SD Right to Life Endorses Noem

Pat Powers

SD Right to Life Endorses Noem

WATERTOWN, S.D. – Kristi Noem has been endorsed by South Dakota Right to Life, which credited Noem for her consistent pro-life record and firm pro-life vision.

“South Dakota needs a pro-life leader in the Governor’s office to ensure greater protections for pregnant mothers and their unborn children, and we think Kristi Noem is that leader,” said Debbie Pease, Vice President of South Dakota Right to Life.

Noem welcomed the endorsement, saying: “It means the world to have earned the endorsement of South Dakota Right to Life. As a mother of three and a person of faith, I believe life is precious and deserving of the utmost protection. I am optimistic we are on the cusp of securing permanent protections for the unborn, and as governor, I want to make sure South Dakota can play a leading role in that effort.”

Noem was first elected to Congress in 2010 after serving in the South Dakota House of Representatives. She has a 100 percent pro-life voting record, including co-sponsoring the Heartbeat Protection Act, Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act of 2017, and legislation to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion.

As proposed in her Family First Initiative, if elected governor, Noem will:

• Assign an Unborn Person Advocate within the governor’s office to monitor, report, and recommend legislative and policy changes;

• Actively pursue all available legislative options to stop abortion and protect the lives of unborn babies;

• Oppose any efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide; and

• Work to proactively defend South Dakota’s pro-life policies, engaging the top legal minds to litigate on behalf of our values, if necessary.

33 thoughts on “SD Right to Life Endorses Noem”

  1. RTL is a political tool of the Republican Party. By golly demonize those unwed mothers once they give birth to those sacred children. Cut benefits for her and her child.

    1. I think you have it wrong. They are a tool of God. Honest mistake for someone who is an abortion supporter.

  2. Planned Parenthood is a political tool of the Democratic party. By golly demonize those wed mothers once they give birth to those innocent children. Cut benefits for her and her family

    That was easy.

  4. Get in line with abortion or get out is the DNC demand.

    Look at what happened to Heath Mello from NE. He was a pro-life Democrat, but once abortion activists found out about his pro-life voting record, he changed his tune.

    This is something that will happen with Sutton as well. He’s going to tell us that he’s personally pro-life, but will never restrict women from getting abortions. Watch and see how weak he can be.

  5. If Republicans actually cared about reducing abortion, they would want comprehensive sex education for their children and easier access to contraceptives….you know, the things that have actually proven to reduce the number of abortions. Instead, they just want to control people without actually reducing abortions. For some reason they think prohibition works. They are an archaic bunch, that is for sure.

    1. yes lets screw everyone with no consequences…hey how about some personal responsibility Democrats…oh wait…

    2. You want to control students by forcing them to attend sex education classes? What do you suggest be in the curriculum: gay sex gives one a higher chance for contracting Aids; you can have sex with as many partners as you want – sex with no consequences because Plan-B is readily available.

      Easier access to contraceptives? Any grocery store, convenient store, and truck stop sell condoms. Every time I’ve visited my obgyn, they’ve provided me with free condoms and a $7 prescription for birth control. Pretty easy for a poor woman like me.

      …”actually proven to reduce the number of abortions”… you don’t actually provide any proof, for any of your nonsense.

      1. Education is the key to producing unwanted pregnancies. States with abstinence only education have higher rates than those that provide comprehensive sex education. We should teach kids that the “pull-out” method doesn’t work since you won’t. Education, education, education. I don’t know how that can escape you.

      2. Why do you have to bring gays and aids into this? The Republicans (Thanks Ronny) already ignores the public health emergency that was the HIV/AIDS epidemic that was the 80s and early 90s.

        For the record- according to the CDC and the NIH, scientific healthcare agencies, men who have sex with men are no longer the population with the highest transmission and infection rates for HIV/AIDS. It’s actually heterosexual women- mostly those of minority populations.

        How about offering actual sex education that’s optional? Parents need to sign off on participation.

        Kids needs to learn how to have “protected” sex if they’re going to have sex so they are better able to reduce then chance of an unwanted pregnancy. They should also be told about birth control as a means of reproductive healthcare. The more educated and prepared they are- the better choices people make.

    3. Yup I remember when sex education was first being promoted around 1960. It would reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, we were told.
      At the time the out of wedlock birth rate was 5%.
      60 years of sex education later and it’s 40%.

