Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Campaign for Healthy Families - you're on notice. Vote Yes for Life is as mad as heck, and they're not going to take it anymore. In retaliation for your campaign ad now airing.... they're pulling out their lawyers.

(Click on images to enlarge)

(Click on images to enlarge)

The Vote Yes for Life campaign is putting television stations airing (or set to air) the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families new television ad which alludes to thier assertion that Referred law 6 does not provide for emergency contraception. If you can't tell from the above letter from attorney and former legislator Matt McCaulley, Vote Yes on Six disagrees:
Dear Station Manager:

This law firm represents VoteYesForLife.com, a South Dakota ballot question committee organized in support of Referred Law 6, which was passed by a bi-partisan majority of the South Dakota Legislature in 2006.

It is our understanding that the ballot question committee "South Dakota Campaign For Healthy Families" (SDCFHF) has purchased airtime on your station to run an advertisement for their campaign against the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act", strangely entitled "Life" (the Advertisement).

The Advertisement asks: "But should a woman who's the victim of rape or incest be left with no option? What about the mother whose health would be seriously threatened?" The questions are misleading because voters are left with the misunderstanding that Referred Law 6 provides no options for victims of rape and incest, or mothers whose lives are threatened.

In fact, Referred Law 6 does provide options to victims of rape and incest, and further protects the life of the mother.
This is an interesting twist, as it puts television stations right in the middle of the battle to impress upon voters whether or not the measure does provide for emergency contraception in case of rape or incest. The promoters of the measure point to the passage in the legislation which notes:
"Nothing in *** this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or
administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions."
I noted before - the point of whether or not the measure has allowances for rape and incest is the key to winning this battle.

If Campaign for Healthy Families can convince people that it doesn't - their argument might be bolstered to the point of defeating the legislation. If Vote Yes on Six can convince people that it does have such allowances, that could put them firmly in victory lane on the issue.

I just got this tonight, so I'm sure we're going to hear more on this issue as it starts gearing up.

(And if you haven't noticed, fall campaign 2006 is now "game on.")

Comments

Anonymous said…
maybe now the pro-abortion forces will stop lying about there not being an option for people who are raped etc
linda said…
let the record show that the pro-aborts launched the first dishonest ad. they must think that's the only way they can win. and they also don't say that the woman in the ad works for Jack Billion!
Anonymous said…
Tell a lie enough and it will become the truth. Hitler's motto is what liberals love to use in order to make thier campaigns work.

The false and misleading advertising is right out of Hildebrand's playbook. They love to strike the first blow and that blow should always say what they want people to think, regardless of the falsity of subject matter.

It's worked in the past in South Dakota campaigns and now they (Nicolay and Hildebrand et. al.) are attempting to make it work again. It's repulsive that the pro aborts think so little of the intelligence of average everyday South Dakotans.
Anonymous said…
I don't see this getting very far.

EC doesn't work if it can be determined someone is pregnant. Therefore, a pregnant rape victim has no options under 1215. Pretty simple.
Anonymous said…
The UNhealthy family complete lie of "no options" has been quickly shot down and I'm glad.
It's great to see what happens when the truth gets out into the public. When people start realizing that Referred Law 6 provides many options for victims of rape and incest you will see votes switch to YES very quickly.

Unfortunately, I now have to wait to hear the next lie planned parenthood and UNhealthy family will come up with to avoid talking about the over 780 abortions performed as means of contraception.
Anonymous said…
anon 10:59pm

I'm curious how there are no options.

Are you saying that abortion is the ONLY option for women in South Dakota?

