An Exchange of Questions

A friend sent me the following longish item about abortion, and asked, "How come Lutherans aren't considered at all?"--knowing as he does that I work for a Lutheran organization. I suggested that it could be because Lutheran statements on social issues are generally so long-winded that you have to really want badly to read them. Or it could be that Lutherans, although multitudinous where we live, aren't in the "top three", population-wise, that the article quotes. I don't know the article's origins, but here it is as he sent it to me:


The Bible
Abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted under Roman law at the time of Jesus1. Surprisingly, abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced throughout recorded human history. However, a number of Bible passages may be relevant. These verses and others are often cited as evidence that a fetus is truly a living human being, and deserving the same protection:

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (NIV, Luke 1:39-44)

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NAS, Jeremiah 1:4-5)

I will say to God: ... "Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9)

Several other verses are cited as evidence that a fetus is not a living being. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to suggest that a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth:

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)

This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)

A literal translation of the Hebrew of this passage would be "cause her offspring to be brought forth." It is commonly thought that a miscarriage was meant, but it could mean an early birth where the child survived. Thus, this passage is cited both for and against abortion.

The Bible gives direct guidance on many, many topics, but not on abortion. None of the passages above (nor the many others often cited) were originally intended as statements about abortion, so any conclusions drawn from them represent opinions rather than Biblical evidence.

Opinions
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, the 50 states are still allowed to regulate abortion during the second trimester and prohibit it during the third trimester2. Since that time, abortion has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues within society.

Anti-abortion activists represent one extreme of opinion. They believe life begins at the instant of conception. Therefore, abortion is murder and is prohibited by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). They strongly support laws banning all or almost all abortions.

However, the belief that life begins at conception does not have clear support from medical science, the Bible, religious tradition or legal tradition. Early Christians apparently did not view abortion as murder until well beyond conception. In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and abortion before the time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that abortion at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication.3,4

English common law apparently tolerated abortion until "quickening," the first detectable fetal movements, around the fifth month. Similarly, abortion was largely unregulated in the U.S. until the mid 1800s. Anti-abortion laws were passed around 1900, but the primary reasons had to do with the injuries and deaths resulting from unskilled abortions and a struggle for control of medical practice.5

3Tricia Andryszewski, Abortion, Rights, Options and Choices, Millbrook Press, 1996, p.63.
4Donald P. Judges, Hard Choices, Lost Voices, Ivan R. Dee, 1993, pp. 87-90.
5ibid., pp. 84, 90-106.

Church Doctrine
Many churches, including United Church of Christ,18 Episcopal,19 Presbyterian (USA)20 and United Methodist, do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control. However, they support the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, if she deems that is the best choice in her circumstances, and they favor keeping abortion legal. Other churches, including Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist, oppose all abortions and favor making abortion illegal. Here is a sampling of official church positions from the three largest denominations in the U.S.:

Roman Catholic:

2270. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. From Catechism of the Catholic Church, (c) 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/index.htm

Southern Baptist:

Procreation is a gift from God, a precious trust reserved for marriage. At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception. From Position Statements, Copyright (c) 1999 - 2001, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, http://sbc.net/default.asp/url=position-statements.html


United Methodist:

The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel. From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church--2000, ¶161J. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House, http://www.umc.org/abouttheumc/policy/

18"Reproductive Rights," United Church of Christ, http://www.ucc.org/justice/choice/
19"Acts of Convention: Resolution # 1994-A054," The Episcopal Church, http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts_new/acts_resolution-complete.pl/resolution=1994-A054
20"Abortion," Presbyterian Church (USA), http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-abortion.htm

After I sent him my semi-glib reply, my friend wrote back with this:

How can something that was not a sin for roughly 600 years become a sin? If it were the Latter Day Saints I could accept the state of affairs in that the Prophet routinely receives new instructions. Moreover, if I was going for tradition, I would take 600 years over a 137 years twice a day and three times on Sunday.

What you have to understand about my friend is that he doesn't throw things like this at me (and others, sometimes) as a challenge: he genuinely likes to know what people think. And as a retired college prof, he likes to get people to think.

Anyway, I wrote back with this:

It is most passing strange. As I see it, you can coast along for eons thinking something is hunky-dory; then all of a sudden someone in some kind of position of authority decides it is neither hunky nor dory, and is in fact a sin, indeed a mortal sin, and that's that. It's now immutable, and you can't "go back." That's one thing where a church institution is concerned, but I am more than a little concerned about those who would impose such attitudes on so-called secular society--since of course they're always the "authority." Think Leslee Unruh. No, on second thought, don't: it's too close to bedtime and I wouldn't want you to get heartburn.

Here's something you can 'splain to me: If life begins at conception, then why do we (who practice infant baptism) wait till after birth to baptize' Would it not make more sense to take no chances and baptize in utero as soon as the pregnancy is known?

In re excommunication: One wonders if it carries anywhere near the weight it once did. I suppose in some parts of the world, and in some cultures, it does. But I'm not sure that many of us in danger of excommunication subscribe to the belief that the RCC is the One True Faith and that anyone booted out of it is damned. In my case, my attendance at Mass is so slipshod that I'm not sure if I or anyone else would notice if they gave me the bum's rush.

