It won't be exclusive for long. But you can say you saw it here first. Yes on 6's latest ad.

Sorry for the delay. I was ready to go, but Blogger died. I did manage to snag a scoop on this one. Here's Yes on 6's brand new ad, and its a doozy.



Arguably, this is the icing on the cake for their media campaign. It's a testimonial from Patti Giebink, a former doctor for Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls with a message that abortion on demand should end in South Dakota.

It's anticipated to hit the airwaves in the next two days. But you can say you saw it here first!

(And if anyone wants to give me a sneak peek at their ad, you know where to find me)

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think this is a great commercial, and I hope that the ban passes on Nov. 7th.
mimi said…
What does this ad even mean? (I am currently out in California--the land of "fruits and nuts" on business and am being subjected to all of their ads on "proposition xyx." At least they can articulate their message...

Is this some sort of public confession and now her "sins" are forgiven????
Anonymous said…
This ad is great!!

Wow, having a former South Dakota abortionist come out and advocate for a YES Vote on Referred Law 6!

This is amazing!
Anonymous said…
Fantastic!
Anonymous said…
Amazing my ass. So what, Roe changed her mind doesn't mean I'll change mind. Get over yourselves...PP, watched Goldwater on Goldwater the other night, the leader of the conservative movement believed the abortion argument didn't belong in the political sphere. Well, here it is. So who brings it forward, conservatives or religously driven/motivated people using politics as a means to meet their religious ends.
Anonymous said…
Running these ads has to cost big bucks. How many of these dollars are coming from out of state? My guess is most of it. So much for Leslee's statement about being David up against Goliath, at least in financial terms. I hope those same people are prepared to help our state pay the court costs.

At least this is one person's opinion instead of Leslee's son-in-law twisting the facts.
been there said…
Goldwater, Huh! Ya, that's a real recent comment. Say, he should run for President or something, bet he'd do great!! Incidentally, I saw the ad first on the Yes On 6 website. It is a powerful piece!
Anonymous said…
They keep saying abortion on demand? Are they kidding?

Here's where I'm at on this. At first, when the law was passed, I was actually excited that this debate was going to take place. Debate is at the root of democracy, and I think this is one of the key testing grounds for whether this country is as far right as the far right thinks it is.

Now, though, I have been discouraged. Anyway you slice it, the Yesforlife group is DOWNRIGHT DECEPTIVE.

Just like in this ad. Abortion on demand? Are they kidding? They act like you can get one at McDonalds. Certainly, we're not to the point where it's abortion on demand.

And the deception they are creating around the exceptions is downright immoral. These people cover themselves in a shawl of holiness, yet resort to lies.
Anonymous said…
"Abortion on demand". This phrase has been used by both sides for years. It is not deceptive, everyone (Except perhaps you) knows what it means.
nonnie said…
We are most certainly at the point of abortion on demand. When less than 2% are done for rape/incest, a few more for the health of the mother, what is left for pete's sake? "I can't afford it," "I don't want it," are all abortion on demand. And that is why people are finally getting fed up with this.

And as far as bringing abortion into the political arena, Roe v Wade did that, not the religious right.
Anonymous said…
So if poor women are forced to bear children they can't afford, are you people prepared to pay more taxes to provide food, clothing and education for these children?

If these children are born into homes where the mothers don't want them but won't give them up for adoption, are you prepared to pay more for the incarceration costs that will come later after many of the abused children turn into criminals?
A study by Chicago economist Steven Levitt shows that crime rates dropped substantially in the early 1990's, a time when the first generation of pregnancies terminated under legalized abortion would have otherwise resulted in children who reached the peak ages for criminal activity.

Until you can force these women to give up their children for adoption, which will never happen unless the mothers are determined to be grossly unfit, society will pay the cost in higher welfare costs, higher taxes, and higher crime rates.

So be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. Because all of us will pay the price.
Mom said…
Anon 10:38 PM
"Well, here it is. So who brings it forward, conservatives or religously driven/motivated people using politics as a means to meet their religious ends"

Who brings it forward??
WOMEN--LOTS OF WOMEN! Women who have been hurt. Women who have lived through it. Women who are still hurt and hiding in their pain. Women who have chosen to speak out. Men who regret not caring for their child as a father should care. Teens who see their generation being exterminated for the sake of sexual convenience.

Go to the task force web site and READ the stories. The binders holding the stories are 12-15 inches thick.

I brought it forward! I cared for post-abortive women and I saw first hand the coerion, the physical and emotional pain, the wrecked families and relationships. I saw the bleeding women and watched our society devalue children and confuse our teens.

