Let’s Talk, Lola: An In-Depth Look at Lola Sheldon Galloway
Do you know Lola Sheldon Galloway? She’s a representative of local House District 22 running for re-election. Lola Sheldon Galloway certainly counts as a person in power but does she serve the People? If not, who is she serving? Let’s take a look at some of Lola’s most outrageous claims to see if we can determine who exactly she’s serving.
Let’s start with those who have been victims of crime. Rape is heinous act that traumatizes and devastates the victims, often for lifetimes. Most people involved in civic positions empathize with the victims and pursue protections and rehabilitation for them. Lola, on the other hand, is deeply misinformed on the subject. She believes that roughly 98% of victims miscarry due to that trauma, and seeks to ban abortion, even due to life threatening health issues, stating without a proper source beyond “reading this once”
In defense of her rather indefensible position on abortion, Lola once stated,
“Never once has a human ever delivered a platypus or any other kind of animal. We deliver human beings.”
Yeah, Lola, you’re right. Under no circumstances has a human woman given birth to a platypus. Perhaps in the future some kind of nightmarish clone hybrid, but right now, just human babies. I was taught around 6th grade to research and cite things before I declare them fact. A quick Google search proves that Lola’s “statistics” are in now way factual. The number of miscarriages experienced by sexual assault survivors, not platypi. Roughly 39% get carried to full term. Lola is also known to protest right outside Planned Parenthood. Rape victims, people with health issues regarding your reproduction system, people wishing to get tested and have info and resources for safe sexual health; Lola is for Lola. Not for you.
Next up, let’s look at the unhoused population in Great Falls. There’s no denying Great Falls is facing a housing crisis, and as such, there has been an increased presence of homeless people in Great Falls. She is on record for both complaining about the homeless presence at First United Methodist Church earlier this year,( a number of them using her nearby Dairy Queen restroom for basic essential hygiene) yet also stateing she does not want to provide further shelters and housing in the city because she believes it will attract further homeless people. Lola, in her selfishness, has created her own paradox. She wants the homelessness to be less visible, but she also does not want to create shelters or work against the current statewide rent increases or housing availability. Are you disabled or homeless, or know and love someone like that? Lola is not for you.
Are you an Indigenous person of Montana? Both Lola and her husband have loudly protested the incorporation of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, continuing a colonialist tradition of erasing the history of our indigenous people. Lola doesn’t care, Lola is not for you. Like fire for Frankenstein’s monster, Lola seems to retain a deep seated fear for people of color.
Finally, let’s get to the meat of the issue. Lola Sheldon Galloway has no shame about where her interests lie, and is using her position of power for her own financial gain. In 2022 alone, during the August 2nd and September 2nd meetings, Lola used her position to make requests of “personal favors” to ensure her business alone did not lose any money. If I tried that during a session, I’d be told to shut up, told I was a greedy idiot, and barred from the commission meeting. Check out Lola’s comments at previous meetings confirming that she is only out for herself, not our community.
If a President is not supposed to utilize their own properties and business for profit in relation to their position, why do Lola and her husband get away with it… perhaps they think they’re more important than the POTUS?
At the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us the people. If you haven’t already voted, I urge you to vote this next Tuesday, and remember this: at the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us, the people.
There aren’t anywhere near enough homes for the children who are here
One of my prior and greatest purposes, while working in various roles across the landscape of human services, was coordinating the licensing for people wanting to be therapeutic foster parents. The purpose of my role was to recruit, train, and support people willing to foster children who came with all the trauma heaped on them from physical and sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect. Let’s talk about the number of children in foster care, the number of licensed foster homes, and how taking away reproductive rights is only throwing gas on a fire that is already out of control.
It is no easy feat to step into the role of fostering children who have been put through the things I have seen children put through. I have seen children who had been locked in a closet while the parents used drugs, sometimes for days at a time, eating their own feces and left with minimal language or motor skills due to severe neglect. I’ve seen children who have been sexually harmed at ages so young they were permanently physically scarred. I’ve seen children who have been tied up for not properly pimping their mother. I have witnessed infants who have had their legs broken because of parents who were struggling with addiction and dropped them. I could honestly tell horror stories for days on the things I have seen children put through. Needless to say, these children don’t enter foster care as a blank slate. The people willing to become foster parents are often tested to the core of their being by the behaviors and needs that come with such deep trauma.
