Republican Legislator Who Was On Vacation For Abortion Votes Claims She Was Brought To Tears By Their Signing


As SAB readers know, the abortion issue is so important to Fargo area Rep. Kathy Hawken that she went on vacation to Las Vegas last week while the House held four key votes on the issue (and she collected her legislative pay while there).

Now she’s claiming that she was so overcome by emotion when Gov. Dalrymple signed the laws she was brought to tears.

KXNet – Bismarck/Minot/Williston/Dickinson

Whatever your position on the issue of abortion, it’s clearly time to stop taking Rep. Hawken seriously.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Lianne

    Tears of anger or happiness? Or could she NOT vote NO because of her very personal belief in life at every level?

  • Guest Observer

    Hawkin=Washed up hack……….

  • devilschild

    politician or acting…politician or acting…apparently she chose acting

  • exsanguine

    the faked, fakiness of the fakey tears were out in full force on the newsies tonight. what a pelosi wanna-be this hack is.

  • RCND

    Oh the drama. Get her a gift certificate for Chico’s or Christopher & Banks.

    • tomorrowclear

      This from the geniuses who are here every day emoting like 12 year-old girls about how their freedoms (and money) are being taken from them.

      BTW, when will the men in the light blue helmets be showing up to take our guns? I have a dental appointment Thursday and I’d hate to miss an opportunity to take a potshot at the grunts of the tri-lateralist gun-grabbers.

      • copperhead

        How can anyone give you thumbs down for this post?

        • Rob

          It’s probably all the people who see Tomorrowclear, rightly, as just another sad internet troll.

          And not a particularly creative one, at that.

  • headward

    The legislature only meets every two years. Why did she schedule a vacation while they were in session?

    • Conservative_Egghead

      She’s had an attitude of entitlement towards that seat for years. Say what you want about Jim Kasper (her running mate); he might not be the easiest guy in the world to get along with, and he tends to cover too often for her screw-ups, but he works hard to get elected. During session, he’s one of the first people in the chamber (or in committee) in the morning, and usually one of the last ones to leave at night. She spends so much time in Florida that she could barely be bothered to campaign last year.

      • kevindf

        Kasper has called me personally. He still plays dumb, though. He did mention he reads this blog.

  • tomorrowclear

    I hereby propose a 24 hour waiting period for abortions and a 24 hour waiting period for ejaculation. What good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?

    • NDConservative2011

      If you had to wait 24 hours for masturbation and ejaculation, what you would do for the 1/2 hour that you are not practicing either or both.

      • tomorrowclear

        Ask your sister to get me a cold beverage?

        • conservachic

          Come on, guys! Is that all ya got? I need some more laughs!

  • tomorrowclear

    How many of you geniuses take the position that abortion is murder, that there is a murderer in our midst right down in Fargo, yet cannot be moved to do anything to prevent these serial killings beyond posting on Robert’s comments sections and voting?

    Doesn’t really compute, does it? If a serial killer were in our midst, wantonly killing innocent people, with a license from the state, I would do something about it. Is your inaction due to your cowardice or is it really that, deep in your brains, you know that it really isn’t murder? While you dilly-dally and do nothing, a few more “babies” have been murdered. And more will be.

    I’m going with the latter, by the way.

    • Rob

      So that’s the standard? If we’re not willing to overthrow the government, we can’t be pro-life?

      Sadly, not the dumbest argument I’ve heard today.

      • tomorrowclear

        Can you explain precisely where I stated that anyone should overthrow the government? Or even implied it?

        Let me make more comprehensible to you by explicitly spelling it out. You believe “abortion is murder.” By the calculations of those who feed you your numbers, we’re talking millions of “murders” per year. Over several years, that dwarfs the Holocaust itself and eventually eclipses anything done by Pol Pot or Stalin. Using your logic, it’s mass murder on the scale of nothing we have ever seen. If you were in Poland, next to an extermination camp or in the killing fields of Cambodia and had a chance to stop one or more of the people doing the actual killings, would you argue that killing the killer would be “immoral” or “anti-life?’ No, of course you wouldn’t. Given that no one here is a pacifist, that would be a ridiculous claim. Now, why, as you live in the midst of serial killers, do none of you step up to stop this serial killer? At best, what you muster up is some pathetic whimper that, someday, sometime in the future, you will get that fifth justice on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Meantime, millions more “babies” will be murdered. May I tell you why none of you do anything to actually stop these “serial murders?” It’s because you don’t really believe abortions are akin to anything that occurred in the actual Holocaust. If you did, at least a few of you would do something more than post on internet message boards and vote for crooks who claim to be kindred spirits.