Saints preserve us from everyone who knows what's best for everyone...

Say What?

Here's another bunch of quotations that have been piling up. I think this time all of them--certainly most of them--are from A Word a Day.

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)

One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence. --Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948)

Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. --Aristotle, philosopher (384-322 BCE)

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. --Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Civilizations in decline are consistently characterised by a tendency towards standardization and uniformity. --Arnold Toynbee, historian (1889-1975)

Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge. --Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician and philosopher (1861-1947)

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong. --G.K. Chesterton, essayist and novelist (1874-1936)

Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. --Horace Mann, educational reformer (1796-1859)

Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body. --Joseph Addison, essayist and poet (1672-1719)

The politician is an acrobat. He keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does. --Maurice Barres, novelist and politician (1862-1923)

The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these once in a while and watch your answers change. --Richard Bach, writer (1936- )

The greatest part of a writer's time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book. --Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)

Flattery is like chewing gum. Enjoy it but don't swallow it. --Hank Ketcham, comic artist (1920-2001)

Sit down and put down everything that comes into your head and then you're a writer. But an author is one who can judge his own stuff's worth, without pity, and destroy most of it. --Colette, writer (1873-1954)

Look into any man's heart you please, and you will always find, in every one, at least one black spot which he has to keep concealed. --Henrik Ibsen, playwright (1828-1906)

We shall succeed only so far as we continue that most distasteful of all activity, the intolerable labor of thought. --Learned Hand, jurist (1872-1961)

The question why there is evil in existence is the same as why there is imperfection... But this is the real question we ought to ask: Is this imperfection the final truth, is evil absolute and ultimate? -Rabindranath Tagore, poet, philosopher, author, songwriter, painter, educator, composer, Nobel laureate (1861-1941)

There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy. --Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution. --Hannah Arendt, historian and philosopher (1906-1975)

Once you label me you negate me. --Soren Kierkegaard, philosopher (1813-1855)

The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time. --Franklin P. Adams, columnist (1881-1960)

We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same. --Carlos Castenada, mystic and author (1925-1998)

I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: 'The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair.' In these words he epitomized the history of the human race. --Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, and author (1872-1970)

One of the oldest human needs is having someone to wonder where you are when you don't come home at night. --Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)

When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to a better world, I am moved to lead a different life. --Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. --Edward R. Murrow, journalist (1908-1965)

When work is a pleasure, life is a joy! When work is a duty, life is slavery. --Maxim Gorky, author (1868-1936)

Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise. --Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)

There is only one way to achieve happiness on this terrestrial ball, and that is to have either a clear conscience or none at all. --Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)

There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. --Leonard Cohen, musician (1934- )

One of the most time-consuming things is to have an enemy. --E.B. White, writer (1899-1985

And Yet the Myth Persists...

...that Catholic traditions are unchanging.

I refer, of course, to the proposed "new" English translation of the Mass that was foolishly approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops last week. "Foolishly" because, I can only assume, the bishops did not hear their clunky translation actually spoken aloud -- otherwise they would never have approved anything as unmelodic as "the Lord be with you" / "And also with your spirit"--"new" because half of what I've read actually sounds like a return to phrases from the Mass of my childhood ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" is virtually identical to the phrase in use when I took my first communion all those years ago--except it was "come" rather than "enter," and the whole "roof" thing generated a great debate among we second-grade theologians (not second-rate, mind: we were in the second grade) about whether that referred to the roof of one's mouth). Some of it, of course, isn't new at all--there's a reference in this Religion News Service article (via BeliefNet) to the "Dying you destroyed our death" version of the Mystery of Faith: It's not used as often as "Christ has died," but it's used, and it's been in the book forever. Chalk one up for lazy reporters.

However, "the book" brings up another issue that I doubt the bishops have considered, viz., nobody uses the book. I observed quite a few years ago that I was the only one around me who was actually using the throwaway missal that churches go to great expense (I assume) to subscribe to. When that happened, I couldn't say; but it's obvious that everyone has memorized the liturgy, or at least the applicable parts, and have no use of the book. So a change in the wording of the Mass is going to cause a great deal of confusion. The bishops seem to think that an additional expense--laminated cards--will take care of the problem. I think I'd be more in favor of encouraging priests to encourage the faithful to pick up the %$#@! book that's sitting right in front of them, since of course the book will have to be changed if/when Rome approves the alteration, it the publishers want to keep their nihil obstats and imprimaturs and all that other stuff.

Meanwhile, I have to decide if I will "forget" to say "And with your spirit," just as I "forget" to open my arms for the Lord's Prayer. (When did we start doing that? And why, oh, why? Am I the only one who keeps his eyes open and realizes that we look like a bunch of people who are going to start handling snakes at any moment?) The stubborn Irish in me thinks I might just be forgetful; on the other hand, do I want to come off like the old ladies who sit behind us at my wife's Lutheran (ELCA) church and always say, "...one holy, Christian, and apostolic church" in the Apostle's Creed, even though the book has the lowercase catholic and has had for the 25 years I've been hanging around Lutheran churches? Are these women forgetful, stubborn, ignorant, or anti-Catholic? Will I, if "forgetful," be rightly perceived as a poet who detests the bad pacing of "And also with your spirit" (and what the hell does that mean, exactly? The priest does not say, "The Lord be with your spirit" to me; why should I say "And also with your spirit" to him? It not only sounds bad, it's illogical) or one of the old coots who can't/won't keep up with change?