For heaven's sake we had to hunt for a baby in a LANDFILL! Then we had to determine if it was alive when it was born before we could decide if a crime had been comitted!

WAKE UP! How can it be a crime to kill a baby one day and not another day depending on who is doing it and where the killing is done??

The USA lived under the burden of the Supreme Court's discrimination mistake for 50 years!! We still bear much of the pain of that mistake in our inner cities.

It is TIME to end the Supreme Court's Genocide mistake and begin to pick up the peices.

South Dakota is bringing it forward because we care about the next generation and what is right.
Because we are a bold people who are willing to put children before our sexual pleasure.

Please vote yes on 6 --for all of us.
Haggs said…
This was your big exclusive? Another lame Yes on 6 commercial?

I was expecting something cooler. Meh.
Anonymous said…
I can tell you from personal experience - the woman in that commercial is unhinged. I would not brag about having her on my side of any debate.
Anonymous said…
Someone asked:
Running these ads has to cost big bucks. How many of these dollars are coming from out of state? My guess is most of it. So much for Leslee's statement about being David up against Goliath, at least in financial terms.


Leslee had about $700 at the start of July and then went to Jerry Falwell and the fundie brigade out of state and had them go begging for money for her. So this mess is largely courtesy of the likes of Fallwell and his ilk.
Anonymous said…
Someone said:
Go to the task force web site and READ the stories. The binders holding the stories are 12-15 inches thick.


Those were pre-prepared out of state supposed confessions provided by Operation Rescue. OR is a group with a criminal past including clinic bombings. This was not in state and you really have to question the source.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said...
I can tell you from personal experience - the woman in that commercial is unhinged. I would not brag about having her on my side of any debate.


Mind sharing more on this?
Anonymous said…
Something smells fishy with this ad. Anyone able to verify her capacity with PP or if she even ever worked there? I would laugh if she was some sort of distant on call doctor or something.
Dis Gusted said…
2:15 am

So let me get this straight...

We should keep abortions legal because it prevents crime 20 years from now?

Are you sure, as a civilized society, that we can't find a more creative way to prevent crime?
Anonymous said…
So there you have it, Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, as usual doesn't want to loose it's income stream. Ms. Whatshername who ran for statewide office on the Democratic ticket not long ago might be out of a job in SD, now has put the whole state into the debate, after the Legislature and Governor had studied this issue much more than the electorate can study it! Shame on you...Planned Parenthood for allowing your greed to outweigh the right to live! I would think Rosenthal and Adelstein, being of the Jewish faith would understand the word "genocide" by now. Shame on them also.
Anonymous said…
When you have nothing left to argue go after them personally...straight out of the Carville/Begalla playbook.

The only ones becoming unhinged here are the pro-abortionists.

They are screaming mad that the conservative right is able to use emotion and common sense to draw voters to their side on this issue
Anonymous said…
Mom said "The USA lived under the burden of the Supreme Court's discrimination mistake for 50 years!! We still bear much of the pain of that mistake in our inner cities."

What happened 50 years ago? Are you referring to the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case that forced school desegregation? Please explain.
Anonymous said…
It's just not that great of ad. So she was pro choice, now she's not. Big deal. She's a doc, wow! That really means something. I'm a voter, guess what, that about makes us equal. Am I less of a Christian than her because I'm voting No? Well, am I? Am I going to Hell?

This is what it's all about to some and that doesn't belong in the Political Sphere. Goldwater, Goldwater, Fallwell, Fallwell. Something are better left in the cathederal than in the public discourse. Read Roe v. Wade's majority opinion.
Anonymous said…
8:16 - What would YOU suggest as a more creative way to prevent crime?

How about better monitoring of child abuse cases so the children who are knocked around don't grow up to do the same thing - or worse - to someone else? How about more social programs to help these kids when they are small?

How about programs that move petty offenders away from inner city drug traffic, prostitution and driveby shootings so that they can see there is a better way to live? How about programs that train them for jobs in a crime-free area?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes to fund programs like that? Or does your concern for children last only until they are born?
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:26 said - "They are screaming mad that the conservative right is able to use emotion and common sense to draw voters to their side on this issue."

Emotion, yes, but where is the common sense in forcing a rape victim to bear the rapist's against her will?

Where is the common sense in forcing a 12-year-old child to endure a pregnancy that resulted when her father or stepfather forced himself on her?

Where is the common sense in jeopardizing a woman's health by forcing her to wait six or seven months before she can undergo treatment for a life-threatening disease?