According to the data reported in “Who Cares: A National Count of Foster Homes and Families,” as of 2021, Montana had 1,674 licesed foster homes and only 697 of those foster homes were willing to foster children who are not a friend or family member, (https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/non-relative-homes). However, there was a staggering number of 3,223 children in foster care, in Montana as of 2021. The national numbers are just as bad. Per the federal data for 2021, there were roughly 212,045 licensed foster homes and 402,140 children in foster care in the U.S., (https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/total-licensed-foster-homes).
With numbers like this, the first question that comes to mind is. “Why the funk are reproductive rights being taken away?” There is no apparent strategy in forcing women into child-bearing when we can’t take care of the children who are already here.
There are many reasons a woman would need an abortion. Some examples are addiction, severe mental illness, taking medications that affect fetal development, cancer, septic uterus, ectopic pregnancy, fibroids, HIV and other diseases, pregnancy from rape or incest, a dead fetus, a fetus not developing correctly, too old, too young, or too unstable to be responsible for a life are all excellent reasons to make a decision for abortion. If the government forces every pregnancy to be a birth, what will the numbers of children in foster care look like then? Who will be responsible for them?
Shouldn’t this massive responsibility fall to those who are so concerned with a heartbeat that they could care less about the woman and her circumstances? Yet it doesn’t. During my time of recruiting foster parents, I asked many of the pro-life sign holders standing outside a medical facility harrassing people going in, if they would like to make an appointment with me to become foster parents. I quoted the statistics of children who need foster homes. I figured they would be the most interested.
My effort was futile. I was given loads of excuses like, “I’ve heard horror stories, it’s not for me,” and, “I have my own children. I can’t risk something happening to them by taking in a child who might hurt my own kids.” Then why the funk would you stick a sign in someone’s face when you are unwilling or unable to help with this massive social issue?
I suppose if we lived in a perfect world, with perfect pregnancies and perfect health and no social issues, we wouldn’t need abortion. That is the irresponsible fantasy of every person raising a pro-life sign. Not all women are alike, not all wombs are alike, not all bodies are alike. The uterus is a complicated place, as is the entire body.
It’s deplorable that pro-life advocates and the govorment have turned their back on all the social, mental health, and health crises that have caused the high numbers of children who are in foster care. Instead they jumped on a fantastical soapbox that a heartbeat should negate all issues the woman, children, and society are facing.
Two texts I’ve received from Barbara on countless occasions.
When initially deciding on how I wanted to go about writing this, I couldn’t move past the first question “How can I help?” which is essentially Barbara’s signature phrase at this point. Not just for me though, but to essentially anyone who reaches out to her.
For background, not only am I Barbara’s treasurer, I’m also her cousin. Though we’re tied by blood, we really didn’t know each other until 2015 when I moved to Great Falls. One of the first things we talked about was her desire to run for office and be able to help her community on a larger scale than just her position working Substance Abuse Prevention in Cascade County. 2016 was too soon to fully prepare, but she set her eyes on the 2018 cycle and dove in.
I’ve had the privilege of walking with her while she’s knocked doors on multiple occasions and, not only does she speak (and continues to speak) truthfully with constituents, but she listens actively and wholeheartedly. Barbara remembers specifics about those living in her district. She takes causes they’re passionate about and concerns they have to heart and, from the second she walks away from the door, starts brainstorming solutions on how she can help.
I’ve watched Barbara face many obstacles as a candidate, Representative, and person. I could list a slew of traits that I see in her that she keeps close in her toolkit to be the very best representation for House District 24, but at the end of the day only one thing matters.
Barbara wants to help.
I’ve heard, personally, on the doors in HD 24 that some voters feel Barbara’s opponent will “say anything” to get the vote. In contrast to that, Barbara isn’t the candidate that will smile at your door for five minutes and disappear until the next election.
She’s the candidate with true integrity and tenacity.
Grit.
The candidate that is reachable year round – not just during the election, and not just during legislative sessions.
Truly, Barbara Bessette is the best candidate to represent -all constituents- across House District 24. Period.
A 5,000 pound elephant was sitting in the room on Monday night at MSU-Northern in Havre while the Hill County candidates participated in the public forum sponsored by the Havre Daily News. Republican Incumbent Senator Russ Tempel of Chester and Democrat challenger Dave Brewer of Havre respectfully agreed on nearly all issues and demonstrated what politics can be like when you’re not a partisan hack. Independent Les Odegard and Democrat Sheri Williams challenged Republican Diane McLean on her history as Hill County Commissioner in a spirited discussion.