        Now, tell me again where I’m arguing that you should be “overthrowing the government?” You see, Robert, I suspect you’re probably a genuinely nice person. A gentle soul. The kind of fellow we’d like to have a beer with. That counts for something. Yes, I think most of the position you take are ill-conceived and easily deconstructed and I don’t think you’re going to split the atom anytime soon, but you’re a fundamentally good guy. I think you sometimes post nonsense that you know is nonsense, knowing that the vast majority of nitwits will be none the wiser, but I still think you’re probably a good egg.

        • Rob

          The thing is, the standard you’re setting is basically armed resistance. You’re saying, by my standards, it’s a holocaust so I can’t be pro-life unless I’m ready to go to war like we did against some of the murderous tyrants you named.

          I think the practice of abortion is monstrous, but it’s a societal ill. It’s not like the Nazis executing the Jews, etc.

          Surely you can see through the cloud of smug you’re sitting in to realize this, no?

          • yy4u2

            I’m not a betting man, but I’m all in for a no and can’t wait to see how much more pathetic the response will be.

          • tomorrowclear

            You’re deliberately “clouding” this debate by injecting your own loaded words to distract from salient points. I’m not talking about “war,” and certainly not a war against the state. At this point, you realize that. (I accept your retraction)

            Then, to top it off, you insert some absolute babble words in the form of “societal ills,” which sounds dangerously close to the type of babble you might normally decry that can be heard emanating from public university sociology departments as we speak. Your argument is that if it is a “societal ill,” whatever the hell that means in this context, it absolves you and others from the moral imperative of stopping serial killers when the state refuses to stop them? Interesting. By the way, I thought one of the reasons we need to defund Planned Parenthood is because it entails state-sponsored “murders of babies?” If that were actually true, that would be akin to something sponsored by those tyrants, yes? Not merely “social ills.”

            No, no, Robert, I’m not asking you to go to war, nor against the states. Nor some nameless entity that protects you from living up to the principles you attempt to articulate.

            Intellectual honesty. It’s the hardest thing in this life to master, with the possible exception of forbearance. There are some massive contradictions in the popular “pro-life” positions. I’ve pointed them out many times. You have a choice. You can do what most people do when confronted with contradictions in their beliefs, you can ignore or you can reflect on them. It isn’t difficult to understand why most choose to ignore. It’s easier. If you really confronted your contradictions, not only might you have to adjust your beliefs on this issue, but you would undoubtedly have to adjust several more. That takes a bit of courage that isn’t at a high premium these days. Good luck.

          • tony_o2

            You are implying that we should be bombing clinics and murdering doctors if we truly believe that abortion is murder.

            Unfortunately, abortion is legal and the government protects these people with the rule of law. There have been people who have attacked these clinics and doctors, and where has it got us? Public condemnation that has set the pro-life movement back.

            You are fishing for someone to demonize in order to make your pro-abortion side look like the victims. But we aren’t biting.

          • Lincoln

            If my government was putting people in ovens I would be out on the streets and storming the government offices. It is obvious that this crowd understands the difference between abortion and murder.

          • tony_o2

            I would join you on the streets. In such a case, a coup could be effective in eliminating these murderers. Society has made a unanimous decision that such a wholesale murder of citizens is immoral and will not tolerate it. Our government would have to resort to full blown tyranny and a violent revolution would have the strength in numbers to oppose them. Assuming that they don’t disarm us first…. (if the Germans had not disarmed their own citizens, WW2 could have been called the German Revolution….)

            When it comes to abortion, society has not made this unanimous decision. While we are progressing to a pro-life majority, we have yet to reach a full consensus. Resorting to vigilantism will not help our progress, it will only set us back. It would transform the paid murderers into victims. It would portray the pro-life supporters as murderous hypocrites. It would shift the minds of the indifferent (pro-choice for lack of conviction) to the side of pro-abortion.

            People like tomorrowclear present us with an ultimatum in hopes of tripping us up. We need to reject his trap and stick by our convictions.

          • Rob

            No, no, Robert, I’m not asking you to go to war, nor against the states. Nor some nameless entity that protects you from living up to the principles you attempt to articulate.

            Sure you are. You want me to say that abortion is a holocaust so that you can dismiss my objection to it because I’m not willing to overthrow the government that has made abortion legal.

            That’s the premise you’re setting up, and it’s absurd.