Or is the answer simply to have them cross state lines for an abortion?

South Dakota - land of the hypocrites.
Anonymous said…
Isn't this Dr. Giebink the sister of the crazy liberal lawyer Mary Giebink who is on the board of Planned Parenthood???? PP has posted on her before...
Dis Gusted said…
8:43 am

Wow, there's sure some vitriol behind those keystrokes.

As a matter of fact, I care a lot about kids after they are born.

You have a number of good suggestions about what we can do to improve the lives of children. And I don't see it as "more taxes". Instead, it's an investment in our future, which will pay far greater dividends than the front costs.

Next time, please don't presume to know my politics simply because I agree that abortion is a barbaric form of birth control.
Anonymous said…
dis gusted - We agree on many things. Programs for children are an investment in our future, but it is an investment that many pro-life people don't want to make.
It's encouraging to know that you are not trapped in that thought process.
Douglas said…
If abstinence education works, how many children are born to single parents?

If birth control is provided and "morning after" pills are available, how many children are born to single parents?

If abortion is available or unavailable, how many children are born to single parents?

The meme that a "generation is wiped out" by safe legal rare abortions is BS. The idea that it is anything like "genocide" is an insult to the families of the holocaust and the hundreds of thousands of people dying in real genocide in Africa.

The wingnut right does damage to language, facts and logic nearly everytime they present their myths as facts.

The choice is not between abortion and no abortion. It is a choice between safe legal and rare abortions and rarely safe illegal abortions.

If abortions were an actually significant factor in birth control, there would not have been six births to single women in our local hospital last week and 1 birth to a married couple.
Anonymous said…
I'm just waiting for the liberals to try and discredit this woman like they did Billion's brother. Stay tuned. It won't take long.
Anonymous said…
"Mom said "The USA lived under the burden of the Supreme Court's discrimination mistake for 50 years!! We still bear much of the pain of that mistake in our inner cities."

What happened 50 years ago? Are you referring to the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case that forced school desegregation? Please explain." - Anon 8:27

I think that it's pretty obvious that Mom was referring to the approximately 50 years of racial inequality madated by the Supreme Court's unjust Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in 1896, which was finally justly overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.
Anonymous said…
To 7:51 anon:

I believe that Planned Parenthood does not make the doctors go public, unless they choose to identify themselves - as Miriam McCreary has done since the ban passed the Legislature.

Giebink may have been a Planned Parenthood doctor, but I highly doubt that the clinic would ever confirm or deny that.
Anonymous said…
To all of you children who are complaining that the Vote YES campaign is spending so much money look at the facts. The Rapid City Journal had an article where the UNhealthy family campaign was outspending them 2-1 on TV ads. And you know their money is coming from out of state.
Is that really the best comeback you have at this ad? You know it must be good then.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
Anonymous said…
It might be pretty obvious if you are familiar with the Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling. For those who are not students of Black History or lack a legal background, it is not.

So how does the mistreatment of a black man compare to aborting a 2-inch embryo?
Does the supposed indignity of white people who had to share a car with a person of another race compare with a rape or incest victim being forced by her government to bear a rapist's child?
I think not.
Anonymous said…
I don't know if the Vote No people have imported anyone to help with their campaign against the abortion ban, but I know the Vote Yes people did. A friend of mine sat next to the man on a return flight from New York a couple of weeks ago, and he told her why he was flying into Sioux Falls.

It sounds like there has been considerable in-fighting among the Vote Yes camp. Not everyone thought it was a good idea to twist the facts and claim HB1215 has exceptions. At least some of them believe in practicing what they preach.
Anonymous said…
Patti Giebink, daughter of long-retired Sioux Falls orthopedic surgeon Robert Giebink changed her position on abortion after being "born again." She is the sister-in-law of Mary Ann Giebink, not her sister.

The Giebink family is a very interesting study in contrasts between the left and right, religion and secularism, "hinged" and "unhinged," morality and immorality, not unlike the polarization of American society in microcosm, with the line of im/morality sometimes fuzzily drawn (as is often the case) in places that might be unexpected to some.
Anonymous said…
Kind of like Jack Billion and that pesky right-leaning brother of his.
Anonymous said…
anon 1:06
Please source anything that you posted.

All you are trying to do is take away from the fact that a former abortionist is now advocating for a YES vote on Referred Law 6.

This ad is very impressive that she used to be planned parenthoods friends and is now their biggest hurdle.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
Anonymous said…
This is not a left leaning or right leaning issue, nor a middle issue.

