Breaking News: Brand New Yes on 6 Television Commercial

HOT OFF OF THE VIDEO PRESS! This is the brand new television commercial for the Vote Yes for Life campaign. For it or against it, you have to admit a group of Doctors talking about the issue is a pretty powerful salvo in the abortion campaign in South Dakota.


Anonymous said…
WOW!!! That IS Powerful!!!
Anonymous said…
Is the Steve Billion,M.D. in this commercial related to Jack Billion?
PP said…
I believe it's his brother.
Anonymous said…
A little bird told me that the "yes for life" crew called a bunch of hospitals and clinics asking that they do ads saying that the rape and incest expections/options that aren't in the law...will still be available if this joke passes. Funny thing, the person making the calls was giving false info about other groups that were going to run such ads. Thankfully, most caught on to this and those ads will not run, unless someone took the bait, being Avera is going to run an ad, you'd better too.
Anonymous said…
Plus it strikes me as laughable that the crowd that yelled no exeption, it's a child is now screaming that this bill allows for exceptions. What is it? Life at conception or convenience in order to get at least 45% in November.
Anonymous said…
It is amazing how dishonest the pro-life group is. This group assumed that the bill would be challenged in court. The group must now lie about what options are available. During the legislative session there was no talk of options. Now, they have dragged the medical profession into the matter. All this from people who claim to be Christians. Disgusting!
Anonymous said…
the pro aborts around SF today were pissed! With a capital P!

This thing is powerful stuff as many South Dakotans put alot of stock into a doctors word.
Anonymous said…
Sheesh, PP. Wonder which way you're going to vote? Who told you to post only VoteYes commercials? Oh, wait... they're a "paid advertiser" so, apparently that's what they get.

Even ROUNDS has said it doesn't contain exceptions. He said it contains a small window. Then, ROUNDS turned around and said a bill WITH EXCEPTIONS would save 700 to 800 babies a year.

They are lying liars who lie.
PP said…
Anon 9:15, if the Campaign for Healthy Families wants to give me an exclusive on their TV commercial the day it hits the streets (or earlier), I'd be happy to post it here.
Anonymous said…
What's really amazing is how you pro-aborts are never satisfied, and keep saying liar-liar, but never tell what that lie is. You scream that there are no exceptions, so it's a bad bill. Then the other side points out the options to prove you wrong, so you scream that they're liars and it's still a bad bill. Admit it, any bill that stops one abortion is a bad bill to you.
Anonymous said…
anon 10:22
Here here!!
I am SO proud of the SD doctors today! MY doctor even spoke a line in that commercial! I am SO proud of him!! (and her!)

I happen to know a couple of those docs read some of the Unhealthy Families literature and found that it so distorted the truth and made it seem like most doctors think abortion is OK that they started calling their like-minded collegues to see what they could do.

Powerful! Excellent! Lifegiving!
Joan said…
Does HB1215 contain an exception for rape and incest? Bob Ellis, editor of the Dakota Voice, who champions all pro-life causes, doesn't think so.

This is Bob Ellis's own words: "The South Dakota law, INSOFAR AS IT WILL NOT ALLOW ANY EXCEPTION FOR RAPE OR INCEST (emphasis added), is then morally cogent, morally coherent, and praiseworthy in that formulation."
You can find this Oct. 10 entry on the Dakota Voice Blog.

So who is telling the truth and who is not? Someone has some explaining to do.
Anonymous said…
This commericial is really offensive. There is one doctor in there actually saying flat out that there are exceptions for the life and the health of the mother.

There is no health exception in the ban and everyone knows it. Go read the bill! This isn't just distorting the truth its an outright lie.

This one is going to backfire on them worse than the protesters with the big stillborn fetuses on it.
Anonymous said…
This commercial is incredible.

How about the fact that in the past week alone Physicians for Life in South Dakota have gathered over 120 doctors to sign on to support Referred Law 6.

UNhealthy family can only pull 2 docs out of their hat.

I'm so proud of these doctors for standing up for what is right!!

