Democrat Joe Riding challenging Kim Pearson in Iowa House district 30

One of the most surprising Iowa House Republican winners from 2010 now has a Democratic challenger. Altoona City Council member Joe Riding announced yesterday that he will run against State Representative Kim Pearson in the new House district 30, a swing seat covering much of eastern Polk County.  

House district 30 covers the Des Moines suburbs Altoona, Bondurant and Carlisle (the Polk County part), as well as rural areas and small towns Elkhart, Mitchellville and Runnells.

Iowa,Iowa politics,2012 elections,Iowa House

As of spring 2011, the new House district 30 contained 6,629 registered Democrats, 6,523 registered Republicans and 5,756 no-party voters. It leans less Democratic than the old House district 42, where Pearson shocked State Representative Geri Huser in 2010. Huser hadn’t faced a Republican opponent in 2006 or 2008. She was endorsed by the conservative Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s PAC and was the only House Democratic candidate backed by the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. Nevertheless, she fell 126 votes short of Pearson; an independent candidate drew more than 500 votes in that race.

Pearson had never run for office before taking on Huser. In contrast, her Democratic challenger is an experienced candidate. From the Iowa House Democrats’ August 4 press release:

Small business owner and three-term Altoona City Council member, Joe Riding, announced today that he will run for state representative in the new House District 30, which includes all of Altoona and large parts of Eastern Polk County.

Joe Riding is a lifelong resident of Eastern Polk County and Altoona.  He has served twice as President of the Altoona Chamber of Commerce.  Riding is also past President of the Altoona Community Campus, a multi-purpose recreational facility, which currently has 9,000 local members.

He is part-owner and general manager of Terrace Hills Golf Course in Altoona, a family-owned business since 1964.

Altoona is by far the largest city in House district 30, with a population of 13,903 according to the 2010 census. Riding’s biography looks promising, as many Iowa legislators had prior experience on city councils or chambers of commerce. It’s not clear where Riding stands on any contentious political issues. His press release suggests that he will be running as the right kind of person to serve in the Iowa House, not as an advocate for specific policies:

“Our current political system is broken, with too many legislators putting their own partisan ideology before the needs of their constituents,” Riding said today.  “Growing up in a family business has taught me important values, like working with others to find pragmatic solutions to problems.  I am running to bring some needed civility and common sense back to the statehouse for the citizens of Eastern Polk County.”

Sounds a lot like Christie Vilsack’s rhetoric against Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. Riding didn’t mention the incumbent by name in his press release, but we can already see the case he’ll make against Pearson: she is too partisan, not pragmatic enough, uncivil and lacking in common sense.

Pearson quickly became one of the most controversial Iowa House Republicans when she and a colleague refused to support a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation, because it didn’t go far enough to stop abortions in Iowa. Her opposition forced GOP leaders to run that bill through another committee. Pearson was one of three Republicans to vote against the 20-week abortion ban on the House floor. She later caused turmoil in her caucus by trying to suspend the rules to bring a “personhood” bill to a vote in the House.

Pearson was also among five House Republicans who filed articles of impeachment against the four remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices. Their supposedly impeachable offense was concurring in the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling on same-sex marriage rights. GOP leaders distanced themselves from the impeachment drive.

Reid Forgrave’s must-read Des Moines Register profile of Pearson mentions several other votes that were out of step with the majority caucus:

She began building a voting record that didn’t fall in line with Republican orthodoxy. She voted against tax-credit bills to help businesses and to subsidize ethanol and wind power, ideas she views as part of “crony capitalism.” She voted against Republican Gov. Terry Branstad’s proposed revamp of the economic development department because she said it put government in the position of picking winners and losers. She voted against all but one of the Republican-backed budget bills because she thought they gave too much power to the executive branch. She backed a law to open up sales of raw milk, which she framed not as a local-food question but as a freedom issue.