          • tomorrowclear

            We’ll run through it one more time. These are your premises:

            1. Abortion constitutes murder.

            2. The state allows these murders to occur in most cases. (In fact, it actually subsidizes it to a degree through a private institution)

            3. There are, at the very least, hundreds of thousands of murders each and every year in this fashion.

            Here is the definition of holocaust: “Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”

            Now, would you be a dear and explain, using your premises, how abortion does NOT constitute a “holocaust?” (grabbing the popcorn)

            Cornered, you revert back to this crazy assertion that if one of you took it upon yourself to stop one of these serial killers when the state refuses, that this would constitute “overthrowing the government.” You still haven’t explained how that would constitute a coup. (now grabbing the soda)

          • tony_o2

            When are you guys gonna lynch Bush for being a war criminal?

          • tomorrowclear

            I have never argued that Bush has killed someone nor do I argue that he is currently and will continue to kill people. Can you explain how you found Bush to be comparable to active abortion doctors?

          • tony_o2

            There are murderers who are acquitted because of technicalities supported by law. If a vigilante doesn’t take justice into their own hands, does that mean that the murder wasn’t actually a murder?

            Nobody is saying that abortion is not a holocaust. But it is not the Holocaust. Defeating the Nazis and eliminating Hitler himself was the solution to ending the Holocaust. Abortion cannot be remedied in the same way. Killing doctors and bombing clinics is not going to end abortion. There is no sole leader behind abortion that can be killed to end the war.

          • tomorrowclear

            Rob just said it is not a holocaust. In fact, he called it “absurd.”

          • tony_o2

            Your premise is that we should treat abortion the same as we would treat the Holocaust or else we should quit calling it murder. Your premise is what he is calling absurd.

          • AV

            You, as a nanny-statist, want the govt to ban something that you don’t like. And not only that, you have shown little interest in addressing the reasons why women have abortions in the first place. You are just advocating prohibition-era stupidity.

            I’m also against abortion (and I don’t have a uterus), so I probably won’t have an abortion. I’m also against the killing and eating of animals, which is really only done for “enjoyment”, so I won’t.

            So, nanny-statist, do you see the difference?

          • tomorrowclear

            They aren’t interested in stopping abortions. If they were actually interested in reducing abortions, they would seek out and then support those types of actions and behaviors that make them less frequent. They embrace exactly none of them and support the ones that are proven not to be effective in reducing abortions (are you listening, you “abstinence-only” geniuses). In fact, for the zealots, a large piece of their social lives would disappear if abortions disappeared tomorrow. It becomes a part of their identities.

          • AV

            And then the anti-freedom crowd use the “Pro-Life” name, to pretend to give some integrity to their anything-but-pro-life crusade, which makes me start ranting. :)

          • Rob

            That’s quite the leap in logic.

          • AV

            Pro-life is an overly-general term. Just to point out the absurdity, even plants are considered to be alive, so maybe only fruitarians can claim the pro-life title?

            Why don’t they use a more honest label?

          • Onslaught1066

            Why don’t they use a more honest label?

            You mean sort of like the pro-choice hypocrites do except if your choice happens to be life?

            Honestly, vegetable, I thought you liked to pretend how erudite you are.

            Try harder.

          • AV

            “I thought you liked to pretend how erudite you are.” — Onslaught1066

            I’d like to be able to craft well-reasoned responses, to shoot down the Fox-style, idiotic talking-points. But I’m not very good at it, I’m too impulsive.

            What’s your excuse? Your grammar and spelling are good, but there is rarely anything of value in any of your posts. Are you trying to be funny? Because it seems that you go straight for the cheap-shot, instead of wit.

            And these days, most people are basically immune to trolls. Your “insults,” or whatever you think they are, just mean that there is more chaff to filter, within a thread.

          • Onslaught1066

            “I’d like to be able to craft well-reasoned responses, to shoot down the Fox-style, idiotic talking-points. But I’m not very good at it,”– Persistent Vegetative State

            Well, there is that whole genetically incapable of growth thing you have claimed for yourself.

          • Onslaught1066

            And then the anti-freedom crowd use the “Pro-Choice” name, to pretend to give some integrity to their anything-but-pro-choice crusade, which makes me start laughing. :- D

          • Rob

            None of this is true, actually, but I know you enjoy attacking strawmen.

            I’m very much pro-contraception. I wish we had a 100% effective form of contraception. Unfortunately, we don’t.

          • tomorrowclear

            It is absolutely true.The zealots oppose the morning after pill, though it is precisely not what they claim it to be.

