Entries Tagged 'Roger Hunt' ↓
May 27th, 2011 — abortion, Roger Hunt, South Dakotans
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic they have only raised $20,000 to combat HB 1217 lawsuits against the state?
Bill sponsor Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, has said private donors will step forward to cover legal expenses through the Life Protection Fund, which was set up in 2006 to help the state pay to defend previous abortion laws.
“I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that they’ve filed a lawsuit,” Hunt said. “We’ve been expecting this and preparing for it.”
In late March, the fund had a balance of just under $20,000.
About the same amount the average single mother makes in a year in SD, if that. They of course know that the state will have to pony up the money, which is mostly from sales tax revenue, on things like food, from these same mothers. If the anti-choicers were so concerned about LIFE they would be concerned about these children after they are born and the mother’s who have to raise them by themselves, through education and worker training programs. Nope, the same clowns who vote for this crap slash education, slash medicade, and vote against ending a food tax. I’m starting to believe more and more that the neo-cons never want abortion to be illegal, because they couldn’t use it as an issue anymore.
March 2nd, 2011 — abortion, Cartoon, Cartoonists, Roger Hunt, State Legislature
February 28th, 2011 — abortion, Roger Hunt, State Legislature
We can yell and scream all we want at each other about whether abortion is ethical or not, but the facts are simple, the 72-hour forced counseling legislature isn’t really needed;
He (Dr. Buehner) said he goes through 25 pages of paperwork with a woman seeking an abortion, including a section requiring her signature on each of 13 pages.
“I have to tell them they’re terminating the life of a whole, unique, separate human being. I have to tell them they’re terminating a constitutional relationship with an unborn child. I have to tell them about suicide risk,” Buehner said.
Like I have said before, women don’t just walk into an abortion clinic, get an abortion, and walk out 10 minutes later. HB 1217 is an attempt to limit abortions in our state by making them more difficult to attain, that’s it. It doesn’t help the women seeking an abortion, it only complicates their lives even more, and it certainly doesn’t help the unborn.
Roger, you really need to get a hobby.
February 23rd, 2011 — abortion, Roger Hunt, State Legislature
Though voters have said TWICE that we are a pro-choice state, some legislators don’t get it. They continue to make it harder for women to have safe access to abortion;
A measure requiring women to consult with pregnancy help centers before getting abortions passed Tuesday in the South Dakota House despite arguments that it probably will be thrown out by courts after an expensive legal battle.
The bill says an abortion could not be performed until at least 72 hours after a woman first meets with a doctor who will perform the abortion.
That doctor would have to determine whether the woman is voluntarily seeking an abortion and whether she is at risk for developing psychiatric or physical problems if she has an abortion.
Before getting an abortion, a woman also would have to consult with a pregnancy help center to get information about services available to help her give birth and keep a child. The state would publish a list of pregnancy help centers that seek to persuade women not to have abortions.
The bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said many women have made it clear that they did not get adequate counseling before getting abortions at South Dakota’s only abortion clinic, which is in Sioux Falls. Women have testified in court cases and in legislative hearings that they have been coerced into getting abortions by boyfriends, husbands and others, he said, but the abortion clinic does nothing to help them resist that pressure.
“This is a matter of life. This is a matter of taking life,” Hunt said. “This is about information and blocking coercion. These are all good and noble objectives.”
So what Roger is saying is women getting abortions are to ignorant to understand what they are getting themselves into, but he knows better. Yeah . . . Right.
The measure also would force women to submit to lectures by unqualified counselors or volunteers who argue against abortion because of religious beliefs, Gibson said.
“It substitutes what amounts to harassment, propaganda and coercion for unbiased counseling information,” Gibson said.
Councilors who just happen to be really good friends of Mr. Hunt. While I can understand the outrage by women when it comes to the privacy issues, I am more concerned about the business nepotism going on here. Why not just require a QUALIFIED councilor to be present at PP? And maybe I am off base, but I believe women are told about the procedure before getting it done. I don’t think it is any freaking mystery, abortion terminates a pregnancy. I think it’s time we ABORT some legislators in Pierre and vote them out of office next time around.
February 10th, 2011 — Roger Hunt, State Legislature
Representative Hunt is a prime example of someone who tries to legislate morality while making South Dakotans look foolish for electing such a kook bag;
House Bill 1218 would make any verbal or written surrogacy agreement unenforceable and keep parental rights with the woman who gives birth to the child, regardless of whether she is the genetic mother. The agreements would be unenforceable whether or not there was compensation involved. The law also would establish civil penalties for the intended parents in an agreement and make it a felony for anyone who helps establish such an agreement. Doctors who knowingly assist in medical procedures related to surrogacy agreements also would face felonies.