BTW, Anon 9:15.

You must have missed the Governor's debate. Rounds came out and openly endorsed the bill and the provisions for victims of rape and incest.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
Anonymous said…
Isn't Don Oliver the doctor who said that incest is all right because it creates babies with superhuman intelligence?


Not a credible sorce of information, sorry guys.
Anonymous said…
(Same anon as above)

Seriously, was ANYONE around when they were debating this bill early in 2006? It wasn't that long ago, people.

Anti-abortion legislators, Leslee Unruh, and the usual crowd of wackos wore as a badge of honor the fact that there WERE NO EXCEPTIONS in this bill.

They didn't realize, obviously, that this highly unpopular bill was going to go to the voters. They figured Planned Parenthood would take it directly to court. It's what they wanted.

Now they have to lie and spin to try to get people to vote for this ridiculous bill.

I always figured I'd seen the worst these people could do - from Keri Weems talking about how women who are truly raped never get pregnant because a woman's body releases magical hormones during times of trauma to Phyllis Heineman blaming the school consolidation issue on too many abortions in rural areas.

They just keep sinking lower. They keep lying.
Anonymous said…
12:20 PM

Rep. Weems was right. It is hard to get pregnant when the women is stressed or tense. Just ask any doctor or just ask any couple that is trying hard to have a child.
Anonymous said…
Advocating Prolife (life starts at conception) and Pro Choice (take the morning after pill) in the same commercial. Just one simple question ---Does life start at conception or doesn't it?

This ad plays it both ways. The designers of this ad are tripped up by their own rhetoric.

They will say anything to legislate THEIR confused moral view point even if it is inherently contradictory.

Oh yes Doctors do have egos and like to be featured in commercials. Maybe that is why they bought this double standard.
Anonymous said…
Doctors have ego? They assume they know best? Kari Weems said you can't get pregnant during a rape (same would probably stay true for incest? Bill Napoli graduated from 8th grade?

What the heck else am I going to learn on this site I didn't already know.

At least w/Weems, Lattrell won't be the biggest dullard in Pierre.
Anonymous said…

Easy to call names. How about an adult conversation without the name calling?

Also please document your claim that
"Kari Weems said you can't get pregnant during a rape"

Once again you are not telling the truth.

I know Rep Weems. I will put her intelligence against yours anyday.

She has owned and operated at least two companies and has served four years as a state legislator and was the assistant mayor of Brookings.

Any your accomplishments are?
Anonymous said…
2:19: I heard her say it myself. She said she read it "on the Internet."
Anonymous said…

I heard it doesn't count as documentation. If it does, then I heard you say that you are an idiot.

By the way still waiting for your long list of brilliant accomplishments that allows you to call Rep. Weems a "dullard"
Anonymous said…
id be curious to know the denomination of all those docotors
Anonymous said…
What does denomination have to do with it?

They are all Americans with the right to free speech.

Do you think that Catholics are less of a person than a Lutheran?
Anonymous said…
Some of the lies that are ACTUALLY being spread are ones like "you cannot get treatment for breast cancer (or other cancers) if you are pregnant." These doctors treat tough cases like this all the time and the bill DOES allow for treatment in cases like this. I urge you - read the bill. Talk to a doc woh treats pregnant women and/or cancer!
Also, the morning after pill is contraceptive (prevents conception) in most cases and contraception is definitely banned in this law.
Anonymous said…
Maria Bell, a reproductive oncologist, says that if HB 1215 were to be enacted, the only situation under which she would perform an abortion is if the mother is hemorrhaging and death is imminent. That is her reading of the law, and agree with her political views or not, she is one of the best reproductive oncologists in the state.

Anon, since you are an expert on the bill, please tell me specifically what the chance of death would need to be before I would be allowed to have an abortion in South Dakota under this law. What if I find out when I am two months pregnant that I have cervical cancer and there is a 20% chance I will die? What if that increases to 50% if I wait for my pregnancy to go to term? Can I then? What if it's just a 10% chance? What if it's a 90% chance? What if it's breast cancer and not cervical cancer? Colon cancer?