            They try their darndest to convince young people that sex is dangerous and that contraceptives are wholly inadequate. The stress “abstinence-only” nonsense not because there is any credible evidence that it is effective, but due to their hang-ups and dislike of sex without consequences.

          • Rob

            You, as a nanny-statist, want the govt to ban something that you don’t like.

            Well, yeah. I’m also for government bans on rape and theft, because I don’t like those things either.

            I’m not an anarchist. I believe in individual rights. I also believe that individualism begins at conception.

          • AV

            “I’m also for government bans on rape and theft” — Rob

            Good, you managed to call those two correctly, well done!

            “I also believe that individualism begins at conception.” — Rob

            And you are allowed to believe in emo foetuses, or whatever. But it is not the govt’s role to pass laws based on these beliefs, and you may recall that Jefferson had something to say about this.

          • tomorrowclear

            If you repeated the things Jefferson actually said, versus what these dullards hear through their David Barton/Glenn Beck filters, their little heads would explode.

            G ahead, quote Jefferson on entrenched wealth and see what I mean.

          • Rob

            Oh, do tell what Jefferson had to say about abortion and the beginning of life.

          • AV

            I haven’t heard about this, and it seems to be your story, so what did he say?

          • tomorrowclear

            Now you’re just flailing. The other poster broached the subject of Jefferson, who modern right-wingers have attempted to paint as a kindred spirit. I was implying nothing about Jefferson and abortion, just chuckling at the propensity of you folks to latch onto propaganda that is spoon-fed you that bares no resemblance to the actual facts. Most of you have more in common with Pinochet than Thomas Jefferson, if we’re being blunt.

          • AV

            And Jefferson’s ideas on this were inspired by those of Adam Smith. It would shock them to their core to learn that, their other hero, Adam Smith wasn’t a Rand Paul-type Tea Partier.

          • Rob

            The problem is that you think life beginning at conception is a matter of faith, rather than fact.

            I disagree.

          • AV

            A pre-fertilized egg is (just as) alive, in some sense. (Even bacteria are considered as being alive.) So why choose such an arbitrary point?

            And you almost certainly eat organisms that had more ability to feel suffering, and had more individuality, than an egg-cell with a sperm-tail sticking out of it.

          • Rob

            A pre-fertilized egg is not just as alive.

            If you leave a pre-fertilized egg alone, it doesn’t grow into anything. Life is a continuum of growth and development which begins at conception. There is no getting around this fact.

            And animals are certainly alive too, but they’re not human. Neither is bacteria. I find it alarming that you would compare human lives to bacteria and animals.

            But I guess that’s the sort of desperate equivalence one most resort to when trying to argue that a human life isn’t really a human life.

          • AV

            Are you trying to use the “potential” (to be human) argument? That argument quickly descends into silliness, and if you want some examples, go watch some discussions on this, from YouTube.

            But a single cell, fertilized or not, is not a person.

          • Onslaught1066

            You don’t even need to go that far.

            You are a perfect example that even if an egg is fertilized, spends 9 months (give or take) in a dark soupy mess, and somehow manages to fall out of its mothers c*nt, is no guarantee of humanity much less means it’s a person.

          • AV

            Not quite the point that I was trying to make. But this may be the closest you’ve been to discussing an actual topic?

          • Onslaught1066

            You were trying to make a point?

            I thought you were just playing with your poop, like any other monkey. (just trying to be inclusive of whatever it is you might have developed into soon after your father left the $20 on the night stand, never to be seen again)

          • AV

            “Life is a continuum of growth and development which begins at conception … fact.” — Rob

            Sorry, wrong. You may need to brush up on some biology.

          • Onslaught1066

            True, many, if not most libtards, go on to lead long, useless, stillborn lives.

            Growth not being a necessary part of their genetic makeup.

          • Neiman

            As I recall your objections to abortion not only are not based on religious principles, not even as a moral basis, rather your belief in The Declaration of Independence promise of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a constitutional issue.

            As the Constitution has been rendered meaningless, I suspect your objections based on that document no longer exist either.

          • tony_o2

            What would you say about a teenage “emo” that requires artificial life support? Should they be euthanized because they don’t contribute to the greater good?

          • tony_o2

            What about a middle-aged hippie suffering a debilitating disability that prevents them from cognitively deciding whether they should live or die? Should they be put down because nobody wants them and “science” says that they won’t feel a thing and/or know what’s happening to them?

          • AV

            I don’t understand your point.