It is a issue America needs to address and it is taking place in SD right now.

To get were it needs to go you can't pick and choose the issues.

Sometimes it has to be all or nothing. You go for the gold and hope to get the silver.

Think about it.
Anonymous said…
2:58 - Actually, I didn't think it took away from that ad at all. I was just stating a fact.

Do you have a problem with the fact that the Vote Yes camp has been in-feuding or that they are importing people to help them with strategy?

I'm not at liberty to name my friend because her name would be recognizable to many people, but I thought it was interesting that the man openly discussed why he was coming to Sioux Falls. She said he was a very friendly, talkative person.
Among other things, he had not heard about the Wisconsin group being here and showing those photos around. And he was not happy to hear that.

I have contacts to know that these things are happening. If I wanted to make up something, I would say something that was more of a surprise than that. But, unlike some people, I have always found it easier to stick with the truth. That way you don't have to backtrack to remember what story you told last.

I don't find the fact that this doctor is now on the other side of the fence all that unusual either. Things like that happen frequently in business dealings and in friendships. So what else is new?
Anonymous said…
3:11 said - "Sometimes it has to be all or nothing. You go for the gold and hope to get the silver."

What he or she didn't add is that some people, namely rape and incest victims, will get the shaft.

Believe me, we have thought about it.
Anonymous said…
To all the naysayers who claim this commercial is not effective: it sure has elicited an enormous amount of responses. This commercial is very well done, and it goes to show it must have struck a nerve with the pro-abortion supporters. I don't think you can disprove the validity and effectiveness of this commercial since it comes from the mouth of a fellow abortion doctor. Keep fighting the good fight.
Anonymous said…
Kate Looby did confirm for the Rapid City Journal that Dr. Giebink worked for them "for a short time" about eight years ago. She stated she could not comment on what ended the relationship between the clinic and the doctor.
Anonymous said…
Anon 336;
I understand what you say.
The options; RU486, surrounding states and the life of the mother. There will be a future debate on the issue I feel safe to say. Why not have the debate?
Do you know what the Roe V Wade case entails or the Bolton case in the abortion arena? I will not quote on the them just do a search and read up on court documents.
I just have this gut feeling some people don't know that when it comes to abortion almost anything goes. If I am wrong someone inform me.
oxmmdox said…
I want to know something. If the child turns out gay will you fight for it's rights too?
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:47
One of them was MY story--I was born here in SD. Raised my family here in SD.

The out of state lie is STUPID. Think of something better than that!

And DID YOU READ THE STORIES?? Do you know where these women are from? Probably one more guy wanting to be sure he can get rid of anything that prevents him from having all the "fun" he wants at the expense of women, children and ultimately families. SHAME.
Anonymous said…
A babies life is a babies life. I do not believe that we are talking the "gay" issue here. I would say that is off topic considering the focus of the word "gay".
Anonymous said…
anon: 7:58
Well said, the previous post just wanted to protect sexual predators by cohercing women to get abortions.

Who really benefits from abortions?

The abortionist (money), and sexual predators who get let off the hook.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
a_big_liberal said…
Anon 2:58 said "This ad is very impressive that she used to be planned parenthoods friends and is now their biggest hurdle."


Um, their biggest hurdle? I would say that Healthy Families biggest hurdle is fighting the lies about exceptions that the VoteYesForBackAlleyAbortions campaign is spreading, especially when Chris Nelson and Larry Long have simply decided to not inforce the law (SDCL 12-13-16).


One doctor on one ad is the least of their problems.
Anonymous said…
Dear 7:39:

It is unfortunate that you have not taken personal responsibility for a choice you made that you consider bad for you. Therapy is available to you.

Please detail how many of the affidavits received by the task 'farse' came from women in South Dakota. I attended the meetings and know the affidavits you're talking about. South Dakota women were a miniscule number compared to the whole.
Anonymous said…
big liberal - "One doctor on one ad is the least of their problems."

p.s. Not just a doctor, she is THE last South Dakota doctor to perform abortions in the state of South Dakota. Get your facts straight.

BTW, the other VoteYesForLife.com commercial features around 25 doctors who are apart of Physicians For Life (Over 140 doctors around the state) who ALL support Referred Law 6. Maybe they do have something more to worry about.


In regard to the exception, you can't say there is no exception. It may be a limited exception in the ban, but that is stop the use of abortion as birth control in South Dakota. 800 children are killed every year in our state for convenience.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
Anonymous said…
Look for more high-powered respectable supporters to be made public in the next 5 days.