I would add that Pearson was one of only two House Republicans to vote against a nuclear energy bill in April. That bill was tailor-made for one corporation and would have forced higher utility bills on hundreds of thousands of MidAmerican customers. Not many so-called small-government, anti-tax Republicans came down on the side of the little guy’s wallet.

In Iowa Democratic circles, it’s common to hear people dismiss Pearson as “crazy” or “scary.” Reality: her views are no more crazy or scary than those held by many other elected officials. Scores of Republican state senators and representatives claim to believe that life begins at conception, or that government should not pick winners and losers. Few have the courage to vote their conscience against the wishes of their party’s leaders.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly with House File 153, the “personhood” bill that would in effect prohibit all abortions and several forms of birth control. That said, I give Pearson credit for not being easily intimidated by hypocrites. There’s not a single pro-choice Republican serving at the state capitol. Why shouldn’t the party with a 60-40 Iowa House majority enact a bill stating that life must be protected from conception? The tenets underlying that bill are in the very first planks of the Iowa GOP platform.

Pearson endorsed Ron Paul for president rather than safer choices like Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney. She cited Paul’s “experience, integrity and tenacity” as well as his small-government views. I oppose most of what Paul stands for, but he does think for himself.

Republican leaders didn’t target Pearson’s long-shot race against Huser in 2010. She received only token support of $2,500 toward the end of the campaign.

Pearson said that after spending one month in the Legislature, she returned the money to the party.

“I wrote a check, gave it to them and they came running after me, asking, ‘What does this mean?’ and I went, ‘I don’t owe you a thing,'” Pearson said.

“I am shocked with what happens behind closed doors when I have grown men that will stand up and say that they have all of these problems with a bill, but if leadership tells me to vote for it I’ll do it.”

That sounds crazy if you view an Iowa House seat as a way up the political ladder. Don’t make waves, learn to get along, do as you’re told. Yet if you think legislators should use their own best judgment, Pearson’s stance isn’t crazy at all.

Pearson has said she might endorse primary challengers to some Republican lawmakers. That won’t win her many brownie points, but so what? She is not focused on being popular at the statehouse. She is trying to change Iowa law to reflect her agenda.

John Deeth suggests that Pearson might face a Republican primary challenger herself. I’d be surprised to see that. Although GOP leaders may privately worry that Pearson can’t hold a swing district in a presidential election year, she has many strong supporters in the anti-choice and tea party movements. Poking those constituencies in the eye doesn’t seem like a good strategy for holding the seat.

Pearson may prove too conservative for the electorate in the new House district 30. On the other hand, I don’t consider this an easy pickup for Iowa Democrats. If Riding argues that Pearson is “too partisan,” she can recite a long list of votes cast against the majority in her own party. Maybe her legislative crusades aren’t always pragmatic, but she has honestly tried to do what she campaigned on. “Common sense” is in the eye of the beholder, and I’m not convinced voters will prefer a candidate who is “civil” over one who speaks out for what she believes, no matter who is offended.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

Maintenance Notice - As of November 14, 2023 we are still seeing issues with replying to comments...Thanks for your patience, this will be restored.

  • stranger things have happened

    Witness relative moderate Dave Mulder taking out Sen. Ken Veenstra in a 2004 primary up in the northwest. Granted, that was in a part of the state where the GOP primary was a de facto general election. And eight years ago is a long time. Nowdays my money is always on the hard right in a modern era GOP primary.

    Still, if constituents are embarrassed enough (as they were by Veenstra’s obsession with all things gay) it can happen.

    My main takeaway is: Pearson was a relative unknown in 2010 and barely won, and now the customers know what they bought.

    • didn't follow that primary closely

      but wasn’t Veenstra generally considered a do-nothing legislator? I thought some of the anti-gay stuff was a desperate attempt to make himself seem important/relevant, after he realized he had a primary challenger.

  • Fascinating read

    A thinker( i.e.: your essay)

    I love the anecdote about returning the campaign contribution. The lady apparently went to DSM somewhat naive and her response to the awakening shows a strength of conviction we don’t see much in politicians.