This is no different then telling someone what sexual position they can use in their bedroom, or who they can have sex with for that matter. Maybe Roger would like to propose legislation that says it is illegal to bottle feed calves and lambs formula milk when their mother won’t or can’t feed them?
“How someone in the Legislature can determine and dictate to parents that want children how they should go about acquiring those children, I think it’s ludicrous,” she said.
Well, that’s Roger, Mr. Ludicrous. He wants to tell everyone else how to live their lives, but when it comes to money laundering that is none of our business.
Theresa Erickson, a lawyer specializing in reproduction issues and executive board member of the American Fertility Association, has been keeping tabs on Hunt’s bill.
“What South Dakota is doing is off the charts,” she said.
What do you mean? That’s the SD state legislature every day, ‘off the charts’
January 23rd, 2010 — abortion, Roger Hunt
Another letter writer says ‘screw the law’ as long as we are ‘saving babies.’
I am appalled by the Argus Leader’s continued harassment of state Rep. Roger Hunt to divulge the name of his client who generously gave money to protect unborn babies in South Dakota.
Harrasment? It’s called reporting the news. If anything, the Gargoyle isn’t covering this story enough.
Most of us in South Dakota do not think it is OK to kill babies.
I would think 100% think it is not OK to kill babies, that’s my guess. However, a majority of South Dakotans have voted twice to give women the choice on whether to end a pregnancy. I have said that South Dakotans sometimes vote pro-choice because they are sick of the secrets and lying from the pro-life movement. Maybe if you movement practiced a little honesty and openness, like revealing donor names, more people would take up your cause. I’m just saying.
December 31st, 2009 — 1st Amendment, Roger Hunt
I hope judge Caldwell and Roger Hunt take a good hard look at this survey;
By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.
The problem I have with the Hunt case is that it wasn’t about ‘free speech’. What I do on this blog is considered ‘free speech’ what Hunt did is considered ‘money laundering’. I still think he got away with a crime. If you feel passionately enough about an issue to give $750,000 to it, the voters have the right to know who gave that money. That is what I consider ‘free speech’.
In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.
I think this was worded incorrectly. Like I said above, I don’t think providing your name when you donate to a political cause is violating your free speech rights. You have a choice, you can remain anon and not give the money, no one is forcing you to give up your name, unless you donate the money. Voters have a right to know, in all fairness, who is donating to these causes. I always find it ironic that neo-cons never mention free speech rights when they are being publicly protested, only when it is helping their cause.
November 25th, 2009 — Roger Hunt
Go figure, money talks;
South Dakota officials have reached an agreement that ends a legal dispute on whether a state lawmaker had to make public the name of an anonymous donor who gave $750,000 to an unsuccessful campaign supporting a proposed abortion ban in 2006.
Attorney General Marty Jackley, Secretary of State Chris Nelson and state Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon announced the agreement, which provides that no further appeals or claims will be filed in the case. The agreement means the name of the anonymous donor will not be released.
Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell of Sioux Falls ruled earlier this month that the secretary of state could not require disclosure under the law in effect in 2006 and the definition of a ballot question committee was unconstitutional.
November 9th, 2009 — abortion, Roger Hunt
. . . but not in the way you would think.
Minnehaha County Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell said the state had no authority to file a lawsuit against Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, and Promising Future Inc. in an attempt to get him to name the donor.
While many of us in the ‘Political Know’ know who the secret donor is, it would still be nice to have that person revealed to the public. But, hey, when you are as rich as they are, you can buy just about anything, including, silence. I’m not saying that is what happened, but you never know in this fricking state when it comes to politics, Republicans and money. As a big First Amendment supporter, I don’t have a problem with someone donating thousands of dollars to something they believe in, but they should at least have the gonads (or vagina) to own up to their convictions. If you truly believe abortion is ‘murder’ you would think you would be standing on a street corner telling everyone instead of sitting in a dark room cutting checks. What a coward and a hypocrite.
June 24th, 2009 — Roger Hunt
I found this quote from the continuing saga pretty funny;
In court on Monday, Hallem let out an exasperated chuckle as he reflected upon Sanford’s (Roger’s lawyer) many and varied legal arguments in defense of Hunt’s actions.
“A reasonable person would look at it and say there’s no other reason” for creating the corporation than to hide the donor’s identity, Hallem said. “This isn’t a complicated case (but) it became a very complicated case by very able counsel.