Common, our doctors provide better medical care than this. Proper medical care and compassion don't come from just a pill. Referred Law 6 provides many options. Your lies have now been pointed out.
Joan said…
Referred law provides MANY options? Surely you jest.
What about the rape or incest victim who is afraid to tell anyone? Some girls and women have such irregular menstrual periods that they wouldn't know when they were or were not fertile; they wouldn't know when they could get pregnant. If an incest victim is afraid to tell anyone, she certainly isn't going to go running to the drugstore every time that dad crawls into her bed.
I don't oppose some limitations for abortions, but this bill should have been done right the first time. Then we wouldn't be going through this now.
And don't give me that bit about murdering babies. Sometimes a woman's situation deserves top consideration, especially early in the pregnancy. Women can feel and breathe too.
Anonymous said…
Joan,

You just don't "get it"
Joan said…
anon 12:40 a.m. - Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you people, you decide that we "just don't get it"? I get it just fine, thank you. But I don't agree with it.
nonnie said…
Joan, the probable reason that it wasn't "done right the first time" in your words, or that abortions would be allowed for rape and incest at any time, is that women would claim rape/incest as the reason just to get an abortion, even if done for convenience (as most abortions are BTW).
Anonymous said…
the left is built on lies....this is just another example of how they have to rely on lies to win.
Joan said…
nonnie, there should be a way to work around those problems. If they claim rape or incest, they have to name the father so charges can be brought against him. It would be highly unusual for a woman to charge her partner with rape. If they claim stranger rape, then the obvious question is: why didn't they report it. Think about it.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 7:26 AM - Instead of repeating the generalizations about "the left" that some of the pro-life people spout, try thinking on your own for once. There are plenty of people - good, honest Christians - who are taking a middle ground on this issue.
Anonymous said…
7:26 It's like saying the right relies on fear and scare tactics to win. As far as 1215 goes, its just not solid legislation. It won't get very far on it's legal legs and it looks like the state will send more millions to Planned Parenthood. Again. I think the voters of SD know this and will vote it down
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:26
If you want to approach this from a Christian perspective, you should remember what the Bible has to say about "middle ground" (luke warm). There is no middle ground on this issue. When you vote on Ref 6, you either vote to end the killing of thousands of inocent unborn, or you vote to allow it to continue. It's as simple as that.
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:54 am,
Since you assert yourself as an expert in Christianity, please tell us where in the Bible says abortion is wrong? The simple fact is is does not address the issue. This issue is not simple.
Anonymous said…
Wow, this really brought out the wingnut theocrats. It's going to be so fun to watch them lose in November. So fun.
Anonymous said…
The reason the bill outlaws all abortions except for those that endanger the life of the mother is to comply with the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution and the 14th amendment.

Life nor liberty shall not be denied without due process of law. Life starts at conception and as such when an abortion take place life being taken without due process of law.

People the likes of Joan would have us beleive that the constitution should protect bald eagles and illegal aliens but not unborn babies.
Anonymous said…
why is the desire to outlaw abortions considered to be part of a theocratic movement?

Does that mean that a zealous campaign to enact environmental regulations and protections and laws to protect endangered species makes those people members of a daocracy? (daoism is religion centered aroud the environment for those of you in Rio Linda).
Anonymous said…
I don't get where the Yes campaign has a leg to stand on.

If I am pregnant, and that pregnancy was caused as a result of incest, I do not have the ability to have an abortion in South Dakota if HB 1215 goes into effect. Period. If I am pregnant, and that pregnancy could adversely affect my health, I do not have the ability to have an abortion in South Dakota under 1215. Period.

Too bad the Yes campaign is running away from their own awful bill.
Anonymous said…
I find it hard to believe that Matt M and the rest of the wingnuts are now actually touting EC as an exception in 1215. After watching them battle EC in the leg for the last several years to have them now proclaim it as something they endorse is incredible. The letter is a joke and will be treated as such by stations not owned by the Simpsons and Liens.A poor attempt at intimidation at best.
Anonymous said…
Since when is birth control the equivalent of an abortion? It is pretty clear that the vote yes crowd is so desperate to cloud the issue that they are grasping at straws.
Anonymous said…
Intimidation...like the Senate Democrats ala Harry Ried, and Chuck Shumer last week who said they would revoke ABC television station licenses if ABC would not change the content of the 9-11 documentary.