    Thanks for portraying her in a light somewhat more flattering than the standard portraits of her have been all year.

    There is tho, the matter of the taking-down of the backdrop poster during some lobbying event: wasn’t she the lady who did that and then lied about it when confronted? If that was this lady, not quite so honorable there.

    • I think you are referring

      to State Representative Annette Sweeney, who took down a poster of dogs being mistreated. As chair of the House Agriculture Committee, Sweeney was the leading force behind the proposed ban on secret recordings at farms.

      Pearson took down a different sign, which tried to restrict a women’s restroom for use by state legislators only.

      • Yep, you're right

        It was the animal poster I was erroneously thinking of. I hadn’t heard about the ladies restroom sign episode, sounds like more stand on convictions. Good for her.

        I may kind of “like” her after mulling on your essay, so I’m happy to not be in that district having to vote against because of my own Party reasons.

        Speaking of political courage have you seen the story of Christy (R-NJ) calling the sharia law crap, “crap”?…

        I generally dislike him but that move in the current rethug party climate does stand out.

        • I would not hesitate

          to vote against Pearson. I have more respect for her than for quite a few other House Republicans, though.

          Still don’t feel a bit sorry for Geri Huser.

  • Good write up

    I’m still not convinced that dogma is a good principle to have regardless of how desirable/undesirable your position may be.  I’m sure Jim Traficant truly believed in some of the positions he took in his career.

    We had a lot of GOPers sneak in because of a low turnout year.  Pearson and her Ron Paul loving views were meant for a different century however and she should be priority number one for defeat in my estimation.  

    • Dogma

      Here is my dogma:  Totally love God (not just part way) and love my neighbor in an equal way that I love myself.  This ethic or morality says that murder, lying, stealing, and wanting my neighbor’s property is wrong.  I also believe that Congress shall make no law regarding religion.  I believe that dogma is good and is the foundation of our laws.

      • Truth

        bp, Rep. Pearson does bring her “faith” as a part of the process and she every right to do that.  I probably agree with you on some questions that can be tied to faith such as the Protestant work ethic.  I was referring to dogma strictly on a political basis.  

        She’s going to get in the way of enterprise when she find that enterprise to be “immoral” or she would cut taxes to the point that parents will be forced to home school and I’m an advocate for school CHOICE, but school choice advocates should not advocate for miniscule funding of public schools.  Pearson would vote to cut workforce development programs, any program under the sun because of her antiquated view of the Constitution.

        I have no problem voting for Republicans when they are truly reasonable and modern in their point of view.  Kim Pearson does not fit that mold.  

        • Modern Evidence

          Pearson and I believe in choice in education.  She is not trying to dismantle public education but we need to make our government give better value for our money.  Private schools outperforms public schools at less cost.  More competition (vouchers) would force our public schools to improve.  Look at the modern evidence.

          Business and the economy do best when government is not involved.  Government adds regulatory burdens and taxes to businesses.  Workforce development programs are funded by higher taxes.  Reduce these thing and you will have economic development.  Compare Iowa to Texas or North Dakota for modern evidence.

          • Texas and North Dakota

            have fossil fuels reserves Iowa lacks. And despite rapid job creation in Texas, that state still has a higher unemployment rate than Iowa and is in much worse fiscal condition than we are. Their public education system is a disaster as well.

            • Economic development

              Developed, relatively unhindered financial markets prevent persistence of mistakes. By so doing, they quickly redirect the use of capital and ensure that savings and capital are deployed more effectively.

              Economic development is promoted by removing government burdens and taxes. Debt is another issue, resources are another issue, unemployment is another issue, and education is another issue.

              Another logic error of irrelevant thesis.

              • Clarification

                Economic development is more complicated than just having a favorable government.  It usually involves a combination of:

                1. Hard work

                2. Smart work

                3. Saving and investment

                4. Invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship

                5. Trading

                6. Population growth

                7. The rule of law under a minimal state

          • What evidence?

