Hot off the press is a release that was sent out from the Life Defense Fund today where the group’s Co-Chair and State Legislator Jon Hansen expresses his concern over avoiding ‘ethical boundaries’ he may cross if he would have to debate his group’s position on Amendment G.
In part:
Jon Hansen Says Debate on Abortion Measure Violates “Ethical Rules as an Attorney”
Concerning tomorrow’s “Ballot Talk: weighing the Pro’s and the Cons with Greg LaFollette regarding putting abortion up to birth in South Dakota’s State Constitution, Jon Hansen, Attorney for Life Defense Fund, issued the following statement:
—
“As much as I would like to nail down Weiland on his organization’s repeated and blatant violations of petition laws and the engagement in fraudulent activities, to do so would violate legal ethical rules as an attorney.”
“Because I represent Life Defense Fund, which is suing Weiland’s organization “Dakotans for Health” in the case Life Defense Fund and Leslee Unruh vs. Dakotans for Health – Lawyers are not permitted under legal ethical rules to speak to opposing parties represented in an ongoing case about matters related to the litigation.”
Of course, no mention was made about Jon Hansen doing double-duty co-chairing the Life Defense Fund, being paid as a consultant by the Life Defense Fund, and (as State Representative) introducing legislation to aid the Life Defense Fund’s attack against the petition filed by Dakotans for Health.
In case anyone has forgotten the oath that legislators sign:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I …have not accepted, nor will I accept or receive directly or indirectly, any money, pass, or any other valuable thing, from any corporation, company or person, for any vote or influence I may give or withhold on any bill or resolution, or appropriation, or for any other official act.”
Article III, Section 8, South Dakota Constitution
South Dakota Legislative Oath of Office.
I’m not sure.. is the oath of office considered an ethical rule too? Or more of a suggestion?
Does that also mean that the Life Defense Fund is going to just duck Amendment G debates from here on out?
So why is Hansen the chair if he isn’t allowed to participate in any forums? Isn’t that kind of the main job?
I can’t imagine he’s afraid to confront Weiland.
At some point the Jon Hansen vanity exercise (and earning opportunity) needs to end of we are actually going to defeat this awful amendment.
The proposed amendment is nothing short of immoral. Representative Hansen’s paid position for Life Defense Fund while a sitting legislator is a conflict of interest and his failure to take action about that is unethical.
Dang, Ed. I never thought I would agree with you. Hansen should be removed from office. This is blatant corruption and unethical behavior.
Absolutely agree. Hansen absolutely is a paid lobbyist.
I don’t understand the concept that Jon (and many others) have with religious implementation. I understand you found something that helps you get through life; that is great, but why does what you found need to be forced on me? There are many ways to happiness in our lives. You found one; can’t you accept there are others? I’m not going to give your church money directly, so there’s no need to try and recruit me. If you force it down my throat through legislation, I dislike it in spite. We don’t need government to enforce every one of your religious interpretations. Could you imagine if someone else did this with their religion to you?
You people need to mind your own business and worry less about everyone else. We are fine and don’t need your “help.”
Overgodders gotta try and make everybody overgod. Young Mr. Hansen is corrupt.
what has this got to do with religion?
The question is whether the constitutional right to life, as described in the 14th Amendment (“….nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”) applies to very small persons.
Prenatal ultrasounds and the resultant popularity of gender reveal parties have debunked the myth that prior to birth there’s nothing in there but an amorphous blob of tissue, and at the moment of birth something magical happens and the blob turns into a human being where none had existed before. Religion says that a soul enters the body with the first breath and leaves with the last, science says there is no evidence of a soul, and the only things that change at birth are the lungs fill with air and the foramen ovale closes.
So science says the unborn child is a person, and religion says it ‘s something else, a bowl of jello perhaps. .
Come on, we aren’t all that stupid; what does it have to do with religion? How about everything? It is like claiming Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025 now; we all know it is his platform.
Defining life is where people disagree; religion has interpreted that as a zygote, and science has set the standard at biological principles (referred to as viability in Casey v. PP). Nobody is advocating for partial birth abortions, and besides, that was banned under Bush 2. You will see the vast majority of people think this way, regardless of how you try to spin it.
Jon Hansen is not corrupt. As a Legislator he gets roughly $1200 per week for ten weeks and then works the remainder of the year for free. This in almost everyone’s opinion is classified as a part time job. He should be able to make a living, for heavens sake!!!
Are we still concerned about the sanctity of life or not?!!!
Nobody is begrudging Jon’s having a job and making a living. We’re upset that he thinks he’s above the law and can be a lobbyist and a legislator, a violation of his oath. We’re upset that he deceived us, telling us that he was raising money to defend the unborn when really he was raising money to pay himself instead.
Anyone truly pro-life would be outraged that this man duped donors out of funds that were donated with the intention of saving the unborn!
It sounds like you hate our freedoms and hate unborns, and are a socialist marxist communist.
Poe’s Law. I honestly can’t tell if this is satire or not.
lol. Lmao even. It’s not like Hansen claimed that he was not just an executive of LDF, but also a paid consultant of theirs? And surely LDF didn’t happen to spend over 51% of their budget (over $140k) on consulting right?
Oh wait. He did and they did. For heavens sake indeed, how badly must his law firm be doing if he needs to take 140k from the nonprofit he supposedly runs.
While we are at it, perhaps it is time to do a deep dive of past legislators, say the past 4 years, who took oaths to serve and then created and/or voted for bills that personally benefited them?? Before you cheap shot Rep. Hansen, do a little research. To take and try to discredit one man who fights for a decent cause is disgusting.
So your answer is that it’s not corrupt if others do corrupt stuff too? Very moral stance you’ve taken here.
You know that’s not the critique, you disingenuous goon. It’s about the inherent conflict of interest in the work he does. Weird, and stupid, attempt at deflection.
Is this how you truly think? You know what you’re going to be paid as a legislator before you ever step foot into the political arena. If you’re looking it as an income source, then you’re motives clearly aren’t pure. Representing people is a service that you do for everyone’s betterment and you sure shouldn’t be looking at it as an income stream. If they aren’t retired, most legislators have a full time job back in their district. They should never be reliant on dollars earned from an elected position. The fact that you have defended this line of thinking makes me question you and your motives Mr. Goodwin. Maybe someone should take a good, hard look at your activities and possible extracurriculars?
Rule 4.2. Communication with Person Represented by Counsel
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
Rep. Hansen is hiding behind this rule. He could simply ask Weiland’s attorney for consent to appear at any debate or forum with Weiland. I’d bet the other attorney will agree to it.
Nailed it!
Freedom Caucus: corruption for me but not for thee
Couldn’t say it better myself!
How much of this money donated to fight the abortion ballot initiative has ended up in Hansen’s bank account? I want to donate, but I want my money to fight the initiative, not pay Hansen or be used to promote him.
This is exactly how Mr. Howie, the original Overgodder, got on grudznick’s bad side in the first place. It took me years to get my money back from that corrupt and immoral fellow, Mr. Howie.
Over half the Life Defense Fund’s donations went to “consultants,” including Jon Hansen:
https://dakotawarcollege.com/as-they-tumble-nearly-20-in-polls-life-defense-fund-reports-consultant-costs-of-51-with-legislator-co-chair-jon-hansen-one-of-them/
When I was growing up, my father always said that I should never donate to a nonprofit that has over 20% overhead. It’s understandable that nonprofits have to incur some costs to operate. But anything higher than 20% and the nonprofit begins to become a money-making scheme. Life Defense Funds have 51% going to consultants alone!!