Decisions, decisions. Thanks for nothing, bishops.

Defending Marriage

If the goal of the Republican Party (motto: "We'll Do Your Thinking for You") really is to "defend the institution of marriage," would it not make more sense to float a constitutional amendment that would outlaw divorce? Just a thought...

Rediscovery

Often it seems the joy of rediscovering something is even better than the pleasure of the original discovery. Lately, I've been enjoying two rediscoveries.

The first is Leslie Charteris's Simon Templar, aka the Saint. I first began reading this long series of adventures in high school, in the 1970s, beginning with Vendetta for the Saint...which, I later learned, wasn't written by Charteris at all. Oh well. Although I often cite Charteris as an inspiration in my own writing--most recently in a South Dakota Democratic Party podcast for which I was interviewed--it had been some years since I had actually dipped into my library of Saint adventures. Most of my collection is mouldering paperbacks, many dating from the 1940s and 1950s, lovingly acquired at a used-paperback shop (actually an adjunct to a now-defunct gun shop) during my high-school years. Several more are from the Charter Books republications of the 1980s. And then there's the odd hardcover, usually adaptations of TV scripts, several of them part of the "triple volumes" published by the Detective Book Club, which I think sank slowly in the west some decades ago.

Following a e-mail conversations with a friend, I recently made a trip up into the attic (whence I managed to acquire a grade-one concussion) and retrived the box containing my Saint paperbacks, which I am now re-discovering. I started again with Vendetta for the Saint, though it is some 30 years out of order, and have now ventured back to the beginning, with Meet the Tiger (aka The Saint Meets the Tiger) and Enter the Saint--the former being really the first Saint adventure although the second is usually credited as such, and is certainly more "Saint-like" than the first. Lots of fun. As I have often said, and repeated in the podcast, Charteris is the first author I ever read who seemed to be having fun.

At about the same time, I find that I have been listening once more to the music of Boz Scaggs, whom I discovered in college when his best-selling album Silk Degrees was released, as well as his less-well-regarded but still very well done follow-up, Down Two Then Left. I have several of his works since then, and find his voice and stylings very much unlike anyone else's. I recently downloaded Silk Degrees from Napster--my original LP being rendered useless by an uncooperative turntable--and find I enjoy it as much now as when I used to listen to it in my room in Swanson Hall all those years ago. In those days as well I recall making the trek to Lincoln, Nebraska, to catch Scaggs in concert there--still one of the best concerts I've ever attended.

Looks like everything old really is new again!

Funny Stuff

Some more cartoons that amused me. Or annoyed me. Or both.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day, and once again I find myself uncomfortable over some of the sentiments expressed in editorials and from pulpits. Although I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who serve and have served in the armed forces, the little hairs on the back of my neck come to attention when I hear solemn references to those who have lost their lives in the Middle East "defending our freedom."

Hmm.

There's no denying that they died in service to our country, and for that alone they are deserving of honor and thanks. It's the "defending our freedom" part that puzzles me, since I have yet to discover how exactly Iraq ever posed any threat to the United States at all, let alone our "freedom."

Such statements, although obviously intended to honor fallen troops--a worthy and noble aim--in fact tend to implicitly support a pointless and immoral war, and to gloss over the tragedy that these men and women should have died because of the short-sighted hubris of our political "leaders."

So let's honor those who have died in service to the nation. But let's be accurate about it.

Who Said That?

A bunch more quotations. As usual, most (perhaps all) are from A Word a Day's e-mails.

Once upon a time a man whose ax was missing suspected his neighbor's son. The boy walked like a thief, looked like a thief, and spoke like a thief. But the man found his ax while digging in the valley, and the next time he saw his neighbor's son, the boy walked, looked and spoke like any other child. -Lao-tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)

Good books don't give up all their secrets at once. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )

You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes. -Moses ben Maimon, philosopher (1135-1204)

Experience makes us see an enormous difference between piety and goodness. -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)

Whenever anyone has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it. -Rene Descartes, philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650)

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)

The horse is not judged by the saddle. -German proverb

Rare is the person who can weigh the faults of others without putting his thumb on the scales. -Byron J. Langenfeld

War loses a great deal of romance after a soldier has seen his first battle. -John Singleton Mosby, confederate colonel in the American Civil War (1833-1916)

The Cruelest Month

A small collection of things that amused me from this month just ended:

You know you're getting old...

...when you start collecting obituaries. Lately, I seem to be doing just that. At least they're mostly not people of my generation...but that day will undoubtedly come. In the meantime, here are recent obits for our former next-door neighbor, Thelma Wickstrom, and a friend of my dad with whom I was friends also, Dick Blashill.

Sad to say, although she was our neighbor for several years, we did not know Thelma very well. By the time we moved in, health problems forced her to keep a pretty low profile. Still, she was a friendly and pleasant woman, and we were sorry when her health prompted her to sell her house and move into an assisted-living facility.