Or intimidation like Senate Democrats ala Harry Ried and Babs Boxer who said that if they were in power they would restore the fairness doctrine in order to get rid of conservative talk radio shows?

Or intimidation like Steve Hildebrand who said churches that support the abortion ban are in violation of IRS regulations for speaking out from the pulpit?

All that McCaulley is doing is asking these stations to do is to comply with the law just like Senate Dems asked ABC to do and just like what Steve H. asked churches to do.

What's wrong with asking a tv station to comply with the law? Libs are getting a taste of thier own medicine and they hate it. It's about time R's in SD started using Dem campaign tricks.
Anonymous said…
All the commercials and whiny lawyer letters in the world won't change anyone's mind on this issue. We'll just keep beating this dead horse until November.

Then the legislature will move on to more battles on abortion, abstinence-only education, creationism, prayer in schools, vouchers, "intellectual diversity", attacking PBS, and numerous other items of the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson national agenda.

No time in a 2-month legislative session to deal with real issues when we're so busy forcing religious views on everybody.
lexrex said…
anon 9:13,

Psalm 139:13 acknowledges that we are knit together by God in the womb.

Genesis 1:27 says that we are created in God’s image.

Exodus 20:13 commands us not to murder.

need more proof?
nonnie said…
Joan, how many rape victims know or can identify their attacker? Some yes, but a stranger in a ski mask, on top of the terror of the moment does not lend itself to identification. So therefore any woman wanting an abortion could claim rape without needing to identify an attacker and thereby get an abortion if the bill was written to allow abortions for rape/incest at any stage of gestation. Basically, this is being blown out of proportion since a very small percentage of abortions are actually done for rape/incest. The majority are done for convenience, and you know it. This rape/incest thing plays well and that is why it is being touted as the main problem with the bill.

As I stated elsewhere, the first nine months of life are spent in the womb, the next hopefully many years outside the womb. Both are life. How is ending life at one stage any more ethical than ending it at another?
Anonymous said…
If the rape was not reported at the time the crime occurred, chances are it was not a rape. Any idiot over the age of ten knows that a sex act, whether rape or consensual, has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy. If a rape is not reported in a timely manner, killing the baby resulting from the sex act should not be allowed as a means of retroactive “birth control”.

Report the rape and use the measures to prevent pregnancy. It is as simple as that. Why should a baby suffer because of the father’s crime or the mother’s incompetence?
Anonymous said…
"why is the desire to outlaw abortions considered to be part of a theocratic movement?"

Because the anti-abortion position is inherently grounded on a moral and religious foundation. That would be all well and good, if the pro-lifers just kept it to themselves and decided that, based on their own morals and religion, they didn't want to get an abortion. But they take the step of forcing that moral/religious position on the rest of, through the state (ie HB1215). That is, by definition, a theocracy.

Of course you'll respond by saying that science, and not religion, is at the root of the anti-abortion movement. Different DNA, heartbeat, etc. I'm not going down that road with you. The science goes both ways. It's inconclusive.

And it's an issue that transcends science. The question "when does life begin?" isn't a scientific one, but rather a philosophical one. Science will never be able to conclusively answer it.

With respect to HB1215, however, you can't get around the moral/religious issue. Personally, I'd never urge my wife to get an abortion if she was pregnant. I'm personally opposed to abortion. But I'd never try to impose that view on everyone else. They can do what they want, based on their own religious/moral values. That's why I'm voting No on 6.
Joan said…
9:22 AM - Where does it specifically say in the Bible that life begins at conception? Anything I have read says life begins when someone takes his or her first breath. Where does it specifically say in our Constitution or Bill of Rights that life begins at conception? That is a religious belief. It's true that some scientists agree with that concept, but just as many or more scientists dispute it.
BTW, if bald eagles were still an endangered species, I would favor protecting them.
As for the illegal aliens, I'm highly suspicious that some of them live in South Dakota and embrace radical right politics. But I'm all for protecting them too.
Live and let live. Or, as Jesus said, Love Your Neighbors.
Joan said…
nonnie, If it's a stranger rape, the victim will almost certainly call the police - and she would do so immediately. It's the acquaintance rapes that are not reported early on.
My daughter has worked with rape and incest victims for the past 20 years. I wish she could publicly discuss what she knows, but she doesn't dare. Why? Because when she did once, every crackpot around contacted her through her work.
She was frightened for her own safety and for that of her family. She has turned down many media requests for interviews since then because of that fear. She thought about doing an interview with the editor in the town where she lives, but I convinced her not to do that because then the crackpots would know where she lives.
That's what this has come to: harassment and threats from the self-righteous people who call themselves Christians.
feasant said…
The abortionists have to lie, the truth is on the ProLife side.