            As far as I’ve read, the evidence suggests that alternative approaches to education aren’t demonstrably better or worse than our public schools.  (Private schools might have better average outcomes, but they also pick and choose their students.  Public schools don’t have that luxury.)

            • Evidence

              Most of the studies that support public education are preformed by public educators.

              A friend of mine retired several years ago.  He volunteered to teach Des Moines high school graduates how to read.  He taught children who had the ability but not the will to read.

              A 2009 comparison between public and Catholic school SAT scores showed the public average of 496 points verses the Catholic average of 533 points.  The study pointed to smaller class size, parental involvement, teacher involvement, the flexibility with the private system (in contrast to government mandates), lack of Catholic teacher unions, the discipline and the regiment style differences rather than a selection basis in child ability. With private education, if the parents and students are not receiving good value, they will change schools.

              The average cost of tuition per pupil in a Catholic elementary school is $3,383 and secondary education is $8,182.  Private education is $10,614 per pupil.

              • correction

                Public education is $10,614 per pupil in the comparison study.

                • Citation

                  Can you link to that study?  I highly suspect it does nothing to account for selection bias.


                  • Okay

                    Here is where I read this information:


                    We will never control for selection bias with our children’s education.  I do know many home school families.  None of them who have a handicapped child would select to sent them to public school.  They would be even more motivated to give their child an individualized learning environment.

                    My coworker is taking her 6th grade child out of public school and is enrolling him into Des Moines Christian.  He has autism.  Her younger daughter is staying in public school.  She does not have autism.  The children who are doing well in public school are less likely to be taken out and have their parents spend more money on an alternative education.

                    I think the selection bias may be less important than you think.  My point is not whether public is better than private.  For some families, public is better.  My point is that Mrs. Pearson is pro-choice with education.  She is not against public education.  She is against wasteful spending that does not educate our children.

        • THE TRUTH

          Free enterprise is moral.  Enterprise against my will is immoral.

          You have made untruthful statements about Pearson.  She does not believe that all enterprise is immoral and she does not intend to eliminate public education or only provide a minuscule budget.  She will not cut any program under the sun, just the programs (despite good intentions) that ultimately hurt our State.  Your logic error is the irrelevant thesis.

          The antiquated view of the Constitution protected life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The antiquated view of the Constitution gave mankind freedom and not oppression.  I prefer antiquated over the modern interruption.

          • Read again

            I said certain forms of enterprise that she finds immoral.  Free enterprise is moral, we agree.  Taxation in moderation does not limit free enterprise, it can enhance free enterprise because it can create a more favorable enterprise.  

            Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not limited by a modern view of the Constitution.  Mothers may decide not to have children, but mothers make decisions for their children everyday that a child may feel violates their liberty.  People don’t typically get to make many decisions of their own until they go out into the workforce.

            A company can seek private funding of their projects if they see fit.  Workforce development is about job training as well, vocational schools, community college program.  Private companies want an educated workforce.  They ask for a lot of the workforce development programs.

            The United States does not oppress its own people, you have a right to live here or not.  If you consider our system of taxation “oppressive”, leave.

            This is a philosophical discussion that will lead nowhere.  Pearson has views stuck in another century and she needs to be defeated.  

            • I Did

              Sorry, I still do not see “certain forms” in your original statement.

              This discussion could lead to somewhere if you stopped labeling Mrs. Pearson from another century and explained what is a modern view of the Constitution?  

              You have made many unsupported and unfair statements that do not represent Mrs. Pearson.  Mrs. Pearson does not want to dismantle community colleges.  She is not as extreme as you describe her.  Her oldest daughter will start her second year this fall at one of our local community colleges.  Your writing is based on fear and not knowledge.

              Liberty has never meant a lack of family structure, laws or responsibility.