Thelma A. Wickstrom (February 18, 1919 - April 25, 2006) Sioux Falls- Thelma Wickstrom, 87, died, April 25, 2006 at the Good Samaritan Luther Manor Home. Thelma A. Arne, daughter of John and Mary (Thompson) Arne, was born February 18, 1919 in a sod house near New England, ND. At just over three pounds her bed was a shoebox in an open dresser drawer. She graduated from Beresford High School and married Milton Wickstrom on April 9, 1939. In addition to handling calls for her husband’s business, she played in the Plumber’s Auxiliary Korny Kitcheneer’s band that included dances and various fund raisers in the community. She was a Sunday school teacher for many years and active in her church circle. She became known as “MoMo” during her 25 years of providing daycare to many children as well as her own grandchildren and two oldest great-granddaughters. Until health problems arose, her retirement was filled with volunteer work at such places as the Library, Avera McKennan Prestige Plus, VFW Auxiliary, and the Bergland Center. She was active in the Solo Club, RSVP, Widow Awareness group, and helping friends and family when they needed care. She enjoyed many nights of socializing and dancing at the Senior Center, Odd Fellows, and VFW. Grateful for having shared her life are her two daughters, Mary Lee (Don) Williams, Sioux Falls, and Sharon Zocco (Wendell Harms), Tea, SD; five grandchildren, Shane (Becky) Williams, Ames, IA; Brett Williams, Sioux Falls, Kim Hammers, Durango, CO, Tim (Suzie) Hammers, Lino Lakes, MN, Jason (Jodi) Hammers, Sioux Falls; and seven great-grandchildren. Special in her life have been a caring staff at the Home and two guardian angels and tablemates, Elsie and Yetta. Thelma is preceded in death by her parents, infant son, Milton Wickstrom Jr.; her husband, one sister, Annetta Shuck; four brothers, Henry Arne, Arlie Arne, Juel Arne, and Lloyd Arne. Visitation will begin at 11:00 AM on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at George Boom Funeral Home with the family present to greet friends from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Funeral service will be at 11:00 AM on Friday, April 28 in the Christ The Victor Chapel at First Lutheran Church with burial to follow at Brooklyn Evangelical Free Church Cemetery near Beresford, SD.

_______________________________________________________

Dick Blashill worked for the phone company. Yes, Virginia, there was a time when you could say that so-and-so works for "the phone company" and everyone knew what you meant since, for all practical purposes, there was but one phone company. Around these parts, that was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a component of the Bell System. My dad also worked for the phone company, and that's where I, as a kid, first met Dick. In more recent years, we renewed our acquaintance at his church, where my wife is a member and where Dick was a frequent usher. He always struck me as a friendly, genuine sort of fellow, and I'm sorry that I won't be seeing him on SUnday mornings anymore.

---

Richard E. Blashill
(May 9, 1928 - April 26, 2006)

Richard E. “Dick” Blashill, 77, of Sioux Falls, died Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at his residence.

Richard was born May 9, 1928 in Garden City, SD. He moved with his family to Wallace, SD at an early age, then to Castlewood, SD in 1935 where he grew up and received his education. He graduated from Castlewood High School in 1946. Upon graduating from high school, he began working for Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. He continued to live in Castlewood until he entered military service in March of 1951. Dick served in the US Army until receiving his honorable discharge in 1953.

On September 24, 1951, he married Ramona Krause in Clear Lake, SD. Upon his return from the military, he resumed his career with the phone company. He and Ramona lived in Watertown, SD from 1953 until moving to Sioux Falls in 1959. Ramona preceded him in death on December 6, 1966.

Dick was united in marriage with Evelyn L. Quinn on August 3, 1968 in Mason City, Iowa. He and Evelyn lived in Sioux Falls where he continued to work for the telephone company in various supervisory positions until his retirement on December 31, 1983.

He was a member of First Lutheran Church, the American Legion, the Moose Lodge, and Telephone Pioneers. For hobbies, Dick enjoyed hunting and fishing.

Grateful for having shared his life are his wife, Evelyn, of Sioux Falls; one daughter, Ann Marie Guernon and her husband, Tom, of Sugar Grove, IL; one grandson, Jacob Guernon, of Sugar Grove, IL; and a sister, Helen (Ronnie) Brown of Vermillion, SD. He is also survived by several nieces and nephews.

Dick was preceded in death by his parents and one brother, Donald Blashill.

Funeral services will be 1:30 pm Monday at First Lutheran Church. Interment will be in Woodlawn Cemetery. The family will be present to greet friends from 2:00 – 4:00 pm Sunday at Miller Funeral Home, Main Avenue location.

Just as Funny as Ever!

About a month ago, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, and it went like this:

At last!

I have waited for years for the resolutely unfunny, one-note comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" to produce something even marginally amusing (as a rule, "Rex Morgan, M.D." engenders more laughs), and it has finally happened! The punch line in the March 7 installment--"But first we're gonna go right on beating the Dick Cheney hunting accident story to death"--is absolutely hilarious...simply because that item disappeared out of the so-called liberal media at least a week before, and it is in fact dim-bulb right-wring extremists such as "Fillmore"'s creator who are keeping the story alive. What a hoot!