You have just seen the start of all the negative ads. What could they run that was positive? "Keep abortion legal so we can continue to make money." Or how about "Keep abortion legal, it really is not a kid we are killing, it is a chicken."

It is time Christians vote for life.
Anonymous said…
Too bad an IQ test isn't required before someone could vote. That would rule out all of you who can only repeat what others have told you instead of thinking things through on your own.
Anonymous said…
It's amazing that all the good Christians on the anti-choice side love breaking one of God's Commandments. I learned in Sunday school that you're not supposed to lie. But everyone claiming that emergency contraception is an exemption for rape and incest is breaking that Commandment.
Anonymous said…
To quote Anonymous 10:46 PM:
Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth.
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:40:

I'm a Christian and I love to lie! At least I admit it.

There are exceptions, like running across the border to "terminate the pregnancy."

The exceptions scare the hell out of you pro-aborts and when the yes on 6 starts the ad camapaign y'all are going to go nukulear!
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:40 - Thanks for making that remark about going over the borders. When you guys make remarks like that, we don't have to say anything to make our point. You make it SO easy.
Anonymous said…
Ya, they fire back alright, with blanks.
Anonymous said…
"Thanks for making that remark about going over the borders."

If it's so easy to go over the border to get an abortion, what is hb1215 really accomplishing?
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:35

As for "forcing" morals on other people, just what exactly do you think the entire criminal code is? Making illegal and designating punishments for things like lying, stealing, and killing is exactly the same thing as outlawing abortion. Legislators make moral judgments all the time, whether right or wrong, and enact those determinations into law. The whole you-can't-legislate-morality argument is void of all logic. Our entire legal system (civil and criminal) is based on our notions of what is right and what is wrong. It just so happens that in this case you don't agree with the morality the legislature wishes to impose as law.
Anonymous said…
6:57:

I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to bring you up to speed on the liberal/democratic theory of government, but suffice it to say that lying, stealing, and murder are illegal not because they are immoral, but rather because they cannot be tolerated in an ordered society. We punish the robber not because he did something morally wrong, but rather because he did something politically or socially wrong. And to prevent him from doing it again. Or at least rehabilitate him so that he does not choose to do it again.

Two spheres: political and moral. Crime is illegal because it is politically intolerable, not because it is morally repugnant.

Two different authorities: the state, and the Creator. The state does not (or at least should not) make moral judgments. It makes political ones.

The state of SD is going berserk with moral judgments, from HB1215, to abstinence-only sex ed, to gay marriage bans.