What if I won't die but might, for example, go blind as a result of diabetes?

Please be specific and cite specifics in the bill in your answer. Since you've clearly read it so many times.
Anonymous said…
zyehugPage 2, Section 2,Lines 9-11,
No person may knowingly administer to, prescibe for,or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the SPECIFIC intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.

Secion 4, page 3, lines 4 & 5
Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.
Anonymous said…
Anon 4:41 - The big difference between Catholics and Lutherans - at least for what we are discussing here - is that the Lutheran Church hierarchy is not attempting to push its religious views upon the general public.

No one denies anyone the right to their personal viewpoints, but it's another things altogether to push legislation that thrusts those views onto other people.

John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to run for president, and many people worried that he would have to answer to the pope. While there is no evidence that ever happened, I do suspect that Gov. Rounds and some of the SD legislators who are Catholic felt pressured to follow their church's teachings and vote in that manner.
Anonymous said…
I'm not Catholic, but what's wrong with that? If you don't like it , don't join.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:13 - I don't know what you are referring to. Join what?

The point I was making is that it isn't fair to people who do not subscribe to Catholic doctrine when government officials feel pressured to vote along church lines, especially if that isn't what the majority of the populace believes.

Again, no one says Catholics should not be able to practice their beliefs. They were able to do that prior to the passage of HB1215. But people who do not agree with those beliefs have had that thrust upon them in the form of legislation.
If you agree with HB1215, you probably think that is okay. But for people who do not agree with it, it smacks of being forced to practice someone else's religious beliefs.
Anonymous said…
Ann Coulter called you liberals out spot on in the Church of Godlessness or whatever it was.

Liberals think that beliefs predicated on religious views have no place in America, especially not in codified law. Some liberals like the one above want to play the role of the Thought Police. They want us to beleive that religion only counts on Sundays and should be confined to those boxes with steeples on them.

Tell it to the founders. Thomas Jefferson founder of the now defunct Democrat Party said: “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:30:

all legislation is a form of morality. What about video lottery removal. I don't see alot of you liberals out there yelling about the dangers of gambling (if that's what it is).

As for religious pressure, prove it that Rounds was pressured from some religious figure. I want to see the smoking bible.

What about the pro-aborts, are they caving into the religious beleifs of the Pastors for Moral Choices Group?

It's unfair that voters are being bullied into voting not to save lives of the unborn by the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church.
Anonymous said…
Anon 10 pm - What exactly is your definition of bullying if you think that a statement from a group of pastors is bullying? If they meet you at the church doorway and say that if they hear you don't vote the way that they want you to vote, then you will be kicked out of the church, that is bullying. But making a public statement regarding your belief is merely that - making a statement that you agree or do not agree with something. The listener has the option of agreeing or disagreeing. It's that simple.

If they urge you from the pulpit to vote a certain way, that is more than stating their opinions, and I personally don't think that belongs in the church. It's one thing to preach what the Bible says and how your specific church interprets it. It's another thing to specifically instruct people to vote a certain way.

Maybe concern for his church's beliefs wasn't why Rounds voted the way he did. But I've heard time and again that he did not want to sign that bill. Maybe some day, after he is through with politics, he will open up and tell the rest of the story.

By the way, I am very opposed to government-sponsored gambling of any kind. I voted against it before, and I will vote against it again.

Anon 9:53 pm - In case you haven't heard, protestants are Christians. Our forefathers fled England for the opportunity to practice their own religion instead of the one that was forced on them by the state.
And if you really want anyone to take you seriously, don't quote Ann Coulter. The woman is making big bucks saying things that shock people, and most people think she is a heartless witch.
If you buy into all of that tripe that she says you probably do need the Thought Police - if such a thing existed.