Even funnier is that "the story" never was about the hunting accident, which could have been a real tragedy--the story always was about Cheney's high-handed, arrogant "handling" of the incident. But I typically find as much accuracy as humor in "Fillmore"--which is to say, almost none--so no surprise there.

The "comic" strip in question was this:









Amusingly, before my letter even appeared (some weeks later, by which point I would think it no longer timely), the "creative" "mind" behind Mallard Fillmore decided to keep alive the issue he was accusing "liberals" of keeping alive:









By the time that one appeared, the issue was dead and gone, and yet with typical monotony, this exemplar of right-wing indignation insisted on revisiting it. Quite astonishing.

Typical of the inherent inconsistency with which the mindless faction of the radical right-wing must live is this more recent entry in the ongoing saga of "The World's Most Unfunny Comic Strip":









Now, think about this a moment. Obviously unable to craft or sustain an independent thought, the "author" of the strip once again, and as usual, falls back on hackneyed cliche (is there any other kind?), viz., irresponsible, free-spending liberals. Okay. But at the moment, both the executive and the legislative branch of government are in the hands of the Republican Party, and have been for several years now. Somehow, though, these "conservatives" managed to blow through the budget surplus left by the free-spending Democrats of the Clinton administration, and are diving ever deeper into red ink. So, to follow the "logic" of this strip: Spending money like it grows on trees is wrong. The federal government is spending money like it grows on trees. Republicans are in control of the federal government. Therefore, Republicans are wrong.

Okay. Works for me.

Still leaves me with the question: What are conservatives conserving? Not money, at least not federal money.

And why? Could it be that spending the country in the hole is a good excuse for cutting social programs while giving corporations and wealthy individuals all kinds of tax advantages?

Hmm...

Absolutely!

I have been reflecting on a sermon I listened to (don't worry: it doesn't happen often) yesterday morning. The preacher, as is typical, wove his point around an anecdote concerning a late acquaintance of his, a big old salt-of-the-earth Wisconsin farmer. In describing him, the preacher included a comment along the lines of "He knew what was right and what was wrong, and there was no question in his mind about them," adding, "In this relativistic age, the world needs more people like X."

Indeed.

As a (moderate) relativist from way back, I object. The absolutist attitude--"I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then you're wrong"--is not, as this and so many other preacher would have us believe, a refreshing breath of moral certitude in a venal, sinful world. It is rather a recipe for moral and religious intolerance. And to any preacher who thinks that's a virtue, I refer him to the events of 9/11/01.

Of course, preachers as a group are opposed to what they like to call relativism because church institutions are by their very nature absolutist. Churches, most of them, do no hold that there might be a God who may have created the universe and who could have sent his son to redeem the world, and so on. To open the door to possibilities is to risk undermining the pulpit in which they stand. So, naturally, they turn to absolutism: perhapsthis is the way it is; what preach is what is right; weour church has the answers.

Now, when the "our church" in question really is "our" church, then that may strike us as all well and good. Indeed, my own Catholic church is extraordinarily good as positioning itself as "the one true faith" (as we were taught in Catholic school...and which, my observation has been over the years, more lay people than priests are willing to buy into. I find it interesting, all these years later, than even as a second-grader at St. Joan of Arc school in Omaha, that assertion did not have the ring of truth to it. As fond as I am of the Catholic faith, and as much as it suits me, I have never believed it to be God's denomination, nor have I ever subscribed to the idea that it's the only path to salvation. Indeed, as soon as anyone starts telling me that his is the only path, I start looking for another path).

However (to return to the point), when the church in question is not "our" church...well, then, absolutism becomes a problem. When the "church" in question--more accurately, faith in question--is, say, radical Islam, and the absolutist attitude is "I know what's right and I know what's wrong"--exactly what my preacher friend held up as a virtue in his sermon--then we have a problem. Because the absolutist cannot easily say, "I know what's right and what's wrong, and if you disagree, well, that's the way it goes." As indicated above, absolutist mentality says, "I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then wrong"--and this is not a recipe for tolerance and understanding. In fact, the "Christian" right continuously reminds us that "tolerance" is a bad word. If "tolerance" is bad, then you'reintolerance must be good, right?

And intolerance is what led to the events of 9/11/01.

As a (moderate) relativist, I tend more toward statements like "I know what is right and what is wrong for me" and "I know what is right and what is wrong in this context." The one-size-fits-all attitude of the absolutist is abhorrent, and rife with danger.

Too, there is a hypocrisy to be found in so many ministers' harangue against "relativism": much of what our churches teach is relativistic. As I learned the Sixth Commandment, it was "Thou shalt not kill." But it was and is not taken literally--certainly not absolutely--because most churches of my acquaintance have, with greater or lesser degrees of relish, allowed exceptions: Self-defense, war, the death penalty. Pat Robertson, that great Christian, not long ago suggested that the United States go and "take out" Hugo Chavez. I don't think he mean to take him out for an ice cream. Whither the Sixth Commandment?

So what we really say in teaching the Sixth Commandment is, "Don't do this. Unless..." Which I consider a relativistic point of view. An absolutist, black-and-white, right-or-wrong point of view, so highly prized in theory by so many preachers, would say, "The Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and the circumstances--the relative circumstances--don't enter into it. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the Commandment tells us that killing is wrong. Period."

