A new month, a new advertiser, A cheap plug. Still lots of room left!

As you're probably noticing, I've got a new advertiser. The Vote Yes on 6 campaign was nice enough to purchase a couple of ads to promote their website and campaign.

One of their ads is up at the top, and the other is on the left just underneath the Yes on 2 campaign who bought their ad early. That's in addition to the other advertisers such as Jarrod Johnson for School and Lands, Dan Lederman for State House, Bruce Whalen for Congress, and everyone who has purchased an ad at the top. It's a long list, so bear with me:
Senator Brock Greenfield,
Representative Alan Hanks,
The Retain Judge Zell committee,
Steve Kolbeck for PUC,
SD Yes on 8 (Cell phone tax repeal),
Tammy Weis for State Senate,
Rebecca Cradduck for Senate,
John Koskan for PUC,
Katy Dressen for House,
On a couple of them such as Greenfield and Hanks, they don't have websites, so I linked it to their legislative profiles.

I'd also be remiss for not mentioning Gordon Swanson for Judge in the text links on the right.

(And yes, I have a few placeholders. I'll swap those in and out from time to time. )

As we roll into the last month of the campaign season and my number of visitors continues to climb, I do still have some spaces in the top rotating banner, as well as side banner space available for ad placement. It's the perfect way to drive traffic towards your website.

Although, one of my friends did suggest I use one of them to sell my beautiful and spacious lot (#16, surrounded by trees on 4 sides) out at the Whispering Pines development outside of Pierre. You can e-mail me if you're in the market to build a home or develop a spec house on it. I'd like to move to Brookings eventually, and that would be one more thing off my plate.

But rather than use it for selling my own real estate, I want to instead make those spots available for the use of campaigns or political organizations.

Click here for more information about ad cost. The only thing that needs to be updated are the number of hits and unique visitors to the current 18,000 monthly visitors. I'd also add that I won't accept depictions of drugs and drug use, tasteless photos or images (unless I blog them myself)... And that's about it.

If you have a political related website, or you are a candidate and want to promote your website, drop me a note. We can talk.


Haggs said…
I don't see Stephanie up there anymore. Did you drop her or did they just not renew the ad?
PP said…
She never had one. Alas, she was just a placeholder.
Anonymous said…
"Includes rape & incest provisions"

I don't care what side of this debate you're on, that's an outright lie.

Desperation is starting to set in for the pro-HB1215 folks...
chad said…
That is an outright false ad, PP.

"includes rape and incest provisions"????

PP said…
Hold on anon and chad - You think it doesn't have allowances for it. Yes on 6 thinks there is.


One of the ads directly points out to their points on the matter.

That is the big argument in that campaign at the moment, isn't it? Does it or doesn't it?

If the Campaign for Healthy Family disagrees, They're welcome to buy an ad which points to contrary information on their website.

It's like if I was to say Stephanie is ducking debates, and you would say she isn't. It's a point of view based on the facts we prefer to cite.

Anyway, why am I debating this? Click on the ads and argue with them.
Anonymous said…
Straight up dishonest.

Anonymous said…
chad wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him in the face.

Read the law bro!

Section 3
"prior to the time a pregnancy can be determined"

This is usually around 10 days.

I'm curious, if 10 days isn't a big enough provision for you what is??

This only proves that pro-abortion groups like planned parenthood will never be satisfied.

Referred Law 6 contains provisions for victims of rape and incest.

The lies of no exceptions is falling on deaf ears now that the truth is getting out.
Anonymous said…
Wow, ten whole days. Thanks guys.

In fact, your "provision" is really only useful for 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, and is only about 90% effective. Saying that a woman has up to 10 days is yet another lie.

If I am a victim of rape or incest and become pregnant, I have no provision other than to have a baby I never wanted.

If the Plan B doesn't work, I have no options.

If I become pregnant and discover two months along that I have cervical cancer, I have no option but to allow the cancer to spread while I carry my pregnancy to term. Who knows what may happen to the disease in that time.

Some "provision."
Anonymous said…
anon 5:39

Please point out any part of the bill that states, Plan B is the ONLY option for women of rape and incest.

BTW, by debating a time frame you automatically admit there is a provision there by default. It doesn't matter if it's 10 minutes or 10 days, the fact remains there is a provision in the bill.

Thank you for pointing out that provision.

Vote YES For LIFE on Referred Law 6!
Anonymous said…
What provision is there other than Plan B? Explain in detail, please.
Anonymous said…
Anon 5:39, Cancer is a life-threatening disease. Your statement that you would have "to allow the cancer to spread while I carry my pregnancy to term" is inaccurate. Section 4 specifically calls for the physician to "make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child..."

Prior to the 1973 Roe decision, the state had similar language on the books. Can you site any examples of women who were forced to allow diseases to spread while they were pregnant? The answer is "no." Because neither women's nor physicians' hands were tied back then, just as they are not tied by this law.

The full text of Section 4 is as follows:

Section 4....

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional
medical practice. 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. Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.
Anonymous said…
Personally I think that the new ad for Yes on 6 is hilarious. It looks like an ad for a new product. "Now with Splenda!" Except it's.. "Now with Rape and Incest Provisions!"

Oh if the TV commercials are half as unintentially funny, it should be a good season.
Anonymous said…
Anon 1:01:

Cancer is a life threatening disease? Not according to your wacky Vote Yes doctors! Jane Gaetz said that cancer "isn't always a death sentence." Do your research.