              I was not referring to personal tax oppression but the idea of government programs to stimulate the economy really cause more harm than benefit.

              • Continuing for some reason unknown to me.

                “when she find that enterprise to be “immoral”, finds sorry for the typo is the exact wording, certain forms was a better way of saying it.  I apologize.

                If you pass legislation that under funds programs that may not dismantle them, but it may limit the amount of  equipment in a wielding course for example.  We need wielders in this state.  I support oversight of these programs and I never used the word dismantle, but to underfund something does little good either.  

                Don’t bullshit me here, the whole Tea Party movement is about turning authority back to the states in a strong fashion, if you endorse Ron Paul you are taking us back to an era that I want no part of.  Her votes, her public statements, her website, her ideas fit in another century.  That’s not meant to be an insult per se, but it is the crux of the Tea Party movement.  She is not someone I want in the legislature.  If Pearson had endorsed anyone else in the GOP field I would not be so against her.  

                Don’t insult my intelligence, I simply do not trust paleo-conservatives.  I can’t envision a true hardline enforcement of the 10th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, nor do I necessarily want that.  I have not insulted your intelligence throughout this discussion.

                If a mother has a right to regulate a child within a home, why does she not have a right to regulate a child in a womb in a hospital setting..hmm…You can have as many children as you want and try to enforce the rules of a strong family unit, I have no disagreement with that.

                Justice Breyer represents a modern view of the Constitution.  I don’t agree with him on a number of issues including copyright regulation, but he has a modern view of the Constitution.  

                I agree with you that food stamps, unemployment insurance, many other programs don’t stimulate the economy.  I would argue that companies often will leave if they don’t see a capable workforce in an area or they don’t have the incentive programs in place to start a company somewhere.  It’s a global economy and sometimes you have to make deals with the devil in a modern world.

                • Continuing For Understanding and Truth

                  I am sorry that I have offended you.  I have not said anything about your intelligence.  I have only pointed out that you are making false statements about Mrs. Pearson.

                  I understand better your beliefs about State verses Federal rights and antiquated verses modern.  I disagree with you.  I would rather not a Federal government that tries to do too much and is $14.6 trillion in debt.  That is not good for our country or the next generations.

                  The 2009 Iowa session voted to increase education’s budget by 2% but they did not fund their promise.  Mrs. Pearson voted to fund their promise.

                  A mother does need to regulate their child, but they are never allowed to murder them.  I do not believe that you have make deals with the devil since God is omnipotent.

                  • Correction

                    It was the 2010 Iowa session, not the 2009.

                  • Blah

                    I am not making false statements about her at all.  She is not someone who I consider to be a strong proponent of funding public educational system, period.  

                    I have a problem with the national debt as well.  I was a supporter of the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson plan, another matter that put me at odds with a majority of those commenting on this blog.

                    You said in your previous statement that my writing is based on fear and not knowledge, that is an insult in my view.

                    I don’t consider deaths that happen on a battlefield to be murder, nor do I consider deaths in defense of one’s home or property to be murder.  A woman who decides to have an abortion in a hospital setting may or may be doing that out of malice.  It’s not murder according to my moral convictions.  A person can have as many children as they want.  I’m an agnostic, you need definitive proof of your God before you go ahead regulating life and death matters, once a person leaves a hospital setting, it is a murder in my view.  

                    I believe in the rule of law and support a growing population in Iowa.  Gay marriage is also not a threat to procreation in the state of Iowa either, but of course your “faith” tells you otherwise.  

                    LOL, of course I meant devil in a metaphorical sense.  God does not play a hand in most secular, business matters.  If he does in your mind, again you need more than a religious text to convince me.  

                    I have been critical of Pearson since day one and that will not change until she is defeated.

                    • Reply

                      “She’s going to get in the way of enterprise when she find that enterprise to be “immoral” or she would cut taxes to the point that parents will be forced to home school and I’m an advocate for school CHOICE, but school choice advocates should not advocate for miniscule funding of public schools.  Pearson would vote to cut workforce development programs, any program under the sun because of her antiquated view of the Constitution.”  This is false and I have freedom to correct you.