Read some Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Mill and then get back to me.
Joan said…
Anon 6:57 - Laws that punish people for lying, stealing and killing are based on actions between two human beings who have taken their first breath and live outside of the womb. When a woman opts for an abortion, she is making a personal decision regarding her body.
Like it or not, that IS the difference.
You believe that, from the moment of conception, abortion is taking the life of a child. Other people believe it is most important that women have the right to control what happens to their bodies.
Frankly, I am somewhere in the middle (that lukewarm area). I am not comfortable with late term abortions except in the most dire of circumstances. I don't believe that abortion should be used as birth control either. Those are my personal beliefs, ones that I have the right to hold but not the right to thrust onto other people.
I also believe that there are circumstances where the woman's well-being must take precedence. Those decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not the government and not the populace at large.
As far as the remark about going across the border. Why should a South Dakota resident who pays taxes like everyone else have to pay to travel to another state for a medical procedure that could be performed closer to home?
No one is forcing people who believe that abortions are wrong to go against their beliefs. Likewise, those people shouldn't have the right to force their beliefs on other people.
Stopping people from lying, stealing and murdering isn't legislating morality. That is legislating crime because there is a victim.
But is a one- or two-inch fetus a victim? Even though mothers grieve when they miscarry early term pregnancies, we don't hold funerals for the fetuses. If they are tiny people, then why no funerals?
So it gets back to your belief regarding when life begins and whether you have a right to force your beliefs on other people.
You say yes. Other people say no. The difference is that they are willing to allow you to have your belief.
Anonymous said…
Sex with children has been tolerated in many ordered societies throughout the ages. Including, Greeks, Romans, and Many countries in the Middle East during the height of the Roman Empire. These countries were considered to be the most progressive of their times.

Today we do not tolerate sex with children, not because of the ordered society theory. We refuse to accept it because of our moral fiber says that such acts are abhorrent.

It has been proven that an ordered society can exist with the presence of sick and disgusting acts. What has also been proven is that churches and hence religious views have been a powerful force for positive change throughout history most notably the Quakers and Presbyterians during the civil war working to end slavery with the advent of the Underground Railroad.

Another example of churches and religion working to move society forward would include the civil rights movement down South. I would argue that fighting for equality is more of moral issue than that of an ordered society. Why? Because ordered societies throughout history have been racist and discriminatory. But, it's still wrong.

Our moral fiber is a strong reason for believing in the things we believe in. People don't look first to civil planners and lawyers and legislators when making major decisions in their lives. They look to family, faith and yes, gasp: religious leaders. Not all but many especially in this state believe faith is what guides them throughout this life.

Soldiers, firefighters, and police don't mentally run to men the likes of Hobbes and Rousseau for strength during times of intense combat or fighting, they look to their faith, family and religious teachings.

Our criminal code is more than just about an "ordered society." Our criminal code reflects our values whether you like it or not.

To simply play off the abortion debate as being an argument based on an ordered society is to make a great mistake both tactically and strategically in the political and religious realms. Many voters believe that their values, morals and beliefs drive their votes.

Somehow I know you know this but you fail to accept it. You want so bad to have an ordered society that fits into your liberal world view that you have to fall back to your ordered society argument.

You know the last person who made the ordered society argument was Hitler. He frequently used Hobbes and Rousseau to justify his ordered society view. Funny that the ordered society argument is being used to rebut the importance of religion in society. It was during Hitler's time in Germany that he worked to discourage religion in favor of a sterile ordered society. The reason was that it gave him more power and took power away from the church. Hitler took away the moral voice of the church and created a secular society in which government was the only respected agent in society.

Bottom line: values, morals, and religious views are not only important but a necessary part in creating a society in which order is created by our elected leaders. Those leaders are put into office because of these diverse viewpoints, including values, morals and religious views among many other things.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:46 PM - Actually, sex with children was tolerated within the Catholic church for years. How else can one explain why church authorities moved pedophile priests from one parish to the next, again and again, without warning anyone or taking precautions to protect the children?
Now tell us again about the moral voice of the church and how it should impact society.
Anonymous said…
The pro-aborts love to talk about anything expect the subject at hand. The fact still remains that at least 96% of abortions done in South Dakota are for convenience. The other ares of rape/incest/health are all addressed in the bill. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't read the bill themselves and are believing the complete lies thrown around by pro-abortion groups like planned parenthood. Don't be fooled by the lies UNhealthy family will be throwing out over the next 7 weeks.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6
Anonymous said…
Anon 11:34 PM - See the message from Anon 11:19 AM. Start studying for the test.
Anonymous said…
9:04

I think what you're missing is that even your ordered society argument belies what you're trying to say. When you talk about what is socially right or wrong, it takes you right back to morality. Being moral is just that - conforming to a standard of right behavior.