If a pregnant woman had cervical cancer and the doctor decided radiation was the way to beat the cancer, it would be impossible to undergo that treatment until the child was born - unless of course, the doctor wanted a felony conviction and five years in prison. Radiation ends pregnancies. If a doctor ordered that treatment, he or she would knowingly prescribe a treatment that would not preserve the life of an unborn child.
Anonymous said…
Anon 5:39 - What other options, besides Plan B - if you can call that an option - are there for victims of rape and incest if the law does not allow for abortions for those victims? You aren't suggesting that these people should go out of state, are you? Isn't the idea that they don't have abortion rather than having them drive across the state line?
Anonymous said…
I say hell yeah go out of state. If that's doesn't answer your question what does?

Is there anything in the bill that says, "thou shall not go out of state?"

I don't want abortion in my state and this is about South Dakota. This issue belongs on the ballot box in each state not in the courtroom with unelected, unaccountable judges.

So go anywhere you want, just not South Dakota.

Big enough exception for you?

Besides, you are for abortion so what do you care whether you can still go across state lines to get one?
Anonymous said…
Right on Bro! Look you will always be able to get one in the People's Republic of Minnesota.

Planned Parenthood of MN will probably set clinics up like fireworks stands after this thing passes.

Sioux Falls is already the only place to get an abortion is it that big of deal to go 15 more miles to MN? I'm sure plenty of libs would set up a shuttle service or something.

It's not like abortion is over if it passes PP will be in court the next day and Judge Schrier will stay the bill. All it does is put this thing in the courtroom so we can maybe overturn Roe and bring this thing back to another state vote anyway a few years from now.
Anonymous said…
Anon 5:49 - You actually said that you don't care if someone gets an abortion as long as it is not in your state. You make it sound like it's a contest between states! Have I missed something? Maybe it is.

Okay, pro-lifers, what do the rest of you think about that? Is that all you want is for the women to go to another state?
Anonymous said…
You don't fix the problem by exporting it, 5:49.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:39:

the issue is not one of exportation. This issue is do we or don't we want abortion in South Dakota. Operative words being South Dakota. Voters in November do not control what happens in other states only in South Dakota.

Some of you pro-1215's should get off your kiesters and figure out how to adequately market this thing. Because so far the pro-aborts have managed to dominate the media and frame this race to their advantage.

Should 1215 pass and should Roe be struck down this issue is still one of federalism. That being each state will have to determine their laws through their own legislative processes.

If it works to explain to people that another exception is going to MN or another state so be it. Besides, its true is it not, that a woman can go to another state to get an abortion should 1215 pass, right?
Anonymous said…
Hey fellow pro-lifers:

If you haven't figured it out yet we've got some learning to do. We should be up 60 40 on this thing instead we are on the bubble b/c alot of fence sitting otherwise pro-life voters are not aware of the exceptions and think the bill does not offer women options, it does.

While exporting the problems as discussed above may not be the final solution it is certainly something folks should consider before voting.

Remember how for years pro-lifers talked about state's rights and all that jazz well this is it. We are fighting to put a law on the books which will lead to a court case that will lead to more votes in South Dakota for who knows how many years.

When this thing passes and it goes to the SC we are going to fighting this thing every two years if pro-aborts get enough signatures. Let's get our game face on and start fighting for this thing and start by advertising the exceptions. You don't have to be a Carville or Rove to figure out that the pro-aborts go nutso in public and on these blogs when you start talking about exceptions.

So can that we can't export problems crap and start informing people that exceptions and options exist under 1215. We are not fighting for a federal law this is one state taking care of it's people. And while the ramifications will be nationwide, other states will still be free to do as their voters want.
Anonymous said…
Yes, that's going to impress the heck out of them. Let's spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees so that we can send our women to another state for their abortions. Mind you, it won't stop them from getting the abortions, it will just cost them more in time and money.
I think that's a great strategy. Go for it!

By the way, how are we taking care of our people if the women can go to the next state for an abortion?
Anonymous said…
Why can't the pro life people just admit there are no exceptions in the ban. Nothing in the ban language will allow a woman to get an abortion for any reason. Well, except death but the way its written it leaves the doctor at great peril because it does not define how close to death before its ok.

Emergency contraception is not an abortion and you have to use it before you would even know your pregnant and you have a window of 72 hours to obtain it and use it.

If someone finds out they are pregnant no matter the circumstances they will have zero options in South Dakota.

Stating otherwise is completely false.
Anonymous said…
Anon 3:03:

the lives of the unborn and the laws surrounding them are not up for grabs to the lowest bidder. The legal costs of many pieces of legislation are never questioned, why do you only question this one?

South Dakota refused to lower it's drinking age for low point beer in the 70's. That case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. South Dakota v. Dole. Nobody questioned the costs of not changing that law. Why this one?

Also, this is about South Dakota. We can only control what happens in this state. See the U.S. Constitution, you know that part about federalism in the amendments.

If a woman wants to cross state lines I would advise her not to but the state can't stop her. See reality here. What we can do is stop abortions in this state by passing 1215.
Anonymous said…
It's a matter of priorities. Where do you want your tax dollars to go?
Do you want to help small businessmen and ranchers?
Do you want to fund education so that no child is left behind?
Or do you want to use those hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees so you can say your state is abortion free with the only result being that women will have to cross state lines to get abortions?

Let's ask the voters that exact question and see what they say! It should be especially appealing to all of the fiscal conservatives in the state.
Duke Mattingly said…
You people are absolutely NUTS!

Along the same lines as Anon 10:45: HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES THE ABORTION ISSUE DIRECTLY AFFECT IN SOUTH DAKOTA??? Yet how much time, money and effort are being spent on it? It's absolutely a matter of priorities. People who make this issue a priority over funding education, tax measures and other issues THAT AFFECT ALL SOUTH DAKOTANS have aborted their brains. We need to get back on track and reaffirm that our legislature should be looking out for the good of all South Dakotans, not legislating morality.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long