At the very least, you need to learn to respect other people's beliefs without assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with everything that you believe is a heathen. That type of holier-than-thou attitude turns away more people than it attracts.
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:57:

In regards to the statments made by the pastors for moral choices you say:

"But making a public statement regarding your belief is merely that - making a statement that you agree or do not agree with something. The listener has the option of agreeing or disagreeing. It's that simple."

Mind you the statements made by the pastors at for moral choices press conference were made while they were wearing full religious regalia and had placards in front of them with their titles and were quoted in the Argus Leaders with their full titles and churches.

Then you go on to say that:

"If they urge you from the pulpit to vote a certain way, that is more than stating their opinions, and I personally don't think that belongs in the church. It's one thing to preach what the Bible says and how your specific church interprets it. It's another thing to specifically instruct people to vote a certain way."

So you are telling me that a pastor can use his uniform, his title, his church of record and the moral authority publicly derived from it to make a public statement BUT when, presumably a priest, takes to the pulpit he loses his 1st amendment rights and his ability to tell the congregation what the church teaches is the correct choice to make in one's daily life (of which voting is a part of).

Quit trying to evade the issue and state your case. Instead of arguing against how a priest chooses to deliver his message start addressing the merits of the issue.

The IRS, the Feds, the government even the bible says it ok for priest to tell people how to vote. If you don't like it don't attend that church or stop listening. But don't make the argument that a priest is forbidden from doing so.

What's so irritating though is your hypocritical and somewhat thinly vieled discriminatory tone given the facts and circumstances of this situation.
Anonymous said…
Don't quote Ann Coulter? She's sold more books than some medical doctors, teachers, lawyers, preachers and many others.

Her book sales alone serve to validate her point of view from a popularity standard alone.

The reason you don't want her quoted is not that she's not serious it's because she's so effective at getting under your skin and making arguments that are hard to refute.

Typical liberals...hate to argue facts and go on the attack and call names and make ad hominem attacks. And I thought liberals were supposed to be the intellectual ones.
Anonymous said…
Good one 11:51.

The guy above argues that pro life preachers can't tell you how to vote from the pulpit on Sunday but its ok for pro abort preachers to get dressed up and use their title to have a press conference on a Wednesday to tell people how to vote.

When will the hypocrisy end?

And Ann Coulter rocks!
Anonymous said…
From the house floor debate of HB1191, the abortion ban introduced in 2004 (you can listen to the whole thing on the LRC website

"Pregnancy due to rape is extremely rare. One one year study in Washington, DC showed only one pregnancy in 300. Another source says that not more than two pregnancies occur in 1000 assault rapes. Yet in 1971, by the Journal of American Medical Association states a study of 1000 rape victims who were treated medically right after the rape reported no pregnancies. You may say, ‘How can this be?’ Well, several factors come into analyzing this figure. About 1/3 of all rape victims are not women of child baring age. A women is capable of becoming pregnant only a short portion of her 30 day cycle. One forth of all women in the United States of child bearing age have been sterilized. Only half of the assailants penetrate her body or deposit sperm. 15% of all rape victims are on the pill or are already pregnant. 15% of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterilized. 15% of all men are sterile. For the average couple, it takes several month to become pregnant. In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges from about 15%. In this case, we have an incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. We must factor in one of the most important factors and reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and to stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. There’s no greater emotional trauma than can be experienced by a woman than an assault, rape, or incest. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing during a pregnancy. And just for the record, I came across all these facts on" --Rep. Keri Weems, basically saying that if you're raped and you get pregnant, you must not have been very upset about it.
Anonymous said…
Anon 11:57 pm - 15 years ago, when my daughter was writing her master's thesis on the dangers of Satanism, the best selling book in Sioux Falls was the Satanic Bible. It was popular. It sold a lot of copies. Maybe it still does. Do you think that should be quoted too?

I'm sure you remember these infamous statements that Ann
Coulter wrote in “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.” She also wrote, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Or how about this statement? "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Or this. "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech at the University of Florida. (I wonder how long she thinks she would get by with talking like that if there wasn't an amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.)