What is the basis for political or social acceptability? How do people (or a majority of their elected representatives) decide what is politically or socially right and wrong when they are making laws? They look to their sense of morality. If legislators make laws based on what they think society will tolerate, they are basically assessing whether the law will comport with the people's notions of fairness, justice, and morality.
Anonymous said…
anon 9:46,

"To simply play off the abortion debate as being an argument based on an ordered society..."

I'm not sure where you got that from. I said the abortion debate is about morals and religion, not about an ordered society. You asked where our criminal laws find their source, and that's where I brought up the concept of ordered society.

You have a good argument, though, and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about mine.

But with all due respect, your reference to Hitler and your discussion of "ordered society" displays your profound misunderstanding of the concept. You may be right that "[s]oldiers, firefighters, and police" don't care much about Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes, but the Framers of our Constitution certainly did. And you should too, if you want to understand the origin of criminal laws in a liberal/democratic state.

So I meant it when I said: "Read some Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Mill and then get back to me."

"You want so bad to have an ordered society that fits into your liberal world view..."

All I've said is that I personally oppose abortion (ie I don't want to get one) but I don't want to impose that on anyone else (ie they can get one if they want). And that anyone who DOES want to impose that on someone else is deserving of being recognized as a theocrat.

That's enough for you to conclude that I have a "liberal world view"? That's not very fair, is it, to base such a sweeping conclusion on a single topic?

"...that you have to fall back to your ordered society argument."

No offense, but you really don't understand the concept of "ordered society."

Here's a very simple page that might help:

http://tinyurl.com/len8l

Still, good comments and good argument. Way better than the status quo here.
Joan said…
"If legislators make laws based on what they think society will tolerate...." I guess that's the issue here.
Will the majority of South Dakotans tolerate laws that attempt to force religious beliefs on society as a whole while penalizing victims of crime?
I don't think so.
Anonymous said…
"What is the basis for political or social acceptability?"

Greatest possible liberty while still maintaining order. See the link I put up in the last comment.

The tension is between liberty and order. In the state of nature (ie without governments) there was infinite liberty, but no order. We entered into a social compact and surrendered some of our liberty to the state in exchange for the state agreeing to protect us (ie provide order).

This is the fundamental principle (and fundamental tension) underlying any liberal democracy, such as the US. Like it or not.
Anonymous said…
"How do people (or a majority of their elected representatives) decide what is politically or socially right and wrong when they are making laws? They look to their sense of morality."

That's one way. It's called theocracy: "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority."

Another way is to keep morality and religion out of government, and to look to other principles, perhaps philosophical principles like I stated before.

Just to be clear, I'm not down on religion or morals. I just think they should have no bearing on laws. The state and the church should be completely seperate. If that makes me a liberal, so be it. But I think that that's the only way to allow religion and morality to actually flourish.

Of course, it might not be my religion that actually flourishes. Or yours. I think that's what you're afraid of. So you try to get the state to ensure that it's your religion that prevails.

Why not just try to convince me instead, rather than forcing it upon me?
Anonymous said…
"Personally, I'd never urge my wife to get an abortion if she was pregnant. I'm personally opposed to abortion. But I'd never try to impose that view on everyone else."

For those of you out there who are "personally opposed to abortion" and sincerely mean it, ask yourselves "Why am I personally opposed to abortion?"

The answer to your question can only negate your "but I'd never try to impose that view on everyone else" assertion.

Why are you personally opposed to abortion?

Are there other tough issues in life worth stating your heartfelt personal opposition to, but not worth taking a stand against?

If it's all subjective, why have any laws to protect anybody at all?
Anonymous said…
"all the good Christians on the anti-choice side love breaking one of God's Commandments. I learned in Sunday school that you're not supposed to lie."

My friend, I assume you might be talking about the commandment that says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I like that one too. I learned it in Sunday School, as well. There are nine others. They're all good. If we all lived by them, we wouldn't be having this debate.

That's the truth.
Anonymous said…
You want to know why I didn't report my rape?