                      If you define murder as unlawful killing, then you are right.

                      If you define murder as “…deprive any person of life…without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  (US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1)

                      I believe this second definition.

                      I cannot proof God exists.  We (US citizens) are under the authority of our national and state Constitutions and laws.  Murder is regulated in these documents.  Whether it was in a hospital or not would not matter to the court.  Planned Parenthood is not a hospital.

                      I agree with you that gay marriage is not a treat to procreation in the State of Iowa.  I have a problem with the method they used to make “law” through the Supreme Court.

                      I would not reply if I did not respect you and know that you are intelligent.  I would never try to convince you to vote for her.  Just like I would not try to convince you of God or my beliefs.

                      It is good to be critical.  It is bad to make false statements.  That’s my dogma.

                      • "Person"

                        bp wrote: “If you define murder as unlawful killing, then you are right.

                        If you define murder as “…deprive any person of life…without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  (US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1)

                        I believe this second definition.”


                        Respectfully, I logically assume that you hold the belief that a fetus is a person. While I can’t dispute that, neither can I yet accept that conclusion  because I don’t think that science has yet settled that matter.

                        It seems that Religion has satisfied itself with an answer and possibly has gotten some legislatures to accept Religion’s definition and write same into some law, but even “Statute”  has no place trying to define  something that Science hasn’t yet settled out.

                        • Reply

                          You are right.  I do not believe that the birthing process (vaginal or cesarean) changes the nonperson into a person.  If it did, we have drawn the legal abortion line in the wrong spot.  I do not believe that science can answer your question but it can say that a unique life (based on DNA that is unique) continues from the time of conception until death.  I am a physician.

                          Isn’t this Country great!

                          • problem

                            If all life must be protected from the moment of conception, could you please explain to me why the anti-abortion movement never tries to change state or federal law to restrict fertility treatments? As you are probably aware (being a physician), in-vitro fertilization techniques usually result in a number of “excess” fertilized eggs. Clinics typically discard those unless the person or couple who sought treatment pays to keep the embryos preserved indefinitely. That can be expensive.

                            I never hear about the anti-choice movement protesting outside fertility clinics, or suggesting that laws should require implantation of all embryos created, or claiming that people who had IVF without implanting all the embryos have in effect murdered several children.

                            The “personhood” bill Pearson advocates would call into question forms of birth control that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. State Representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell raised this issue during an Iowa House subcommittee hearing (starting around 2:30 mark of this video):

                            Even Pearson hesitated to endorse the idea of the state banning forms of contraception, or punishing women for using the wrong kind of contraception.

                            • Santorum and Brownback

                              Santorum and Brownback came fairly close to criticizing IVF.  Santorum in particular has danced around that issue for years.  

                            • reply

                              The question I heard was, “Will the State be forced to ban contraception?”  First of all Mrs. Pearson cannot speak for the State.  Contraception works in different ways and will most likely be a more complicated answer than a simple yes or no.  The “hesitation” that I see in Mrs. Pearson is wanting to deal with the “horse” part of the issue before the “cart” part.  (I understand they are connected.)

                              This is complicated and very emotional.  IVF as a very expense elective procedure.  I cannot answer all of your concerns but one scenario could be: more decisions to not have intercourse until the male and female are willing to accept the link between intercourse and reproduction.   We should not have intercourse unless we are willing to be mothers and fathers.   With no abortions, there could be more adoptions.  Radical from what we have been doing but ethical.  It would be a culture change, but it would only happen if enough people believed in it and fought for it.  I do not think these kind of changes can happen through minority representation.

                            • note

                              My reply to this submission was put in the submission directly below.

