By Denise Ross

The question much of America will be asking for the next two weeks is the same much of South Dakota will be asking: Will Gov. Mike Rounds sign the abortion ban bill?

As those of us who lived through this in more obscurity two years ago can attest, there’s no sure bet. And it’s not like you can tell by listening to what the former insurance salesman, well practiced in Rorschach rhetoric, says.

I converted the streaming audio of his Friday press conference on this issue to a downloadable mp3 file. Right click here for that. (This will have to serve as this week’s Talkin’ Smack podcast. I was not feeling well these past several days.)

He knows how to make folks hear what they were hoping to hear. He knows how to make people think he agrees with them, wholeheartedly. Parse his statements, and they’re empty calories. Twinkies.

I recall a maddening press conference in 2004 during which Rounds insisted he was answering my questions. Here’s a link to that story. He kept referring me to a two-page position paper he wrote as part of his 2002 campaign:

“We must work to make the decision to choose life an easy one, and a clear one. … To these questions, I can only respond that taking the life of an innocent child is not the solution. … Though taking the life of the child is not the solution, we cannot simply abandon the mothers and families that must face these agonizing circumstances. It is up to our families, our churches, our communities and even our government to show compassion and understanding to those caught in these situations.”

So … Mike Rounds doesn’t like abortion. Mike Rounds recognizes that rape and incest are awful. Mike Rounds wishes there would never be a resulting pregnancy because of rape and incest. If Mike Rounds had to decide what to do in such a case, his head would explode.

When Rounds issued a style-and-form veto of the 2004 bill, HB1191, he did so while saying he supported the bill. Here’s that story.

The governor has been consistent on his assertion that he would support an anti-abortion bill only if he believes it would achieve his goal of saving lives. So here’s the potential logic for a veto. Worst case scenario for anti-abortion activists — SCOTUS agrees to hear HB1215 and strikes it down. Would that action not only NOT save lives but perhaps uphold Roe v. Wade into the foreseeable future, thereby costing lives?

Could Rounds proclaim himself so pro-life that he must save the movement from such a potential calamity?

I was fairly certain this was his plan — proclaim his support for the intentions of those behind HB1215 while remaining circumspect on the bill itself. But then I listened to his press conference, and I tried to run the happy-talk guantlet, and now I’m not sure.

He talks about keeping the love within the movement — of satisfying those who insist on a Celtic style assault on the current state of things. I think I heard him say that the entire pro-life community must let those who seek full frontal assault the chance to scratch that itch so that the rest of them, the incrementalists, can say, See, we told you so. You still have an itch.

Which sounds to me like a logic circle. Which leaves me right where I was at the beginning of this post. With a sugar buzz.

By Denise Ross

It’s all in uproar now in Pierre — over abortion, over the budget, over what makes a legislative day. Remember those happier days when all were united against a common enemy? Remember JAIL?

Some days ago I whipped up this post, set it aside, then fell under the weather, but this one is on the increasingly crowded November ballot and still worth the Mount.

Finding a rational discussion of the JAIL (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) initiative, which will appear on the November ballot, is proving a pretty tall order.

Charlie Abourezk had a thoughtful piece on the RC Journal’s Feb. 18 Forum page.

I think it’s fair to characterize some state legislators’ reactions to it as freaking out. Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore, D- Yankton, said JAIL supporters were violating his civil rights by sending him e-mail that contained viruses. His diatribe went on for several minutes in a committee meeting in which Senate President pro tem Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, essentially asked the brains behind JAIL — a Californian not present but probably listening online — to step outside.

Meanwhile, House members were outraged when the South Dakotan who decided to get JAIL on the ballot appeared before a committee and read a prepared statement but wouldn’t answer questions. (No elected official would ever do that.)

So KW and I were talking about this — we’d seen the TV coverage, heard the radio coverage and read the newspaper accounts — and we were saying, Hmmm, abusive e-mails and people refusing to answer questions. Sounds like a day in the life of a news reporter. Are our lawmakers just that out of touch, or is there something so outrageous about JAIL and the people behind it?

(I’m certain after this, I’ll find out exactly what kind of e-mails the legislators have been receiving. KW says he’s already gotten some.)

In any case, the legislative discussion of this hadn’t been illuminating for me as far as knowing exactly what this thing would do, so I got a copy of the initiative itself. It is available on the Secretary of State’s website.

JAIL would establish a 13-member “Special Grand Jury,” which would be made up of ordinary folks (no lawyers, no judges) who would serve for a year and then never return. (South Dakota’s existing Judicial Qualifications Commission is heavily weighted to lawyers and judges [5] over the ordinary folks [2].)