            It is more commonly conservative-types that wish to withhold medical treatment from those that cannot afford it.

            Secondly, Rob was claiming that a single cell has “individuality.” Teenagers have more cells than this.

            Also, I’m no fan of abortion itself. My position is roughly in agreement with:

            “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, … , thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” — Thomas Jefferson

          • Onslaught1066

            Teri Schiavo called, she wants her post comatose brain back.

          • tomorrowclear

            I thought Frist said it was functioning? I wonder what his diagnosis of Bachmann’s brain would be if we didn’t tell him it was Bachmann?

          • Onslaught1066

            Non Sequitur.

          • AV

            Lol, cheap shot!

          • Lincoln

            Many German people dissented by the actions of the SS. They put their money where there mouth is. His point is a good one and you seem content to ignore or distort the argument. Why do you sit quietly and allow our government to “murder”, if you believe that’s what’s happening?

          • Rob

            It’s an absurd premise.

            The left, for instance, thinks that the 2nd amendment is racist and causing untold amounts of violence and carnage in that nation. So why don’t the lefties overthrow the government? Or just start a repeal movement?

            Two can play at that game.

  • NDConservative2011

    I’m just curious if the tears were for the dollars she lost in Vegas and not for the bill that she did not vote on as Vegas apparantly was much more important.
    Remember that she was paid by the citizens of North Dakota to go on her little junket all the while skipping her responsibility that she was elected for. There can be no amount of fake tears, lying, and rediculous explainations to explain away her lack of responsibility and integrity.

    • Rob

      My problem with Hawken isn’t so much her position on abortion – she’s welcome to it, just like everyone else – but the fact that she’s a hypocrite and a poor public servant.

      • NDConservative2011


      • whowon

        I was at the legislature the day the protest was happening. Got to be a “fly on the wall” while she was talking to a Senator before the sessions started, she was told she would not be getting her support anymore, she was not going to throw herself on a sword when people hadn’t read the bill and were giving out false information. Hawkins blew it off and was laughing and seemed to think it was all a show. Wish I had a recorder…

  • lefty

    Fat Ass

  • Snarkie

    She likes to kill babies and vacation at the same damn time at the same damn time.

  • tony_o2

    This is a “sidebar” comment. I have a personal friend who has been confronting me on Facebook regarding my pro-life beliefs. According to him, I am being brainwashed by a theocratic cabal. Our moral beliefs are only a product of “evil white men” with supernatural powers to override our conscience. They tell us what to believe, and we are powerless to not accept their directive….

    First of all, I do not believe something just because somebody tells me to. I have been raised by a Catholic family. They tell me what to believe, but I do not accept their belief with blind faith. I accept and reject their directive with my own volition. God has granted us Free Will in order to execute our own true will.

    I do not base my moral beliefs on the collective. My personal beliefs may coincide, but they are not dependent.

    Back to this personal friend…. He argues that the right choice is pro-choice. Unborn fetuses are just a combination of cells and there is no harm in dismembering and discarding them.

    But here’s the kicker. While he argues that abortion is acceptable because the victim is unborn and not yet a “human”, he has the nerve to be an advocate of animal rights. Not only should we be vegetarians and refrain from eating animal flesh, but we should also be vegans and refuse animal byproducts. Not only should we refrain from sirloin steak because it comes from dead, helpless, cows,but we should also refrain from honey. We are not supposed to exploit bees when it comes to eating their digestive byproduct…

    • AV

      What about this example: say that you and your wife are expecting a child, but a test (very early in the pregnancy) shows that the child will have a severe birth defect.

      Statistics show that this’ll likely ruin your marriage, clean you out financially, and basically be a tragic experience. (And I know people that this has happened to.)

      The “rational” thing to do would be to have an abortion, and then try again with the next child. But most of us wouldn’t take that option, it turns out that we’re not very rational.

      But despite the “eugenics” flavor, I also wouldn’t want the law to prevent couples from being allowed to “try again,” even if I wouldn’t choose that option.

      P.S. On the (ultra-scientific) animal, vegetable, or mineral scale, foetuses are definitely in the animal category. And later in the pregnancy, are more than capable of experiencing pain, etc. So it seems odd for your friend to value bees over late-term foetuses (and I’m also a vegan, and I’ve had this discussion with other vegans).

      • Onslaught1066

        “Statistics show that this’ll likely ruin your marriage, clean you out
        financially, and basically be a tragic experience. (And I know people
        that this has happened to.)”– Persistent Vegetative State

        Did your parents ever recover?