And then there he was, the giant elephant we couldn’t ignore: the empty chair where Representative Ed Hill was supposed to be sitting. Democrat Paul Tuss running for House District 28 was not shaken by the no-show status of his inferior (on all levels) opponent. Tuss focused his answers on breaking through partisanship to achieve progress for Montanans. He touched on utilizing the private sector to address Montana’s housing crisis, using the budget surplus to support nursing homes, and affirming his support for the right to privacy as guaranteed in the Montana Constitution. Where was our lone representative Ed Hill? Why wasn’t he sharing his legislative vision for the people of Havre and answering honest questions in front of his constituents?
According to a constituent in Havre who had the unfortunate experience of having his door knocked by Ed Hill on Tuesday, “He declined to debate because he wanted to speak on neutral turf.” Of course Ed Hill would consider that an institution of knowledge such as MSU-Northern would be considered “unfair turf”.
Hill further buried his head in the sand Monday night by refusing to speak to the Havre Daily News for their Campaign Profile series, because “he couldn’t get the questions ahead of time.” Why is Ed Hill so afraid to answer questions from the people of Havre? Why can’t he think for himself on his toes? Havre is essentially a small town, and folks notice when you don’t have the guts to answer basic questions. The other six (two of them Republican) candidates did, and all answered with integrity and bravery.
If ever a title fit the Representative from House District 28, Coward of the County would be it. Except if Hill came across poor Becky after being assaulted by the Gatlin brothers, he would probably tell her that life begins at conception and be on his way.
By Lindsey Ratliff Lindsey is a lifelong Montanan born and raised in the Malt Barley Capital of the World (Fairfield, MT). A Dirt Road Democrat and political junkie, she interned in Sen. Baucus office in 2012 and has been active with local Democratic races since. She currently lives in Havre where she teaches kids how to draw, paint, and discern between facts and bullshit. She is currently serving her 2nd term on the Havre City Council.
Greg Gianforte has been busy. And by busy, I mean attempting to overhaul and turn professional licensing requirements on their head in Montana. His office recently released the first draft of their Red Tape Reduction Initiative, which has been described as Gianforte’s cornerstone achievement for this upcoming legislative session. The bill is meant to remove some regulation involving state boards and state licensed professionals, but to my surprise in the first draft was the elimination of the license requirement for my profession: architecture.
Most of the general public might think of architects and luxurious design as synonymous. However, at the very minimum, our job is to provide safe and healthy building design solutions that fit within building, energy, ADA and fire code standards. State licenses are important, because the factors of building design in every state are different, especially those involving weather and geography, and we must ensure that anyone coming from another state meets the necessary requirements to design in Montana. If we lose our licenses or our state board, it opens the flood gates for the lowest bidder to come from across the country to design in Montana….no license needed. This will cost taxpayers more for design errors in publicly funded buildings, it will cost building owners and developers, and allow any architect around the country to immediately design Montana buildings creating unlimited, unregulated business competition for those of us already here.
Architects from warm, flat regions pose the biggest threat. Outside of the obvious heavy snow loads and frigid temperatures we endure for many months of the year, we live within a special wind zone because of our Chinook winds. Dealing with our unique topography, high winds, cold weather, and drifting snow in building design is not something that most architects outside of our region are familiar with. I grew up in the southeastern US so I know firsthand; there are many ways they design buildings in the south that would be impractical at best to construct here.
We first heard rumblings in July that professional license and state licensing board changes were coming and could be aggressive. As an architect working within Great Falls, I can confirm that most of my colleagues were blind-sided to find out that not only was our state architecture board in peril, but that our licensure process was at risk of being removed. The new bill will go to the next legislative session in January, potentially derailing our entire profession in the matter of seven months.
Building design is rigorous work, often requiring many days of long hours to see a project through to completion. We continuously give back to our communities by fostering development, volunteering for groups, organizations, and committees who need a local architect on board, and help local businesses succeed with bringing state-of-the-art design to our cities, towns, and rural areas. I know architects who are good, hard-working people that voted for Gianforte, because he had a business-first identity. Why would this administration turn on its own supporters, especially those who are heavily intertwined in the positive development of Montana communities?
Gianforte’s state website includes this excerpt on the Red Tape Reduction Act: “Revising, rolling back, and repealing unnecessary, burdensome regulations will help open Montana for business, grow our economy, increase access to greater opportunities, and create more good-paying Montana jobs.” One could easily conclude that he considers licensed architects as unnecessary and burdensome. This will open Montana to irresponsible development that will cost our taxpayers, close small businesses like the one I work for, and destroy the local fabric of our Montana communities. We need our cities and towns to be designed by people who live within them, not by out-of-state architects who ignore our best interests.