For that year, the JAIL jurors would be paid what the state pays judges and would judge complaints against judges — which would probably make them subject to the JAIL provisions and create an endless loop.

Reading JAIL is a trip.

Here are a few excerpts.

“All allegations in the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant.”

So they’re not so much for a fair and level playing field.

“Jurors … are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge.”

Again, sounds like the life of a reporter.

“… trial jurors shall be instructed they have the power to judge both law and fact.”

Which seems to mean that if the jurors didn’t like the law, they could throw out a case or possibly change the law. (JAIL is not specific on this point. The language quoted above is about it.)

It isn’t all like a funhouse mirror, though. For example, complaints of misconduct against a “judge” (definition to follow) could not be filed unless all other remedies had been exhausted, and then only if the alleged wrongdoing had been within the last six months.

And it says that judges don’t have immunity for “deliberate” violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, disregard of material facts, violations of the state or federal constitutions or “intentional” violation of due process of law. How this thing would play out in practice is anyone’s guess, but this seems to say that if a “judge” is willfully doing wrong, that person wouldn’t be able to hide behind the immunity of his or her office.

Which brings us to what seems to be prompting a lot of the anger from officialdom — JAIL’s definition of “judge.” Legislators and others are saying this would subject any school board member, planning commissioner, library board member — even the ordinary jurors who serve in our courts — to lawsuits that would lead to certain financial ruin. The only place I can find where anyone would draw this conclusion is in JAIL’s definition of “judge,” which is this:

“Justice, judge, magistrate judge, judge pro tem and all other persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity.”

Anyone who’s sat through a legislative committee hearing or any court proceedings knows that the key to this would be what constitutes “judicial” immunity.

Here’s what lawmakers said in their resolution — which got unanimous support — against JAIL:

“If approved by the voters, Amendment E would actually allow lawsuits against all South Dakota citizen boards, including county commissioners, school board members, city council members, planning and zoning board members, township board members, public utilities commissioners, professional licensing board members, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and all other citizen boards.”

Here is a link to the resolution lawmakers passed against JAIL.

I hope this post is helpful to those who have questions about JAIL. I might suggest to legislators that outlining specific sections that you find objectionable, and explaining why, would better serve your cause than harangues that, at best, look like you’re airing your personal grudge matches in public and, at worst, make people wonder who’s mentally unstable in the JAIL equation.

By Bill Harlan

This just in. A four-minute Mount Blogmore investigation involving half a dozen Google searches has proved that Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton was wrong. The Mayo Clinic is not “worth a helluva lot more than the entire state of South Dakota.” (See the previous topic.)

The Mayo Clinic had $5.4 billion total revenues in 2004. South Dakota had a $28.4 billion gross state product in 2004, which is 5.25 times the revenues of the Mayo Clinic. **

We’ll be expecting a retraction from Sen. Dayton’s office.

This REALLY just in. Sen. Dayton has apologize, though not in a manner totally suitable to Sen. Thune.
*Unless you’re one of the Mayo Clinics’ half a million patients.

**I compared revenues to gross state product because I didn’t immediately find the total value of South Dakota’s assets. And I have to work on an actual news story. Maybe an industrious Blogmorite will find it.

By Bill Harlan

The story of John Thune and the DM&E is popping up all over today. See Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s story in the NYT, headlined “Lobbyist Turns Senator but Twists Same Arms.” Thune lobbied for DM&E, then sponsored legislation to help the railroad out.

In the NYT story Sen. Mark Dayton, D-S.D., blasted Thune:

“`This makes some of the Jack Abramoff deals look like penny ante,’ said Mr. Dayton, who has a prominent constituent, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that is fighting the rail expansion. `It’s the most despicable special-interest deal I’ve ever seen in all my 30 years in government.’”

Thune said:

“`I don’t apologize, and never will,’ said Mr. Thune, a Republican, `for working for South Dakota companies that are creating South Dakota jobs.’”

Legislation is in the works to prevent lobbyists-turned-legislators from working on legislation that benefits former clients.

As an aside, Thune also responded to a quote from Dayton in Fortune online:

“In a FORTUNE article, published online yesterday Senator Mark Dayton launched an unprovoked attack against the people of South Dakota when he said, `[t]he Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota.’”

We’re still awaiting word on numbers backing up that claim.

By Bill Harlan

Yes, at least according to the AP (see today’s RCJ), which didn’t EXACTLY say that. President Bush opposes abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. South Dakota’s new abortion ban makes no exception for the first two cases.

