe it is because the Natural Law is imprinted on our soul/conscience at conception. I further believe all morality is so imprinted and all immorality is violation of the Natural Law.

    2) Your DNA question is above my pay grade with regard to accurately describing the biology. But, I’ll make an attempt to explain it as best as I can. DNA which doesn’t include the specific instruction to become an organism is not a person. For example, the combination of a sperm and egg has such instruction and is a person. The cells of a finger with the same DNA doesn’t contain such instruction to become an organism and is not a person. My answer is scientific as a subset of the Laws of Nature.

    1. Bill Fleming

      Okay, Troy. At least I see what your position is. Correct me if I summarize it incorectly. You’re saying that DNA, an inert molecule, is a person even before it expresses any of its genes. In biological terms, you make no distinction between a genotype and a phenotype, or in builders terms, you make no distinction between a complete blueprint and a house, provided the blueprint is of the whole house and not just the living room or the plumbing system. Is that correct? If so, I disagree of course, but I think at least I understand your position.

  21. Troy Jones


    I don’t know if DNA is inert but the cell isn’t inert. Maybe (biological knowledge challenged) what I mean is a cell with human DNA and this cell is expressing its genes.

    1. Bill Fleming

      Yes, Troy. That’s a little better. Yours is a reductio ad absurdum argument in my opinion, and those can be tricky. (See Zeno and Parmenides). They might even be valid in some contexts (religion and art for example), but I don’t think science and social legislation is one of them. 🙂

  22. Troy Jones


    Nice try. 🙂

    Science: The most significant change on the continuum of development of a person is not its birth but the fertilization. The scientific distinction between a baby about to born and born is minuscule scientifically (oxygen from mother vs. air) and is mostly a distinction of location. Science is on my side.

    Social legislation: When you get the science right, we can then delve into how/when rights are bestowed. 🙂

    1. Bill Fleming

      Not the same argument. I make no distinction between a child about to be born and one born, nor do I deny either organism’s personhood. My argument is that DNA isn’t a person.

      1. Bill Fleming

        Incidently, Troy, I can use your same argument to prove that the diameter of a circle is the same length as its circumference. I know you get math better than biology, so maybe we can work our way through that discussion some time. Not here though. Too many distractions from the peanut gallery. 🙂