Also, how about Bishop Swain coming out today and letting the flock know where he stands!

He's the best get out the vote tool we have.
Anonymous said…
8:54 PM - If there is an exception, why did Sen. Thune say there is not an exception?

Why does Mr. Pro Life Bob Ellis continue to say there is no exception? (I despise his politics but at least the guy tells the truth.)

Why did Sen. Roger Hunt and "We Buy Babies" Leslee Unruh say there was no exception until it became clear that voters would not accept a bill without an exception?

There is an option, albeit a very limited option that does not always work if it is used within the required 72-hour period.

That is unacceptable for children who are impregnated by incest.

That is unacceptable for rape victims who may be so distraught that it takes days before they work up the courage to report the crime and before it occurs to them that they might have been impregnated.

And that definitely is unacceptable for women who need certain medical treatments for life-threatening illnesses that cannot be done during a pregnancy.

Do they represent a small percentage of women who get abortions? Yes, but when you or a loved one is one of those people, it matters in a big way.

So at least tell it like it is. There are no exceptions - only a very limited option that does not always work.
Anonymous said…
anon 8:50

Nice to see how compassionate you are to women. (sarcasm)

Thank you to the VoteYesForLife.com campaign and all the other pro-life citizens of South Dakota for showing true care and compassion to women.

Abortion is not a kind or caring way to treat women.

Abortion Hurts Women!

Vote YES on Referred Law 6!
nonnie said…
8:52 said, "Where is the common sense in jeopardizing a woman's health by forcing her to wait six or seven months before she can undergo treatment for a life-threatening disease?"

That's not true. A woman does not have to wait for treatment, unless she herself chooses to do so. She can have any treatment needed; if such treatment results in the loss of the baby, there is no crime committed because the intent of the treatment was not to kill the baby but to save the mother.

Of course, this doesn't fit with your agenda, so you lie. But give it up. You are incorrect in this case.
Anonymous said…
9:13 - Bishop Swain is going to let people know where he stands regarding the abortion ban?

Wow! What a surprise that will be for everyone to find out that a Roman Catholic bishop opposes abortion!

What's your next big surprise after that - that a rabbi supports circumcisms?
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:52A has the most compelling post in the group. Where is the common sense? Imagine the case of a teenager brutalized by the most vile, freakish, ugly, in-bred scumbag, and explain to me why this child should be forced to endure the mental and physical anguish of bearing his offspring. Only a religious zealout could find common sense in that.

And Anon 4:07, knock it off. No one is pro-abortion.
Anonymous said…
Nonnie, are you an attorney? If not, where did you acquire your interpretation of HB1215? Was it from the Vote Yes/Unruh crowd or from an objective source?
Anonymous said…
Question to ALL:
Do you believe in abortion on demand?
If so, you believe that a "healthy women" can abort a "healthy child" when her pregnancy is at or up to full term prior to labor/birth!
Thus the abortion would be taking the life of the baby.
Is that okay in your hearts and minds???? Is is right??? Should it be changed?
been there said…
In defense of Nonnie: You do not have to be a lawyer to understand HB 1215. It is simply written, if you are able to understand English, read section 4, it describes medical care for the mother.
Also, to the idiot who refered to Operation Rescue as being associated with "clinic bombings". Unlike you, I was involved with OR at several rescues. They did not tolerate ANY form of violence by their participants, and we had to agree to those terms, or they would disassociate from us. They only violence I ever witnessed was perpetrated by the pro-aborts aor the police.
Vote YES on 6!
nonnie said…
For all those pro-abortion people on this blog,I have two questions for you.

Assuming HB1215 doesn't pass this time, and assuming that the legislature passes an abortion ban next year that includes exceptions for rape/incest up until 8 or so weeks. With this new law, however, she could only obtain the abortion if she has filed legal charges against the rapist. This would prevent this excuse from being used by a woman wanting an abortion simply for convenience.

Would you support this bill? I can already hear your loud NO! So why is the rape/incest your main argument this time (when in reality it accounts for less than 2% of all abortions anyway)? Why wouldn't you support a bill that addressed this issue?