Is South Dakota to the right of the president on this issue?

I had three interesting conversations yesterday with three astute observers of the political scene. One thought HB1215 would be overturned in a referendum. One thought it would be close — and risky for opponents of HB125 to try. A third thought the majority of South Dakotans — outside of Rapid City and Sioux Falls — would vote to favor the measure.

See also Celeste C. also has a wrap-up on West River legislators’ thoughts on that very issue.

What says the Mount? Would HB1215 survive a statewide vote? Should opponents of the bill try? Will HB1215 have any affect on legislative races this fall. (I’ve heard a lot of anger from pro-choice women in the past few days, but one of the above observers pointed out that a similar bill a couple years ago had zero effect.)

By Bill Harlan

A young acquaintance of mine recently was stopped for doing 78 mph in a 75 mph zone — i.e., an interstate highway in South Dakota. This seems kind of unusual. The officer was polite, friendly and issued a warning ticket. Then he asked my acquaintance — I should say, my long-haired acquaintance — if he minded if the officer’s dog sniffed the car. Dog and officer made about three laps of the vehicle, with the officer giving some kind of command, urging the pup on.

The dog detected nothing. My friend was sent on his way.

I’m surprised anyone would get stopped for 78 mph, so my conclusion would be, the trooper had a dog and was looking for something to search. I also conclude there was some profiling going on here, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Or is there?

By Bill Harlan

See Lynn Taylor Rick’s column in the RCJ for a discussion of emergency contraception after rapes and parental rights for rapists.

Lynn writes about two measures that were defeated in the Legislation. SB175 would have required hospitals to notify rape victims of the availability of emergency contraception (with an exception for hospitals with religious affiliations), and HB1132 would terminate the parental rights of rapists.

My understanding of emergency contraception is that it is just that — it prevents ovulation, fertilization, implantation or one or all of the above. It’s not the same as the “abortion pill” (RU 486 etc) that terminates a pregnancy. Fertilization, in some cases does not even occur.*

As for HB1132 … I dont know. The bill was “hoghoused,” which means it was gutted by amendment and filled with other legislation. The new legislation protects health-care workers from civil or criminal liability for referring pregnant women to drub or alcohol programs. (The original HB1132 apparently was killed because of technical flaws. It could be back next year. This bill is NOT the same as HB1086, which addresses child custody for rapists from another angle.

*I changed this post because an alert Blogmorite corrected the first version. I had written “morning after pill” when I should have written “abortion pill.” HB1132 is not about abortion drugs such as RU486.

By Bill Harlan

Not that this week’s abortion debate hasn’t been fascinating, stimulating and important, but surely the column today by my pal Sam Hurst is worthy of some discussion. He writes about a conversation with a South Dakota Tech professor who talked about the consequences radical climate change. Pat Zimmerman runs Tech’s Institute for Atmospheric Sciences. He’s also an internationally recognized expert in carbon sequestration.

By Bill Harlan

I was surprised to discover an outfit called ProLifeBlogs.com also opposes HB1215, which would allow abortions only to save the mother’s life. An excerpt:

“Should we push for this type of legislation? Absolutely not.
“Should there be exceptions for the health of the mother or the life of the mother? Absolutely not.
“Are the people who pushed forward this legislation evil? Absolutely not. They did what they thought was right.
“We should never intentionally push for this type of law though.”

By Bill Harlan

The Daily Kos, maybe the flagship liberal blog, has this headline: “ACTION ALERT: South Dakota Boycott is working!” The boycott is over South Dakota’s impending ban an almost all abortions. The source for the headline RCJ reporter Dan Daly’s story in today’s paper. The Kos even reprints the entire store. One glitch: Dan’s story does NOT report the boycott is “working.” Ah well.

Does any Blogmorite on any side of this issue think a boycott of South Dakota would have any affect whatsoever on the South Dakota Legislature?

By Bill Harlan

I’m doing a survey of national media — or just media around the nation — and the reaction to South Dakota’s new abortion law. I know you Blormorites cruise the Web. If you run across any particularly interesting links, I’d appreciate a heads up. You can leave them as a comment here, confident you have the thanks of a grateful Mount Blogmore.

PS: I’m interested in news media links, not interest-group links, but I’d include a number of blogs in that category. Use your own judgment.

