UPDATE: South Dakota Media fails to report the whole story when it comes to Noem’s anti-choice war

UPDATE: Apparently he is not charging us . . . yeah, right.

While many of our news(?) outlets have reported Noem’s endless anti-choice battle and hiring kook-bag Trumper lawyer Sekulow no one has reported who is footing the bill. WE ARE!

South Dakotans have voted twice to keep abortion legal and safe in our state. A large majority of Americans support legal and safe abortions, and when there is only exceptions like rape and incest, those numbers are even higher. So I am wondering how Noem is justifying spending OUR money on this hypocritical UNCONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit and why the MSM isn’t telling South Dakotans about how she is throwing our tax dollars in a burn barrel. I suggest Noem finds private donors to fight her endless battle and I encourage the media to tell her the same.


#1 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 09.16.21 at 8:51 pm

Noem spends our money the way Jason drives. Well, I’ve heard she drives like that, too.

#2 anominous on 09.17.21 at 9:21 am

i think that guy had a weekly column in the Shopping News

#3 D@ily Spin on 09.17.21 at 10:32 am

Roe v Wade has worked. New abortion, school mask, and MJ battles is how republicans steer attention away from the one term Trump mistake. I’m hoping Strong Governor doesn’t happen. Strong Mayor charter is a dictatorship to the point of importing communism from China. What happened? People lost control of government.

#4 Reliable Voter on 09.17.21 at 12:16 pm

The Noem comment may be sorta accurate. Mr. Seculow heads a non-profit which also employs his wife and children and was structured to avoid taxes, and is funded by right-wing donors. Another opportunity to run the grift.


#5 Killer on 09.17.21 at 12:23 pm

Why do you hate babies so much Scott? They are created in God’s image, we shouldn’t kill them just cause mommy was too lazy or stupid to use precautions. Now you’ll say but, but, but rape, incest…..why should this newborn human pay for other humans mistakes?

#6 Very Stable Genius on 09.17.21 at 7:45 pm

Killer, I see that Noem doesn’t want to bring Afghan refugees to SD, but what if a family of them have a Down syndrome child?

( and Woodstock adds: “Say, what if an Afghan guy had dealt in the fireworks blackmarket back home, would she like him then?”… )

#7 Mike Lee Zitterich on 09.17.21 at 9:16 pm

You also have to account for the fact Kristi Noem as “our” governor has to honor and protect all laws adopted by the people. And keep in mind, that means she has to uphold and honor SDCL 26-1-2 and 26-1-3.

26-1-2. Unborn child deemed existing person – A child conceived, but not born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth.

Whereas that Unborn is also a minor under the age of 18, and needs a Parent, Guardian, or Court Appointed Conservator to Speak in its defense.

26-1-3. Enforcement of minor’s rights–Guardian or conservator required – A minor may enforce his rights by civil action, or other legal proceedings, in the same manner as a person of full age. However, a guardian or conservator must be appointed to conduct the same.

She is standing up in defense of ALL UNBORN PERSONS who have the right to life, liberty, and prosperity.

#8 Huh? on 09.17.21 at 11:05 pm

VSG…..you make zero sense? Are you actually Joe Xiden?

#9 Very Stable Genius on 09.17.21 at 11:43 pm

26-1-2 was passed in 1939. 34 years before Roe v. Wade.
Roe makes the phrase: “….so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth.” Moot, unless an actual birth takes place. The mere fact that this statute was passed before Roe proves that there was no intent to use this law to protect the unborn, but rather to protect their financial interests should they be born.

#10 Very Stable Genius on 09.18.21 at 12:15 pm

‘Huh?’, how’s everything at city hall?

#11 Mike Lee Zitterich on 09.18.21 at 1:15 pm

You are correct the Statute 26-1-1 was first adopted by the PEOPLE of the Republic of South Dakota in 1939. Many of these types of ‘acts’ were adopted shortly after Social Security was adopted in 1935, and then followed by the 1939 Public Salary Act was adopted thereafter.

Also keep in mind – SDCL 26-2-1 deals with contracting with those very same minors:

26-2-1. Delegation of power by minor–Contracts relating to property–Account at financial institution.

No minor may give a delegation of power, nor make a contract relating to real property, or any interest therein, or relating to any personal property not in his immediate possession or control. However, a minor’s parent, grandparent, uncle, or aunt, if such person is an adult, and a minor’s adult sibling may establish an account with a financial institution, and establish a present ownership right in that account. Such adult family member may sign the minor’s name for and on behalf of the minor, for the purposes of establishing an account, and such subscription shall constitute a binding agreement between the financial institution, and the named parties to the account.

This was so, when two people get together and conceive a newly created life, they would then protect their financial interests in that UNBORN by protecting its life, liberty, and prosperity, which by now stating that that unborn is a legal person, all those Social Security Benefits now become apparent and obligated to the life of the unborn, of which the “Parents” are now a party to.

SDCL 26-1-2 was first adopted to now protect that UNBORN LIFE, allowing both parents to protect their ‘property’ which that unborn is now an asset; then you got SDCL 26-1-3 that allows each of those Parents, or Guardians, or Court Appointed Conserator to protect the interests of that “person” of whom has the right upon his/her subsquent borth and all the rights, liberty, privileges, and immunities that come with that life.

Now, thanks to this law, even with Roe v Wade in 1973, if the MOTHER elects to abort the life of the Unborn, the FATHER now has the right to take the “Mother” to court and sue her for damages to his property, and for killing his future child.

We as South Dakotans have said the LIFE of the Unborn exists, and his rights, and must be protected.

I support Noem in defending that Life.

#12 Further Fear & Loathing on 09.18.21 at 2:36 pm

Wait a minute, a child is “property”? Can they be sold to the highest bidder? If we value life, then why would we submit it to an auction which invites trafficking?