South Dakota Campaign for "Healthy Families" Letter

A friend received this letter and petition yesterday. It makes some dubious claims:

- "No exceptions they say. A ban on abortion - no matter what the circumstances." Actually, there is a provision for saving the life of the mother, and a provision for emergency contraceptives which could be used in the case of a rape.

- "..fully admitted that this new law will cost South Dakota taxpayers millions of dollars to defend..." For this pro-abortion group to make a statement like that is like you going outside, scraping half the paint off your own car, smashing in the windshield, bashing out the headlines and then complaining about how much it's going to cost to get it fixed! For you libs who are usually logic-impaired, that means these pro-aborts are bellyaching about a cost they will cause.

- "...it takes away individual rights." It takes a way the right of a woman to kill her own child? I guess I don't have a problem with that.

- "It puts the government in charge of making decisions that should be left to the privacy of a family." Maybe incest, child abuse and child neglect should be left to the "privacy of a family," too.

- "...bans abortion when the health of women is in danger." This sought-after clause has been shown to be an exception you could drive a truck through ("oh, my back hurts, we must abort it; oh, I'm depressed, we must kill my child.") Such an exception would make the law meaningless.

- "...the government believes your only option is to have your perpetrators baby." And this group believes your best option is to kill your own child. Remember, that baby is the woman's baby, too. Should we kill a child for the sins of it's father?

- "...offered no solutions to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies." No true; there were bills promoting abstinence--the one sure method of preventing pregnancy.

- "We share the same goal - to reduce the number of abortions." And General Motors has a goal of reducing the number of automobiles sold in America, too. Uh huh.

- "Their legislation will also cost South Dakota taxpayers millions to defend and will very likely be found unconstitutional." Again, you've got the foxes whining about threats to the hen house. And as for "constitutional:" the Supreme Court is in a better position than it ever has been, with information on medical research not available in 1973, to overturn the decision--like Dred Scott--that has resulted in the suffering and deaths of millions.

Speaking of that, the Civil War was very expensive and very bloody--was that too costly to gain the freedoms black Americans deserved? Then certainly this battle, which is only going to cost some money, is certainly worth it to save millions more lives--of suffering mothers and dead children.