                            • Sorry, My reply to this submission is further down

                      • Quit calling me a liar

                        I did not make a false statement.  The Branstad Administration and House Republicans consistently called for zero funding increase for public schools.  Did she vote for a bill to fund schools?  Yes, but does that fit her ideological outlook, I do mot believe so.  I think she has deep ideological divides not only with her party, but also people like me.  She does have an antiquated view of the Constitution as does Ron Paul.  You have the freedom to be wrong.

                        Planned Parenthood has trained physicians working for them, most PP locations do not perform abortions, but that is another discussion.  Murder is a loaded word for you to use, you’re an offensive person to speak with on this question.  Murder typically involves malice, you shouldn’t make women who are going through a painful decision already.  Roe v.s.  Wade is settled law and I thank God for that.    

                        She is very dogmatic in her views, if you didn’t like the word dogma being used or you were trying to be cute, that your choice.  

                        • reply

                          You are right that I should not use the word murder in this situation since murder refers to illegal killings.

                          Malice refers to doing something bad or ill to someone else.  

                          Is Roe vs. Wade law or court opinion?  Is any law settled?

                          Why is deciding on an abortion a painful decision?  

                          • Reply

                            I’m aware of the definition of malice thank you, I don’t think women who have abortions are trying to do ill to the child, they are scared and not ready for a pregnancy or motherhood.  That was my point with the term. Malice is typically associated with murder.

                            Unfortunately in this case you are correct, Roe v.s. Wade is not settled law.  In my view if we want to be a civilized, modern and ethical society who doesn’t put faith before reality, it needs to be settled law.

                            It is a painful decision in the same reason people get uncomfortable about the death penalty, right to die issues get tough, or even a physical ailment that you know will kill you gets tough.  People who support abortion rights are not callous, we just don’t pretend to have all of the answers like so many in the “pro-life” community do.

                            • Bleeding Heart

                              Killing their child is doing the child ill.  Is being scared or not ready a reason to kill someone?

                              Slavery was legal reality.  Should it have stayed settled by your same argument?

                              From Wikipedia,

                              “A bleeding heart is an informal label applied to someone regarded as excessively sympathetic, liberal in a political sense, or both. It is typically considered a derogatory remark. Etymologically, the term originated as a Christ reference, originally the bleeding heart under a cross, representing the sufferings of Jesus crucified.”

                              I do not want to be derogatory, I want to challenge this community blog.  Whether you believe it or not, the story of Jesus Christ is that He was God and was with His Father in heaven.  He choose to humble himself and take on the form of a human.  He gave up His position and honor.  He gave up His freedom and liberty so that He could die in our place to satisfy His Father’s wrath against our sin.  He died so that we could live.  This was the Father’s plan and it shows us what love is.

                              This community’s expression in this blog (whose name comes from what Jesus Christ did) would rather kill another than give up their own liberty.  This is the opposite of what your name represents.

                              I do not have all the answers but I have seen what love is and I believe in it (Him).

                              • Reply

                                Killing is not an ideal way to deal with the child, but I’m not going to tell a woman she has to go through a pregnancy just because they had sexual intercourse, can I control everyone’s choices? No.

                                Under your definition of slavery, a woman telling her child what to do is also slavery.  As someone who knows that there is an after life, how do you know that the aborted child will not just back to Heaven with Jesus Christ?  Death is not something that should be considered harmful or scary in the end to a Christian.  I’m not some sort of Godless anarchist or totalitarian in any way,  I don’t believe in slavery and I’m tired of this debate.  You always claim to just be questioning logic, I think your main goal is to spam this site with your theological perspective.  

                                You are beating your head against a wall here, we fundamentally disagree and there is no point in having this discussion further.  I do not know if Jesus Christ died for me to live, that kind of theory is above my pay grade.  

                                I have had these discussions with people for years and I know what love is as well, madam or sir.  We are getting nowhere in this discussion.  I do think there is an arrogance to your argument and a moral superiority to an argument.  

                                • Reply

                                  If you are tired, then stop.