Yup, Ann Coulter is a real role model for some of you who call yourselves Christians. That's not my type of Christianity - and I'm glad of it.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 11:51
If someone wanted to make discriminatory statements against the Catholic church, they wouldn't have to talk about what the priests preach from the pulpit. What about all those bishops who moved pedophile priests from place to place so they could keep molesting Catholic children?
Did Ann Coulter have anything to say about THAT?
Anonymous said…
Get you facts straight.

Rep. Weems never said "you can't get pregnant during a rape".

Rep Weems did say "Pregnancy due to rape is extremely rare".

She then went on to document her position with scientific studies.

Quit bend the truth.
Anonymous said…
There aren't exceptions for rape and incest -- those words are not mentioned in the bill. But there is an option that crime victims can access if they so choose, right there in the bill. Both sides need to quit lying EXCEPTIONS. But there is an OPTION.
Anonymous said…
There's an option alright, IF the rape victim has the presence of mind to go get the Plan B pill within 72 hours after the attack. Of course the 12-year-old incest victim probably won't do that, but what the heck. There's a baby for someone to adopt. It might be super bright or it might be super dull. No matter, Leslee probably can pay for either.
Anonymous said…
It does not surprise me that South Dakota is dropping in population. Abortion doesn't even come close to accounting for the great drop in population.

Young people who want a to get a decent job, good education, and a chance to make up their own minds about their own lives are FLEEING this back water, hell hole of a state.

This is just another reason to leave. Run, my children, run. Minnesota is way better... heck, even Iowa is!
Anonymous said…
"Run, my children, run."

Please do! And take your feeble minded mother with you.
Anonymous said…
Leave the children--we can work with them and teach them how to live happy healthy lives without killing their own children----but the feeble minded Mom --I hate to send her to Minnesota to vote there--they already have such a glut of Democrats--Alaska might be good--she could try to survive there and would not have time to vote.
Anonymous said…
The children will leave on their own rather than live among people who want to take their civil liberties away and make personal decisions for them.
Mom said…
My five children have all returned to South Dakota to raise their families in an atmoshpere that is friendly to people with morals.

They all beleive that it is bad for our world to kill our young and innocent
Anonymous said…
The abortionist again tell lies. They don't want to give up the money train.


It is very clear on the rape and incest exceptions and for the life of the mother.
Anonymous said…
South Dakota has lost its freaking mind. People saying its okay if we install Catholic theology as law. People trying to claim things that are clearly not in the law. People trying to claim nonsense on anti-choice sites is science. People claiming Ann Coulter's hate fest is worth repeating.

The reality is that they rigged this law in hopes of getting a chance at the high court. Now they have to face the public and they are lying their backsides off. What is utterly sad is the followers that are so feeble minded that they believe the lies even when their own leaders were decrying "no exceptions" a few months ago. Are that that stupid or just have short memories?
Anonymous said…
They choose to believe that because they want to believe it.
Anonymous said…
11:54, what's with the catholic bigotry?

Are you being fitted for your bedsheet with the pointy hat?

Last I knew, Leslee is not of our congregation (thank god).
Anonymous said…
Don’t you realize that conservative Republicans are the only ones who are ever guilty of bigotry and racism?

There is nothing the liberal left hates worse than when anyone who disagrees with their far left philosophies decides to exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech by opposing the liberal bashing of Christians, conservatives and those who stand up for the rights of the unborn.

Klu Kluck Klan member, Sen. “Sheets” Byrd, gets a pass when using the N word in a political speech because he’s a liberal Democrat, but Sen. Allen is ripped apart for supposedly using a word none of us had ever heard of before that libs claim was a racist term in some obscure language.

That’s fair? I guess it is if you’re a liberal. Same thing with the churches. You can be as anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-Jew as you want and get by with it in the press. Just don’t try to use the same adjectives to describe leftist groups that they use against us every day if you want to get your message across in the media.
Anonymous said…
Don't forget that if you're leftist you can also be sexist with immunity. Just read Nancy Turbak's "Fellow female voter" letter posted on this site!!

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long