Politicians speak out on issues

PIERRE — It’s a topic that can move persons on either side to tears or intense anger.

Saturday’s Politics in the Park event did not open with discussion on Initiated Measure 11 — a ban on abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is at a risk or in cases of reported rape or incest. The historically divisive topic was saved until nearly the end of the political forum.

Dr. Patti Giebink, decked out in Vote Yes on 11 blue and orange buttons, clothing and a hat, explained her support for the measure, which supporters estimate would end more than 90 percent of the abortions in South Dakota.

Each year there are between 700 to 800 abortions in South Dakota, Giebink said.

As she spoke, other Vote Yes on 11 supporters entered with a number of small children, also dressed in Vote Yes on 11 garb.

“When did it become acceptable to discard babies,” she asked.

Giebink, who once performed abortions while working with Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, said the ban would also help protect mothers from the negative mental effects after having an abortion. For years after completing abortions, she felt depressed, she explained. She believes women who have abortions also often suffer from depression afterward.

The previous attempt at an abortion ban failed because there were not exceptions for rape or incest, Giebink said. This time around those exceptions are included, though those cases make up only a minor percentage of the abortions performed in the state.

Gary Snow, representing   

for the Organization for Healthy Families, spoke against Measure 11.

While in college he worked on a teen crisis line. The night he remembers most clearly was when he received a call from a young woman who was bleeding after attempting to abort her baby by herself, he said.

“I never want to go back to that day,” Snow said.

The measure would not limit richer residents, who could go out of state for abortions, but rather those who can’t afford to travel.

Passing the ban would tell voters that they aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions, he said.

As he spoke, the Vote Yes on 11 supporters brought more children into the forum room, and the children began to run about and play.

Measure 11 was just one of the ballot questions and candidates appearing on the Nov. 4 ballot discussed at the Politics in the Park event.

District 24 State House candidates were up first. Democrats Ann Eichinger and Jodi Owen opened with Republican incumbents Ryan Olson and Tim Rounds following.

Both Rounds and Eichinger said they would have liked to see more people at the event, but they were pleased to get their messages out to those who did attend.

The important issues Eichinger said she plans to concentrate on include environmental protection, and the competitiveness of state employee salaries.

While visiting friends in Minnesota near the Mississippi River, Eichinger said she was stunned that just one state away people don’t swim in their river or eat its fish because of pollution. Understanding the impacts of development projects on the environment is necessary to preserve South Dakota for generations to come, according to Eichinger.

State employee salaries is a main difference between Eichinger and her opponent, she said.

To have effective and efficient employees, the state needs to be competitive, she explained.

Olson said he wants to make sure people know that despite the bleak economic news nationally, South Dakota is in a positive spot.

“South Dakota is doing better than most other states,” he said. “We’re not asking for a $7 billion dollar bailout like California, we still have money in the reserves.”

By working to keep a tight budget and helping grow the tax base through economic development, Olson said he has helped keep the state protected from problems that face other states.

Following talks by local candidates, the only representative for candidates running for Congressional office, William Anderson, a campaign aide for Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, took the podium.

He spoke about and answered questions mainly about Herseth Sandlin’s votes against two $700 billion bailout packages of the U.S. financial industry. The congresswoman agreed that the government involvement is necessary in the situation, but felt Congress was acting in too much of a hurry, Anderson said.

The bill passed the House Friday.

Following the candidates, proponents and opponents for constitutional amendments and initiated measures took the podium.

State Rep. Larry Lucas from Mission spoke about his support for Constitutional Amendments G and I.

Amendment G would repeal the 5 cents per mile reimbursement for legislators for trips to and from Pierre while the Legislature is in session. If passed, the amendment would allow for legislative travel to be at the state rate of reimbursement, according to Lucas.

No opponents to the amendment spoke at the political event, but state Sen. Gene Abdallah said in his written statement against repealing the reimbursement restrictions that the 5 cents per mile reminds legislators of their humble roots and the need for fiscal restraint.

Amendment I would set all regular legislative sessions at a maximum of 40 legislative days, rather than the 40 days in odd-numbered years and 35 days in even-number years.

The additional five days would help give legislators time to examine issues and bills more thoroughly. In the later days of the 35-day sessions, hearings and discussions can sometimes be hurried because of the number of things that need to be done in the limited amount of time, Lucas said.

Again no opponent of the amendment spoke at Politics in the Park, but state Sen. Jerry Apa, from Lead, argued in writing that if the Legislature is given more time to decide issues, the most important ones will be pushed to the end of the session. The additional five days will also increase costs to taxpayers.

Following Lucas was state Sen. Ed Olson, of Mitchell. Olson was present to explain his support of Amendment J, which would eliminate term limits for legislators.

Term limits were initially passed in 1992. They were meant to help increase the number of women and minorities serving in legislature, but have actually had the opposite effect, Olson said.

“It’s been a flop,” he said, saying that there are now fewer women in the legislature than there were when term limits were instituted.

But the main negative effect of term limits is that it takes away voters’ freedom.

“It takes away your right to choose who represents you,” Olson said.

It also forces the “dumbing down” of the legislature. Experienced legislators are forced from office and replaced by candidates who often have no prior governmental experience, according to the written statement in support of J by Sen. Bill Napoli, of Rapid City.

No opponents of eliminating term limits spoke at Saturday’s event. Rick Skorupski, chairman for the Spink County Republicans, and Jeff Partridge, of Rapid City, both affiliated with Don’t Touch Term Limits BQC, stated in writing the term limits law gives voters fresh thinking in Pierre and more competitive elections.

Following the constitutional amendments were opponents and proponents for the initiated measures.

Initiated Measure 9 would make “short sales” unlawful. In a short sale, an investor who believes a publicly traded stock is over-priced will borrow that stock from an owner, sell the borrowed stock, and repurchase the stock later at a lower price to repay the loan, according to the attorney general’s explanation. If the price of the stock has fallen, the investor makes money. If adopted, Measure 9 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be preempted by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

Gail Sheppick, director of the South Dakota Division of Securities, explained his opposition to Measure 9.

There is abusive short selling, he explained. Investors can sometimes start negative rumors about a stock to get it to drop in price. But there is already federal regulations for such abusive practices and those who engage in it are tracked down, Sheppick said.

Short selling helps to keep the market fluid and values of stocks in check, he added. Measure 9 would force companies to leave South Dakota rather than have their national trading systems disrupted.

No proponents of the measure spoke at Politics in the Park, but a statement written in support of Measure 9 states that the federal law would not end short selling, but enable federal law to be enforced in South Dakota courts.

“When someone robs a South Daktoa bank, they face both federal and state prosecution. Under Initiated Measure 9, when someone cheats a South Dakota investor, they too will face both federal and South Dakota action,” according to the statement.

Following Measure 9 was discussion on Initiated Measure 10, which would prohibit tax revenues from being used for lobbying or campaigning, prohibit governmental bodies from lobbying, prohibit government contractors from making campaign contributions, prohibit government contracts when the contractor employs a legislator or legislative staff member, and to require contracts with governmental bodies to be published.

Yes on 10! representative Dena Espenscheid said the law would help stop government officials from abusing their power and misusing taxpayer money.

But opponents argue that the measure is an experiment and would function as a gag law, restricting South Dakotans’ freedom of speech.

The measure would likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to the attorney general’s explanation of the measure. Initiated Measure 11 is also likely to be challenged in court and declared unconstitutional.