But that is certainly not the attitude in most quarters. Why? Because despite all the denouncing of it, our churches in the main have adopted a relativistic attitude toward killing. Indeed, I have noted as my kids have been educated in churchy things that the Sixth is today often rendered, "Thou shalt not murder"--an important and interesting bit of fudgery. Sixth Commandment a little too absolute, perhaps? That's all right--just rewrite it. It's obviously what God must have had in mind. Relatively speaking.

"I know what's right" is the seed from which religious intolerance sprouts. Religious intolerance is the stem from which "holy wars," "sectarian violence," and jihads grow. Absolutism, in matters moral and religious, probably makes life easier for folks who don't like to do a lot of thinking, or who don't like to have their beliefs questioned. But it makes it a helluva lot more dangerous for everyone else.

Podcast

Last weekend I was interviewed by Donald Carr of the South Dakota Democratic Party for their podcast, Dakota Blues. Pretty fun--although, from my end, it was no different than being interviewed for anything else. We talked about my illustrious career, living in the Mount Rushmore State, and the recently ended debacle that is the 2006 legislative session. This makes me the first kid on my block to be podcast...podcasted...call it what you will.

I was amused to note, when the podcast went up, that the party used a 20+ year-old picture of me, from the dustjacket of my first book. I imagine they either scanned it from that or swiped it from the Nebraska Center for Writers at my alma mater, Creighton University. I didn't even know the site was there; who knows how they found it, though one suspects Google must have been involved. Anyhow, I sent them a more recent photo--less hair, alas, and a somewhat lighter shade. Here are the photos in question. I leave it to you to guess their chronology:

What Is Leslee Unruh Afraid Of?

The local newspaper reports on efforts to collect 16,728 signatures to put the Mount Rushmore State's exciting new to-hell-with-everyone-who-isn't-an-unborn-child abortion law to a public vote in November. From that article, here's a swell quotation from a particularly venomous local anti-abortion shill who has spent more years than I care to count trying to cram her opinions down everyone else's throat:

"Do not make it easy for them. Make them work for every little signature they can get," said ban supporter Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center crisis pregnancy clinic.

Now, what do you suppose Unruh means by this?

I can only conclude that her statement is a coded message to her minions: Get out there and terrorize would-be petition signers just as we've been terrorizing people in front of women's clinics all these years.

This indicates to me that Unruh realizes, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps consciously, that her extremist stance is not share by the majority of South Dakotans...and that she must work overtime to make sure the people never get to vote on it.

What else could statements like "Do not make it easy for them" and "Make them work for every little signature they can get" mean?

I guess she must figure it's going to be harder to hoodwink an entire state than one little state legislature and a governor.

They're Making Fun of Us Again (Still)!

A friend of mine sent me the following, from Slowpoke Comics. His subject line pretty much sums it up: "Sigh........"

Moral Superiority

Once again, a prominent conservative demonstrates his moral and ethical superiority. This from yesterday's Daily Kos:


Washington Post's Jim Brady: He Can't Google, So He Should Be Replaced
by DHinMI
Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:50:09 PM PDT

Poor Jim Brady, sharp people like Brad DeLong give him lots of clues, but Brady chooses to remain clueless:

A 24-year-old blogger for The Washington Post, Ben Domenech, resigned yesterday after being confronted with evidence that he had plagiarized articles in other publications.

His resignation came after writing six blog items in the three days he worked for Red America, a blog that The Post created to offer a conservative viewpoint on its Web site...

But by late Thursday, the bloggers had found instances of what appeared to be plagiarism, including an article by Mr. Domenech in The New York Press that contained passages resembling an article that ran on the front page of The Washington Post.

Evidence of one instance of plagiarism first surfaced on the liberal blog Daily Kos on Thursday. [Kudos to Oregon Guy for getting the plagiarism search started.] A comment posted on the blog said a passage from an article by Mr. Domenech was nearly identical to a chapter from P. J. O'Rourke's book, "Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People."

Other articles that contained passages that appeared to be copied were published in National Review Online, The New York Press and The Flat Hat, the student newspaper at the College of William and Mary, which Mr. Domenech attended.

...And more, which you may read for yourself.

Although the gist of the remainder of the post is to take Jim Brady (executive editor for the Washington Post web site) to task for hiring Domenech in the first place (and for some rather puzzling statements as the plagiarism story began to break), I find it amazing how huffy and morally self-righteous so many right-wingers can be regarding, say, Bill Clinton, while at the same time blithely practicing theft and lying (which is what plagiarism is, after all).

Strange, no, that they have such a reputation for moral uprightness when so many of them prove to be so morally compass-less.

Another Batch of Quotations

More quotations that have been piling up for awhile. As usual, most if not all of them came to me via A Word a Day.

