Republican Congressional Candidate Dusty Johnson was on Facebook late this evening providing specifics on his position on the always contentious issue of abortion in response to a potential voter’s inquiry.
As popped up in my facebook feed in response to a plethora of issues, Johnson focused on on abortion:
In his response, Johnson noted he considers himself to be a pro-life candidate, and states that “taxpayer dollars should not fund abortion.”
In response to the wide-ranging question, Johnson also promised to respond on other topics over the next few days, including on second amendment rights, school choice, immigration, same-sex marriage, etcetera.
While both Johnson and his current opponent fellow Republican Shantel Krebs have campaigned for office in the past and have taken stances on various issues, it seems to mark one of the earliest occasions in the 2018 congressional campaign where one of them have gotten specific in laying out positions in writing on some of the hot button issues or ‘laundry list’ issues that many Republicans tick off as they assess how conservative they consider the candidates.
Stay tuned, as things in the congressional race might be changing up a bit from being about meeting the candidates, into more how they serve up the meat and potato issues.
Since Dusty claims he values life, then I guess we can also assume he supports ObamaCare and the further extension of Medicaid (a “life” issue) to the working poor in this state, right? – a position that his former boss, Governor Daugaard, supported prior to the current Congress’s confusion and misguided leadership on this issue.
#LackOfInsuranceIsTheUltimateDeathPanel
Medicaid isn’t insurance.
Where did I say it was? A great way to address the lack of health insurance for the working poor is to offer Medicaid as an alternative…. 😉
The math is pretty clear: Around 95 percent of health problems are the result of lifestyle choices — eating and drinking too much, and using illegal drugs. The poor, by definition, are poor because of such choices. That’s what makes them lousy insurance risks, not because the rest of us are meanies.
Forgot to mention smoking in the list of poor choices.
One other thing: Health-care people don’t enjoy treating people who make lousy lifestyle choices because no treatment works — the same stupid choices go on forever. So the poor tend to get perfunctory care, a human reaction much like teachers who veer toward kids who want to learn and away from kids who don’t want to be in the classroom.
Pro-life doesn’t necessarily mean socialist; in fact, if you look back over the history of socialism there is a lot of murder and purging involved, so your post is nonsensical, as usual.
Are you pro-choice?
If you have private insurance and want an elective procedure, you can have it. You can have it done in a nice clean physician-owned surgical center.
If you are on Medicaid, And Medicaid agrees to pay for surgery, which is a big IF, you can have it done in a hospital operating room full of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and hope you don’t get a life threatening infection. But that’s only if Medicaid agrees to pay. The people who decide these things don’t care how much it would improve your quality of life. And if Medicaid says no, what are you going to do about it? Tell them you will get insurance from a real Insurance company?
You are assuming that the working poor have a choice between “private insurance” and Medicaid…. The working poor cannot afford these “Cadillac Plans” which you suggest are available for them. Well, they are available for them if you accept former HHS Secretary Price’s belief that “access” is health care… We all have access to buy an actual new Cadillac, but how many of us can afford to do it – but they do ride better than a Yugo, I must admit, you are right there….
I commend Dusty for stepping up to talk abut specifics of issues.
The post by Wendell is leading and suggestive of his positions and way too many questions in one post. I think Dusty was smart to break it down and answer individually and not have a run on answer, like the questioning post.
Some people want to make the Right-to-Life mission into something other than it is. It’s not about health insurance, not about Medicaid expansion, not about 2nd Amendment rights, not about public education, and not the death penalty. The main issue is abortion. Other areas of concern include infanticide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the killing of unborn children for their stem cells. See the National Right to Life website for more information.
The most important question to ask a candidate about the life issue is whether he or she supports reversing Roe. Both Dusty and Shantel support the reversal.
If you are for life, it does not end at the womb, it continues until the tomb.
EC, your statement reveals a gross misunderstanding about the pro-life mission. If you believe there is a logical requirement compelling anyone who opposes abortion to also be equally passionate advocates for government welfare and food stamps, I suggest you run for office and see if any pro-life South Dakotans support you. Those engaged in the battle of saving unborn children from abortion understand the defining elements of the issue.
Apparently Noem, Thune and Rounds don’t support overturning Roe vs Wade, or they would have had a bill to over-turn it by now.
Tara, Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision except by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment.
Fred is right in a technical sense, when it comes to the word “overturning” in the context of Congress. But I think we all know what Tara meant and that is what matters – and in a court of equity a judge would recognize Tara’s intent.
That said, let us not forget that the great conservative Barry Goldwater voted against a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in 1983, because I think it is fair to say, that he understood the libertarian side of the abortion question. And my quess is that in private Thune, Rounds, and Noem understand that too, and that is why they have never authored such an amendment. Although, publicly they claim to be pro-life.
I don’t think so Fred. I was just researching it yesterday and posted the article to my fb page. There are like 3 ways to do it. The only Legislator that tried to over turn Roe vs Wade was Ron Paul in 2005. He had no support. I don’t know how to post on here, but feel free to go to my fb page. Very interesting article. So Fred, if only the Supreme Court can overturn the decision then why do these pro-life agencies waste their money on mailings and candidates. Give the money to charities that help unwed mothers or adoption agencies.
He isn’t going to do anything he is just trying to blow a little smoke at you.Another thing if switcheroo Dusty was elected, would he take the Govt pension plan or health care after he was in you only have to be there 6 years to collect at age 62.Would it not be great to find a canidate who just went on Social Security,