By Bill Harlan

Jana Lindsey (left, in back) of Black Hawk about to watch Jeret “Speedy” Peterson jump in men’s freestyle aerials Thursday night at Torino

OK, it’s got nothing to do with politics. But I live in Black Hawk, and I just think it’s too cool that Jana Lindsey — another Blackhawkian — is on the U.S. Olympic team. Jana missed the cut in women’s freestyle aerials (she finished 16th in qualifying on Tuesday), but she’s still a world-class athlete. And it was nice to catch a glimpse of her on TV. (Thanks NBC, thanks TiVo and thanks to my digital camera.)

By Bill Harlan

The South Dakota Legislature has caused quite a national ruckus, or should I say “situation.” Here’s an excerpt from a transcript from CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blizter:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: In the culture wars, a landmark vote in South Dakota that could lead too a head-on challenge to Roe vs. Wade. But some anti-abortion activists are debating if the timing is perfect or premature.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUDIE BARTLING (D), SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE: I believe it’s time to now abolish abortions in South Dakota, and I respectfully seek your favorable vote.

BLITZER: The South Dakota Senate agreed, approving a ban on all abortions, except those performed to save the mother’s life, even setting a five-year prison sentence for doctors that break the law. In a debate that did not fall along the usual party lines, state senators refused to make exceptions for rape and incest.

STAN ADELSTEIN (R),* SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE: To require a woman who’s been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery.

BLITZER: If the bill wins final approval by the statehouse and the governor, it would become the most far-reaching anti-abortion law in the nation. Supporters see it as a direct legal challenge to Roe vs. Wade. Many abortion opponents think the time is right to overturn the decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, others would prefer to wait for a more conservative court and a more receptive political climate. Polls show most Americans oppose overturning Roe vs. Wade. Top abortion rights group are vowing to challenge the South Dakota ban in the courts and to use it as ammunition in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: So is this the perfect storm for anti-abortion activists? We’ll be watching to see how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a controversial late-term procedure. The justices agreed this week to review what a ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions.

* No, Wolf B hasn’t copyrighted Stan Adelstein’s name. WordPress automatically turns an “R” that’s in parentheses, like this one (R) … Damn. Did it again.

By Denise Ross

It appears the abortion ban bill, HB1215, is headed to the desk of Gov. Mike Rounds. Read the RC Journal story by clicking here.

There are two different versions from the House and the Senate, which passed the bill 23 to 12 Wednesday afternoon. But the amendment added in a Senate committee looks as though it won’t prompt objections from the House supporters of HB1215.

Here’s the amendment added in Senate committee:

“On page 2, line 3 of the printed bill, after ” prohibited. ” insert “Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.”

Click here to read the amended HB1215.

Here are AP photos from Wednesday’s floor debate.

Prime Senate sponsor Julie Bartling, D-Burke

Prime House sponsor Roger Hunt, R-Brandon

HB1215 opponent Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City

Click here to read the Argus story on this.

Click here to read the AP rundown on who voted how.

Click here to read the Washington Post story.

Click here to read an analysis on this bill and how it relates to the partial brith abortion case pending before the US SupCo.

Click here to get a roundup that includes AP, NYT and Reuters on prolifeblogs.

The question now is whether Mike Rounds will sign this puppy. He had indicated support for it — IF it addressed his previous concerns — that day he had his Friday press conference from the nuetrino conference in Lead. (Click here to read that story.) The good guv had backed off that support significantly by Wednesday, when his line was that he doesn’t look at bills as they move through the process because (or something very close to this) “they might change along the way.” Riiiigghht. But, just to put a finer point on it, Rounds spokesman Mark Johnston was reiterating that after the Senate vote.

This is all deja vu from 2004, when the vote in the Senate was a little closer, but Rounds non-committal commitments were strikingly similar.

Are there any escape hatches in this one for the governor, or are we headed to the Supreme Court? And if he vetoes it, how does he handle that during the election — assuming he has an opponent, that is.

By Denise Ross

Sen. John Thune had a press conference Tuesday in Rapid City to announce a multi-faceted proposal that, in a nutshell, would beef up the Powder River basin training area now used by the B1s at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Under Thune’s vision, the training range would be about tripled in size and used by military aircraft of all stripes — including those elusive UAVs.

To listen to the press conference, right click here.

To read Kevin’s story that appears in Wednesday’s RC Journal, click here.

Thune talks bombs

Members of the media take it all in

Officials take it all in (I know Qusi al-Haj, Thune’s West River guy, standing, and Pennington County Commissioner Ken Davis, in the foreground

By Bill Harlan

“We are descended from neutrinos. What a kick!”
Boris Kayser, Fermilab, on NOVA’s “Ghost Particles”

See the previous post. This program will be rebroadcast at 1 p.m. Sunday. Set the Tivo. (I will because an “amber alert” interrupted the program, so we missed some important stuff.)