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -Anne Lamott, writer (1954- )

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)

When we have the courage to speak out -- to break our silence -- we inspire the rest of the "moderates" in our communities to speak up and voice their views. -Sharon Schuster

If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. -Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center. -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., writer (1922- )

It came to me that reform should begin at home, and since that day I have not had time to remake the world. -Will Durant, historian (1885-1981)

Let us face a pluralistic world in which there are no universal churches, no single remedy for all diseases, no one way to teach or write or sing, no magic diet, no world poets, and no chosen races, but only the wretched and wonderfully diversified human race. -Jacques Barzun, professor and writer (1907- )

I am malicious because I am miserable. ... If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them a hundred and a hundred fold (words of Frankenstein monster). -Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, author (1797-1851)

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. -Abraham Lincoln, 16th US president (1809-1865)

A man needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free. -Nikos Kazantzakis, writer (1883-1957)

Half the truth is often a great lie. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)

As the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)

War, at first, is the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)

People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools. -Alice Walker, writer (1944- )

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws. -John Adams, 2nd US president (1735-1826)

God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)

Take long walks in stormy weather or through deep snows in the fields and woods, if you would keep your spirits up. Deal with brute nature. Be cold and hungry and weary. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)

We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer, theologian and writer (1906-1945)

It does not require many words to speak the truth. -Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence. -Henri Frederic Amiel philosopher and writer (1821-1881)

Lying is done with words and also with silence. -Adrienne Rich, writer and teacher (1929- )

Why should I give them my mind we well? -Dalai Lama, when asked if he wasn't angry at the Chinese for taking over his country. (1935- )

I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies. -Pietro Aretino, satirist and dramatist (1492-1556)

A Little Knowledge

Here is the text of a particularly underbaked letter that ran this week in my local newspaper:

In response to Pauline Polete's Feb. 28 letter, in which she criticizes protecting lawful possession of weapons and the interference of women of an abortion clinic, I would like to remind all those who slept through government class that gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S.

The 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one. And in-as-much as it is a guaranteed right I question the constitutionality of laws requiring its citizenry to obtain a weapons permit. If I choose to carry one I am acting within my rights, while knowing if I am is not one of your rights.

With regard to abortion, it is only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into.

Michael R. Mongar, Sioux Falls

Where to begin, where to begin...

Let's start with the mostly polite reply that I sent off to the paper this very day:

The author of a recent letter in the Argus Leader asserts, for the benefit of "all those who slept through government class," that "gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S." and that "the 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one."

Well, here's what the Second Amendment has to say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's it. The whole enchilada. Certainly not much "explicit" there. Nothing about guns at all--just "arms." Also, nothing about an individual's right to bear arms just "the people," which, given the reference to "militia," some scholars interpret to mean the states' right to raise militias, not the individual's right to own guns.

It's not enough to just stay awake during class: It's also helpful to read the material before you start asserting what it does and does not say.

A model of restraint, no?

The local rag has a pretty draconian limit on letters' length--200, they say, although frequently the editors violate that rule, which I guess is an editor's prerogative--so there's a lot that I didn't say in my well-crafted rebuttal. F'rinstance:

+ If the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee gun ownership, how does the state's requiring a gun permit fly in the face of the amendment? Certainly no one could seriously argue that needing a permit somehow constitutes "infringement" as mentioned in the amendment.

+ I skipped the whole abortion angle--partly because of the 200-word limit, partly to try to unmuddy the waters a little. However. Does it not amuse that the letter's author uplifts the Constitution as a sacred text when it comes to his owning guns but implicitly tramples it underfoot when it comes to his "would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes"--the independent judiciary being, yes, explicitly delineated in the Constitution? How very similar to right-wing extremists' attitude toward the Bible: sacred, holy, and inarguably infallible when it says what they want it to say, easily ignored when it does not.

+ Of course, it is "only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given"--that is, the right to own anything that goes bang. Oh, wait, he was talking about abortion, wasn't he? How embarrassing. So let me see if I have this right: Judges are good when they interpret the rather poorly written Second Amendment to mean gun ownership by individuals, bad when they interpret law and tradition to uphold a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Got it. I think.

+ He says, "The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into." Again like the Bible, the Constitution says and doesn't say a lot of things. Most religions that espouse the Judeo-Christian scriptures rely also on traditions and interpretations that have been made by their institutions over the centuries. So it is with the Constitution--for all but the most wild-eyed strict-constructionist right-wingers: U.S. law is founded on the Constitution and must not be contrary to it (unconstitutional, in a word)--but the document is not all there is to the law. Nor should it be.

I am reminded of a similarly ill-educated letter-writer from the days when I was an editor of TWA Ambassador magazine. I don't recall the context, but she was pretty hot about something someone had said in an article, and concluded her diatribe with, "Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, of the people? Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?" My spoilsport boss wouldn't let me run it with the obvious answer, viz., "Apparently not, since you just quoted the Gettysburg Address."

A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing!

They're Making Fun of Us!

And who could blame them? My friend Ron sent these editorial cartoons lampooning South Dakota's near-total ban on abortion, passed into law this week.

"Somebody Stop Me"

Hot on the heels of signing the most draconian abortion ban in the nation (basically: no abortions, period. At least, no legal ones), my state's governor now backs away from the measure he signed into law. Fascinating. You don't suppose politics could have anything to do with anything, do you??