And BTW, no, I'm not an attorney, but my daughter is!
Joan said…
Nonnie - I would have no problem supporting a law that requires the rape victim to file charges against the rapist before getting an abortion. So the answer from me is YES.
Anonymous said…
OK, 62 comments worth of pro and con 6 debate aside, am I the only one that thought the semi-funky background music was just a little out of place considering the message of the ad?
Anonymous said…
I hadn't even noticed the music, but now that you mention it, it is strange to have that in the background. Maybe the idea was to make her appear more hip or something. Whatever the reason, they would done as well to have no music.
Anonymous said…
Kate Looby said she was moving out of the State if this passed. I am looking for the city that is geographically furthest from Sioux Falls. I think it's Maine some place but it might not be cold enough there for her.
In any event, good luck with that move. (we'll miss you?)
silly me said…
11:51 - It's a good thing that you didn't list your name because if you jumped the gun and the abortion ban is struck down, you will be eating a lot of crow.
Anonymous said…
silly me:

Please explain how listing my name would determine whether I eat or don't eat crow.
It is a funtcion of the state of the Bill after the vote.
Jees, you are slow.
Anonymous said…
I notice that people are still talking an overall (rape, incest) of the bill instead of the overall merit of Roe V Wade and the Bolton case. Roe V Wade is OLD science. Do people want to turn a blind eye -so to say- on the merits?
silly me said…
3:37 - I will type real slow so that you can understand me.
If you identified yourself, people would be able to say (insert your name here) said we were going to lose, but his or her side lost instead. People who knew you could say it to you in person or by telephone.

Then you would have to eat crow, which is an old expression that means you would have to admit that you were wrong and they were right.

Because you choose to remain anonymous, if the Vote Yes effort loses, no one is going to know who made that foolish statement unless you tell them it was you.

Do you get it now? Did I make it simple enough for you to understand?
Anonymous said…
Does anyone know if Patti Giebink is still practicing medicine?

Someone who worked with her just told me that Patti is a troubled woman who, as a doctor, has caused many problems.

She also said she doesn't think Patti practices medicine anymore, but she isn't certain about that.
Anonymous said…
10:02 PM
"Imagine the case of a teenager brutalized by the most vile, freakish, ugly, in-bred scumbag, and explain to me why this child should be forced to endure the mental and physical anguish of..."

“...a painful examination of a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: ‘It’s too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now.’ And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.” (3)

Do you get the common sense now??
Maybe this will help?
Rape research indicates:
• 70% chose to have their babies, and none regretted it.
• 78% of those who aborted had regrets and said that abortion was the wrong solution.
• Many who aborted only did so because they felt pressured. They felt abortion only increased their grief and trauma.
• Incest victims are almost always forced into unwanted abortions by family members attempting to cover up the crime, hide the family’s dysfunction, and allow the abuse to continue.
• Abortion in the cases of rape or incest victims actually does even more psychological harm to women than does abortion under less difficult circumstances.
• Most of these women describe the negative effects of abortion on their lives as even more devastating than the sexual assault.

Common sense anyone??
Anonymous said…
10:39 - Please site the sources for this rape research.

There is no doubt that some women have emotional problems after abortion. Scientific studies have shown that the women who have problems are those whose religion opposes abortion or women who were made to feel guilty by people with anti-abortion sentiments.
The study, reported by the American Journal of Psychology, said there are many women who feel nothing but relief after an abortion.

As far as the accusations that incest victims are forced to have abortions to cover up the family secrets, I keep hearing those claims, but I have yet to see any proof. So let's hear some examples, including names, dates and places.
Or at the very least, please cite some objective sources besides groups like Operation Rescue.
Anonymous said…
David C Reardon, PhD, Julie Makimaa,& Amy Sobie (Eds) (2000) Victims and Victors; Speaking out about their pregnancies, abortions, and children resulting from sexual assault, Springfeild, Il. Acorn Books
Anonymous said…
The study, reported by the American Journal of Psychology, said there are many women who feel nothing but relief after an abortion.

When was the study? When was it published? How long did they follow the victims? Was it only MEN who were involved in the study??

Is the American Journal of Psychology published by Democrats, Abortionists, or the same company that owns the Argus Liar??
Anonymous said…
Here are two different studies:

Researchers: NF Russo and KL Zierk. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992.

"In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion."

Researchers NF Russo and AJ Dabul. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997.

Women in their study were interviewed from 1979 to 1987, "an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent:
The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant…Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975)."

To answer your other questions:
The American Journal of Psychology (AJP) was founded in 1887 by G. Stanley Hall.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice publishes articles on the application of psychology, including the scientific underpinnings of the profession of psychology.
It is published by the American Psychological Association, which is located in Washington DC.

The APA was founded in 1892, long before abortion was an issue. It definitely is not owned by the Argus Leader. No party affiliation was listed.

Popular posts from this blog

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

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th