If the hits to this blog are any indication, Kate Looby sure has become a popular figure in cyberspace. Looby, the lobbyist for and director of Planned Parenthood for South Dakota, shows up in an ever-increasing number of the internet searches that bring people here. Thus, the interest is being generated by all the recent national publicity over South Dakota’s proposed abortion ban.
In the last couple days people from Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa and Newfoundland, Canada, (to name a few) have visited because of a “Kate Looby” search. Just her name is the most common search but I had to chuckle when, on the same day the Senate State Affairs Committee approved the abortion bill, there was a search with her name and “lesbian.” In case that person is still curious, to my knowledge Looby is in a traditional marriage with children.
As a side note, let me repeat what I said a year ago: Kate Looby is one of my heroes. I’ve also posted a story at Blogcritics on the recent history of our abortion wars.
The strongest people are not always the people who win, but the people who don’t give up when they lose.
Ashley Hodgeson, “To Track Down My Dream”
Kate Looby needs to get off her self-aborbed highhorse and understand that she does NOT represent the majority of women in South Dakota, but only a select few. The rest of us aren’t impresssed with her presentation and implication that all women in South Dakota are as ruthless and as lacking in morals as she herself is.
I believe that if Kate Looby is on a high horse, more power to her. I don’t think she ever stated that her views were the views of everyone. The concept of state government, or any level of government dictating morality is sickening, and about as anti-democracy as you can get. What’s the next step, only attending government sanctioned churches, or religous gatherings. I feel that a woman should have the right to choose, not that they would choose to have an abortion, but they have the choice. It is interesting to me that the “religous” people that oppose this seem to forget that God gave his son so that we would have the choice between sin or not. The Bible I am familiar with supports having choices, not condenming people for their choices.
Actually God didn’t send His son so that we can sin, He sent His son as an atonement for our sins, He made a way for us to not be seperated from Him. This is far from “fire insurance, and the attitude you are taking only cheapens grace and neglects the fact that the same God who sent His Son is in fact a just God that hates innocent bloodshed, and what it does to all parties. No one is redeemed through the blood of Jesus without repentance. And that means turning from wrong, being sorry for it, and turning to obedience.