This documentary is a must see for anyone who wants to understand the profound impact on science of Ray Davis and his little neutrino detector at Homestake. Kudos to the Nova guys. (I think most of the people interviewed have been out here for neutrino conferences in the past five years or so.)

By Bill Harlan

I’m chagrined I didn’t give RCJ readers a heads up about tonight’s edition of NOVA, “The Ghost Particle: The 40-year hunt for solar neutrinos.” Documentary producer David Sington examines western South Dakota’s favorite subatomic particles. Check out the link to the NOVA Web site. It’s a great neutrino resource. (Go to the RCJ archives, select a date range and do a keyword search for “neutrino” for any number of articles about why the “ghost particle” could play an important role in South Dakota’s future.)

“The Ghost Particle” also will credit Ray Davis, who won a Nobel Prize for his neutrino experiment at the Homestake gold mine and the late John Bahcall, the Princeton University astrophysicist whose theoretical work inspired Davis.

The NOVA site includes two uncredited photos I’ll take a chance with and run here:

Ray Davis, left, accepting his Nobel Prize in 2002

Ray Davis swimming 4,850 feet underground at the Homestake mine in Lead. The water surrounds Davis’s neutrino detector, which was, a 100,000-gallon tank full of a chlorine solution. (Homestake miners called the experiment “the neutrino tank.”)

Physcists have joined the state of South Dakota in a proposal to reopen the Homestake mine for more experiments at the “4850 level” at Homestake — maybe even in the cavern above that housed the Ray Davis experiment.

By Bill Harlan

When we started Mount Blogmore on Sept. 7, 2004, here’s what we posted:

We’re starting this blog on the fly, on the theory it will morph into something interesting, useful and entertaining. (And we’ll settle for one out of three.)

One thousand posts later, here we are. Are we batting .333? (Which reminds me, we’re up to 15,333 comments.)

By Bill Harlan

An AP story by Joe Kafka in today’s RCJ has Mount Blogmore written all over it. The lede:

“PIERRE — Morality measures have grabbed many of the headlines from this year’s Legislature, but just how important are they?”

Some quotes:

-Rep. Pat Haley, D-Huron: “This Legislature certainly knows everything that it doesn’t want people in this state doing.” said, a Democrat with 12 years of legislative experience.

-Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon: “You could characterize them as morality bills, but I like to characterize them as maintaining traditional values,” he said.

-Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, “It’s the duty of the Legislature to intervene when values held by a vast majority of society come under fire. The way I see it, you’ve got people on the other side trying to promote immorality in every way they can.”

-Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City: “For some of these people, it’s just extremes. It’s all or nothing, and I’ve not seen that before, and I’m disappointed,” he said.

-Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City: “It would be frightening to have a legislator who didn’t have any beliefs. That’s what this body is about. Almost all laws have to do with what’s right and what’s wrong.”

By Kevin Woster

ALmost a year after he threw an elbow into South Dakota Tech center Korey Kirschenmann, Valley City State University basketball player Matt Klabo was found not guilty of simple assault.

That decision, handed down a few days back by a jury in circuit court in Rapid City, surprised some people. After all, the criteria for simple assault seems fairly simple: You have to intend to do bodily harm to another, and then do it.

Klabo certainly admitted he intended to slam his elbow into Kirschenmann’s face, although he probably didn’t intend to cause a concussion and a gash that took 14 stitches to close.

Prosecutor Glenn Brenner thought he had a good case. Defense lawyer Ken Barker argued that there was an implied consent by Kirschenmann and any other basketball player that the game is dangerous, injuries can happen. And he pointed out that Kirschenmann might have inspired the elbow by popping Klabo in the face with the basketball a few seconds earlier - a point that was disputed by the prosecution.

Ironically, as I was writing the story of the not-guilty verdict my, daughter, Meghan, called from Mankato to tell me that she’d caught an elbow in the mouth during the game that night between USD and Minnesota State at Mankato. The blow broke one of her bottom teeth and bent a top one back out of line with the others (it also made her dad want to cry when he thought about that kid’s beautiful smile…). After some emergency dental work after the game, I talked to Meg again.

“Did the other player do it on purpose?” I asked?

Meg said not. “She was just clearing out after a rebound and she hit me. It was one of those things that happens.”

That was certainly an elbow that can happen any time in any basketball game. Klabo’s was certainly something more than that.

But it wasn’t criminal assault, according to the jury.

Agree?