                                  I would not and did not define slavery as a mother-child relationship.

                                  I am not afraid of death and I am not afraid for the child.  I want to warn those who are in the dark and leading others into darkness.

                                  I took, “Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.” as an invitation to express my thoughts.

                                  I am not morally superior to anyone.   I am a sinner.  But we should be looking for the good of the governed in this community political blog.

                                  • your worldview is clear

                                    This thread was meant to be about next year’s campaign in Iowa House district 30. I don’t mind commenters discussing/disagreeing about policy matters, but this blog isn’t a forum for me or anyone else to promote religious views.

                                    • Reply

                                      I was writing about political and social issues.  Abortion, marriage, law, the separation of powers, due process, education, the Constitution…

                                    • Accountability

                                      One of the objectives for this political community blog is accountability.  We need to do what is just and responsible.  Human life is more valuable than sexual freedom.  Justice and due process are more valuable than sexual freedom.  Fiscal responsibility is more valuable than big government benefits.  If you believe otherwise, then you are not a bleeding heart, you are selfish.

                                      • Left wing leaning blog

                                        I think you put me in a more left-wing category than I am.  I’m not for “big government benefits” in my eyes.  I opposed the health care reform act, oppose extension of unemployment benefits for 99ers, oppose the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, oppose cap and trade, oppose the legalization of hard drugs. and supported the Welfare Reform Act that was signed by President Clinton.

                                        Just because I oppose the abolition of the income tax, generally want to keep funding some programs that you oppose does not mean I am for big government sir or madam.

                                        I don’t have a magic pill and I can’t control other people’s behavior.  I personally believe that if a mother can regulate a child at home, they can do inside of the home.  You’re not going to get me to budge on this.  I think you’re going off on an unproven theory when it comes to reproductive matters. Do not insult people again on this blog by claiming we are leading people into the darkness, reproductive rights feel like the bright lights.

                                        Culver had property tax owners pick up the bill for educational spending, local control a Tea Party delight.  

  • marriage rights

    Marriage “rights” only come through Iowa Code.  Currently there is no Iowa Code for homosexual marriage.  The Supreme Court Justices can declare Iowa Code unconstitutional but cannot give this “right”.  They are limited in their power by the Iowa Constitution.  This right is not in the United States or the Iowa Constitution and can only be given through the Legislative Branch.

    • most legal and constitutional scholars

      do not share your opinion.

      The Iowa legislature sought to restrict marriage rights to heterosexual couples. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously declared that law unconstitutional. A county recorder in Iowa has no legal basis not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple seeking one.

      • Logic Error

        When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, we go back to the law that was in effect prior to the unconstitutional law.  A county recorder in Iowa only has legal basis to issue a marriage license based on Iowa Code.  Show me the code.

        You are making the logic error of appeal to authority.

        The power rests in the people through representation.  All power in every branch of government needs to be limited by the Constitution.  Iowa Code frequently restricts rights to certain groups of people (driving license, taxation, Medicare, welfare, draft…).

        • not how the world works

          When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, all state anti-miscegenation laws became null and void. Citizens wanting to marry someone from another race did not have to wait for their states to officially repeal the unconstitutional laws, or pass new laws explicitly permitting interracial marriage.

          True, Iowa Code restricts rights to certain groups of people when the state is able to show a compelling interest in doing so (e.g. people who have committed certain crimes lose their driving privileges because they are a danger to others). The Iowa Supreme Court found no compelling state interest was served by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

          • How the real world works

            The difference between interracial heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is that the product of these unions are different.  The people value the work and responsibility that a married heterosexual couple does to raise a family.  Homosexual couples cannot produce children.  Properly raised children are one of the best ways for our society to continue.  Interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

            The people voted out every Supreme Court Justice that was up for retention.  The people have expressed clear disagreement with the method and outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision.  Ultimately the power rests in the people and that is how the real world works.  

            You have made the logic error of imperfect analogy.