1. Denial - I didn't want to admit that it happened to me. I didn't want to be the girl who froze and hyper-ventilated instead of kicking and screaming. I wanted to forget.

2. Legal System - The cornerstone of our system is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Unless you grabbed from a dark alley, beaten to a pulp, and are a Napoli-described virgin, the chances that reasonable doubt comes in to play are pretty good.

I just thank God that I was on the Pill at the time. I wasn't stupid for not reporting my rape. I was realistic in weighing the emotional cost it would have had on me and my family vs. the slim chance of convicting the man involved.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:45, my heart breaks for you. I do wish you would have reported the rape, though. As you noted, the court battle would have been tough. However, it might have been the one thing that kept him from doing it again.
Anonymous said…
There are no exceptions in the ban. Nobody can get an abortion, well unless your on deaths door.
Attacking a TV station is a really um interesting tactic. Then again so is having all sorts of out of state abortion protesters show up making a stink. One thing most South Dakotans don't like is outsiders trying to tell us what to do.
Anonymous said…
We need to encourage those out-of-state protesters to stick around. They are doing such a thorough job of ticking people off that it should encourage a more people to get to the polls to cast their vote against 1215.
Anonymous said…
I didn't report my rape either--and I knew who he was--

Until 2 years later when another woman spoke up--then there were 12 of us who testified--

If EC would have been available it might have been the one reason that I would have been willing to speak up right away--because waiting to find out if I was pregnant was hell.

All of us held that in common--the waiting to find out was awful--yet we were very divided on abortion--one had a child and gave it for adoption--she said it was very healing to give birth to a beautiful little life. The two that aborted were bitter, angry and sad.

I was appalled that my lack of reporting meant that another girl even younger than me had been hurt too.

I think that the ban is a good thing and that more rapes WILL be reported EARLY because of the exceptions that it provides. It will be easier to get convictions that way. I also think that incest victims will be more willing to tell before they are pregnant for the same reasons.

I so wish that I had told right away---but I really couldn't think of a good reason to tell--now I know all the good reasons to tell.
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:52 AM - That must have been a horrible experience for you.

Since the media never mentions the names of victims, I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing some of the facts like the name of the rapist, the date of the conviction, and the city and state where this happened.

With 12 victims, it must have received considerable media coverage. Since I'm sure those details have to be seared into your mind, I would appreciate knowing the rest of the story so I can read about the trial or plea agreement.

I have many media contacts, so I know it won't be difficult to locate the information - no matter how long ago it happened. (All newspapers keep all of their back issues on microfilm, as do the libraries.)

I'm sure sharing that won't be a problem for you since you have already shared other information about it.

You are a very brave woman.
Anonymous said…
Washington State 1975
Anonymous said…
I have read almost all of these comments,and almost no one has really talked about incest.

EC might be a reasonable option for a rape victim in most cases. But a 12-year-old girl who is getting raped over and over again by her father, uncle, brother,etc., cannot reasonably be expected to go and take the morning-after pill every time she is raped, or to even know she has the option. Not too mention that the side effects of the pill are awful..violent cramping and nausea. Do you really expect a young girl like that to do this several times a month, or even several times a week? A girl can begin menstruating and become pregnant as early as 9 or 10 years old.

If so few of the abortions in our state are the result of rape and incest, than why didn't they write in the exception? It would have been so easy. Although it might not have made any difference...Has everyone already forgotten the last ban they tried to pass? That one had exceptions for rape and incest,and the voters still rejected it.

I strongly, STRONGLY believe abortion should not be a way out for people who just don't take the precautions to prevent pregnancy. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. But, I can't get up on the pedestal with all the pro-lifers and old men in the senate and say that if I were raped that I could bring myself to carry through with that pregnancy.

I will be voting against referred law 6 because of the lack of exceptions. Not to mention the amount of money that would be spent fighting the supreme court when too many of our people are already in poverty. If this ban is passed, I don't believe that it will convince the court to change its stand on abortion. That money should be used for other purposes.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

Comm 101: Letters to the Editor