      This in spite of the fact that contraception and abortion were really hard to obtain back in the day. Not any more. Anybody who wants it knows where to get it.
      But continue to advocate a failed policy for another 60 years and maybe you can get the OOW birth rate up to 80%. More people in poverty means more votes for Democrats.

      1. Wow Anne, you really know how to make a correlation that doesn’t exist. Wedlock appears to decline along with Christianity. I guess they should probably quit diddling kids if they want to stop the decline. Then again, people are more educated which is why they aren’t flocking to stories of santa Claus and the tooth fairy. It couldn’t be the fact that society doesn’t care about sex like the prudes you grew up with. Such good Christian’s shipped their pregnant children off into hiding.

      2. Agreed, Anne. And with help from feminism and the media’s comprehensive sex education information, cases of STDs rise again. People are being more promiscuous, having more random sex with strangers. Feminists say this type of sexual behavior is a great enrichment to human life. People on the left and media tell us more diverse forms of sex is not going to have any cost and will bring you happiness.

        Well, according to the CDC, that was a big fail.

      3. Sorry Anne- you’re stuck in the 1960s. Relationships and social constructs have changed since then… well for most of us.

        Like hair pieces (set on wigs) and hair dyes have gone out of style for replacements such as more natural looking lace-front wigs or sewn in tracks.

        The concept of relationships have also changed. Look at the rates or divorce- they’ve sky rocketed since the 1960s as well. Women are also getting advanced degrees and marrying later in life as well. 3 in 5 relationships now start online or through a mobile app.

        Times have changed and so should the educational approach to sex education.

    4. I recall a bill a few years ago where Republicans just wanted the person in for an abortion to simply watch a videotape of the procedure and possibly women who have had them and their regrets. But no, that didn’t fly. If you call that ‘control’, I guess…

      1. How did the pro-life Democrat, Billie Sutton, vote for this bill you recall from a few years ago? Abortion activists are going to have a difficult time deciding on who to cast their vote for: pro-life Noem or pro-life Sutton.

        1. Noem is a pro-life champion. Sutton is not. He has never sponsored a pro-life bill. He has never led the charge on a pro-life bill. And he has voted against pro-life bills more than once — check his record.

          Plus, what type of pro-life gubenatorial candidate would choose a pro-choice lt. governor candidate to serve only a heartbeat away from serving as governor?

          To claim he is pro-life is more Democrat smoke and mirrors, an illusion meant to deceive.

          1. I know. However, he has also voted for pro-life bills. Didn’t he make some controversial statements about Roe v Wade, that’s not going to sit well with the abortion activists.

            That’s why he may have chosen a pro-abort lt. governor, to off-set his pro-life history. He’ll spin it, just watch, he’s in set-up mode. His lt. gov pick, then his refusal to reply to SDRL (who have ranked him at 100% in yrs past), next there will be mention of how he’d never try and control a woman’s “right” to abort their baby.

            Being deceitful comes easy for Democrats.

  7. Abstinence until marriage should be the next bill introduced during the 2019 legislative session.

  8. Education is NOT the answer, everybody already knows what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it. Ask any adolescent. They already know all about it. What they have not been taught is how to choose and appropriate partner and sustain a relationship.

    I once asked a woman how she became a single mom and she explained “I got out of jail that day and I was drunk and horny.”

    If you think lack of sex education or a lack of contraception had anything to do with that you’re nuts.

    If we taxpayers are going to foot the bill for sex education in the schools we should be entitled to see measurable results. Otherwise we are just throwing money away. The best you can say about sex education is that it wastes the students’ time. The worst is that it may actually be encouraging irresponsible behavior, and deceiving young people into thinking they already know everything about relationships with the opposite sex.

    1. States that don’t follow abstinence only education have lower rates of unwanted pregnancies. What more measurable results do you need?

      1. Who is calling for abstinence only education?

        Why do you keep insisting the state provide comprehensive sex education? Sounds similar to the comprehensive gun control argument. Ask Chicago residents how well that’s working out for them.

        Stop relying on the govt to provide for your every need, they’re not your parents. Grow up.

      2. Abstinence-only doesn’t work but is, according to the stats, less effective than comprehensive, but neither works. It’s all a waste of money and the kids’ time.

        1. How long ago were you a kid?

          Please stop trying to act like you know what they are thinking when you know nothing about them at all-

          How about we don’t let anyone over the age of 60 make these decisions on what the State should or shouldn’t require when it comes to Sex Ed?

Comments are closed.