An interesting quotation in the item below, from my local newspaper, is this:

Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''

I would suggest that once a governor signs a measure into law, it then becomes his or her bill--regardless of its original author(s), the governor has now taken ownership of it. If he doesn't support it, why did he sign it? If he does support it, why is he trying to slide away from it now? I suspect it's because this measure goes way beyond what most South Dakotans, and most Americans, support (at the very least, most people have some compassion for women and girls who find themselves pregnant as the result of rape or incest, or women whose health would be endangered by continuing their pregnancy--most people, that is, who are not South Dakota Republican state legislators), and because he's looking not only at re-election but also at an eventual run for U.S. Senate. So now having appeased the extreme right-wing, he's already madly dashing back toward the center.

I did not vote for the Governor Rounds, but I formerly had a great deal more respect for him than I do today.

Anyway, here's the piece:

Rounds explains abortion decision
Governor doesn't embrace ban he signed

TERRY WOSTER
ARGUS LEADER (Sioux Falls, SD)
March 8, 2006, 2:55 am

PIERRE - Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday carved a bit of space between him and the abortion ban he signed into law, repeatedly saying it's not his bill.

Rounds also said he wouldn't campaign actively for it if a threatened referral drive materializes.

Rounds, a Republican, held his first news conference since signing the bill at the same time Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson issued a statement in which he suggested the bill is out of the mainstream.

There's been political speculation that if Rounds wins re-election as expected this year, he might be pressured by the state GOP to challenge Johnson, a Democrat who won his last race by 528 votes.

"This law is an extreme and radical approach to a very difficult and personal subject, and I do not support it," Johnson's statement said.

Rounds, responding to questions from reporters, reminded them at least twice that it's not his legislation.

He signed the bill Monday.

Sponsors hope it will start a federal court challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that became the foundation for legal abortion. The measure would make it a felony crime for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Even in those instances, the doctor would be required to try to save both lives.

Opponents, who say they intend to make a court challenge, also have talked in recent days about circulating petitions and placing the issue on the South Dakota ballot in November. The law wouldn't take effect until after the vote if those petitions were filed.

If that happened, a loud and rowdy campaign could be expected. Rounds wouldn't be among those making the noise, he said.

"I would not actively campaign either way on this particular issue at this stage of the game," the governor said. "When people asked my opinion, I would share with them that my preference would be to take Roe v. Wade apart piece by piece. But other than that, in terms of the bill itself and those individuals who believe this is the right approach to taking apart Roe v. Wade, this is their opportunity to find out, at least in the next few years, whether or not the Supreme Court would entertain this as the right vehicle to address abortion within the United States."

Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''

Johnson, Herseth differ from Thune
Johnson's statement said the proposed law "would deny individual women, even under the most extreme circumstances, their current right to prayerfully determine for themselves whether to have an abortion."

He said the law goes beyond what President Bush has said he would accept. He said the national goal should be to make abortion rare "through education, voluntary contraceptive resources, improved adoption procedures and help for low-income new mothers and their children."

Politicians shouldn't substitute their judgment for "the painfully difficult and very personal decisions of women and their families," Johnson said.

Republican Sen. John Thune said in a statement Tuesday that the Legislature took an anti-abortion stand that reflects South Dakota's position as an anti-abortion state.

"While I have consistently supported a ban on abortion with the exception of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger, I share the goal of the South Dakota Legislature to promote a culture of life," Thune said.

Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth said she doesn't think the bill represents the view of a majority of South Dakotans.

"This legislation, which contains no protection for victims of rape or incest and provides no exceptions for a mother's health, is far outside of the mainstream," Herseth said.

Instead of seeking common ground, she said, "proponents of this extreme bill have chosen a highly political and divisive approach."

Time to add exceptions for rape, incest
Rounds said there is a five- to seven-day window of an exception for rape and incest, since the bill he signed into law would allow contraceptive drugs to be issued until the time that a pregnancy could be determined by testing.

"So if you do have an individual who has been victimized with rape or incest, there is a time period in which this bill does not apply to contraceptive drugs and so forth being utilized," he said.

Rounds' signature on the bill set in motion a series of protests and demonstrations this week.

In a news conference, representatives of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice South Dakota, South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women, Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, and State Rep. Elaine Roberts, D-Sioux Falls, decried the new abortion law and outlined the major thrusts of challenges against it. They include:

# Questioning the establishment of a legal defense fund to receive contributions to pay for court challenges to the new abortion law.

# Consolidating support among women to view the law as a dismissive attack on women's rights.

# Recruiting legislative candidates to run against those who voted for the bill.

Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, said that while the abortion bill passed, bills before the Legislature to require hospitals to make women aware emergency contraception is available, to make insurance companies cover contraceptive drugs if they cover other prescription drugs and to require school districts to offer sex education all failed in committee.

Looby said legislators who backed the abortion law have "a huge problem...communicating with people in the state who strongly support a rape/incest exception."

Planned Parenthood also is holding a rally against the abortion ban Thursday from noon to 1 p.m. at the federal courthouse.

Roberts called the abortion law "a wake-up call" for her constituents who want the Legislature to focus on jobs, education, health care and property tax relief, and question "why we spend so much time on this" abortion issue. She opposes the legal defense fund.

"Are we for sale?" she asked. "This is another way to hide funds, another way to put money some place where you don't know who is contributing. If this (abortion law) is what the people of South Dakota really want, the people of South Dakota ought to pay for it, and I don't think we do. I don't think we want our tax money to pay for it."

Argus Leader reporter Peter Harriman contributed to this story.