The rally at Mt. Rushmore went very well today.
Though November's are usually very cold in South Dakota, the weather was excellent this morning, even up in the Hills. Though I'm heartier than most, still, I didn't even wear a jacket. And the sky was sunny and clear blue, with hardly a cloud at all.
You can read about what was said here, but I just wanted to include a few personal observations here that I didn't include in the story.
There were a lot of folks present that I didn't mention in the article, including the main organizer Bob Fischer, attorney Steve Wesolick (who lives in Rapid City and works with the Alliance Defense Fund), Pastor Don Brendtro spoke briefly, Allen Unruh (husband of Leslee), Dale Bartscher (former pastor of First Christian Church in RC, now working with SD Family Policy Council), my friend Chris Hupke (formerly of the SD Family Policy Council, now with Focus on the Family), Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Matt Lockett of Bound4Life, and many more that I either didn't see, or saw and forgot to mention.
I also saw Tom Katus there; I believe he was there for at least half of the rally. When I asked his opponent for District 32 senate Elli Schwiesow if she'd seen him, she hadn't but was very pleased that he'd made it; she said she hoped the Lord really blessed him for being there. That's Elli! Many on the Left paint her as such an evil person, but having known her for 10 years or more, I can tell you that there's not a kinder, gentler soul that I have ever encountered; her grace is an example I can only aspire to.
I didn't see her, but I'm also told Judy Olson Duhamel was there, so it was nice to see some prominent Democrats out at a rally for life and marriage.
Didn't see any protesters, though. I didn't specifically go looking for them (thought of it, but it was just too good of a day to marr it by looking for party poopers), but if they were around, they were in stealth mode. Didn't see them in the main amphitheatre area or around the upper terrace.
It was really cool to hear those echos coming off the rocks when the people would shout "Yes" or "No" to one of the speakers' prompts. It really made it sound like the theme with which the event was being billed: that the rocks were crying out.
Had a funny incident that I briefly mentioned when that dog barked after Dobson asked if people were going to get out and vote on Tuesday. One of the Park Rangers had a dog, probably a bomb dog, along the side of the amphitheatre, and he really let his agreement be known. :-)
Got a chance after the rally to speak with my dear Buddy in the Lord Mark Skogerboe, who pastors in Minnesota, but has spent so much of his time helping us here in South Dakota. Mark has worked on Alan Keyes' presidential campaign and Judge Roy Moore's campaign for governor of Alabama.
Mark has such an incredible heart for God! Though my faith is still small in comparison, over the 2.5 years I've known him, he's caused my faith--and my perspective--to grow probably 10 times what it was.
Mark is also the spiritual godfather of Dakota Voice (I know that probably just made him the sworn enemy of some of you out there). There would likely be no Dakota Voice had Mark not planted this crazy idea in my head over two years ago, and persistently watered it despite my own lack of faith.
I've never personally known a man more committed to his faith, to the point of great personal sacrifice, than Mark Skogerboe. Most probably don't know it, but the good people of South Dakota owe him an immeasurable debt of gratitude for what he did in 2004, and all he's done this year.
Well, that's about it, I guess. Whether we win or lose on Tuesday, it's been a good fight.
Except for a few more hours work, it's now up to the work of the Spirit of God (which I pray He will pour out on this state in a flood, the likes of which we've never experienced), and it's up to the voters of South Dakota. Because one of the great mysteries of God is that despite his unfathomable power, He still allows tiny human beings to exercise free will, just as we always have since the Garden of Eden, to choose His way or our way.
We have the same God-given freedom before us that the people of God had so long ago when God said, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life."
The Gods of Liberalism Revisited
The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever. But how can we escape the snare?
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The rally at Mt. Rushmore went very well today.
This full-page ad was in the RC Journal today. The top photo features Megan Barnett of Aberdeen and her daughter Maria from Aberdeen. You may recall that Maria was conceived in rape, but Megan chose to give life to her daughter rather than the abortionists knife.
Look at Megan: does she look like she loathes her daughter?
Look at Maria: did she deserve to die because her father was a rapist?
(Click the ad to see a bigger image)
Friday, November 03, 2006
Here is the Lakota ad you might have heard about. It's a beautiful ad.
It stresses the importance and sacred nature the Lakota put on children. Whites used to recognize this also, and hopefully will do so again. We are all God's children, and should all treasure human life as much as He does.
Click on the ad to see it much bigger.
Bill Connor is a South Dakota man who was conceived in rape. He might not be here today, had he been conceived after Roe.
This ad appeared in the Argus Leader (today, I think). You can also read Bill's inspiring story here.
Click the ad to see it much bigger.
Received this today. It's a very detailed explanation of why the oft ballyhooed second sentence is in Amendment C.
You can read it below, or download the pdf
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW
INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN LAW & RELIGION
THE MARRIAGE LAW PROJECT
WASHINGTON, DC 20064
Why South Dakota’s Proposed Marriage Amendment Needs That Second Sentence
October 13, 2006
The proposed constitutional amendment on marriage that South Dakotans will vote on next month has been drafted with care and foresight. It is not too broad, but merely acknowledges current realities and real-world contingencies.
The first sentence of the amendment limits marriage to the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence adds that “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” and “other quasi-marital relationships” will not be valid in the State. Some South Dakotans are asking whether that second sentence goes too far.
Vermont, Connecticut, and California have proved that other States can create marriage-like institutions and name them something other than “marriage.” Are South Dakotans supposed to pretend that civil unions and domestic partnerships don’t exist? An amendment without a second sentence would be years out-of-date and entirely incapable of protecting marriage.
Some opponents of the marriage amendment will not support it no matter how brilliantly it is drafted. Their chief complaint is with our ancient understanding of marriage, and not with the details of the second sentence.
I. The Laws of South Dakota
Proposed Constitutional Amendment. On November 7, South Dakotans will vote on a marriage amendment that will appear on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment C. If it gets a majority of the vote, the following text will be added to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or
recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a
civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship
shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”
Current Statute. South Dakota already has a statute that restricts marriage to a man and a woman. That law reads:
“Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by solemnization.” South Dakota Codified Laws §25-1-1.
The underlying policy of Section 25-1-1 has been on the books for many decades, but the key phrase “between a man and a woman” was added in 1996 by Session Laws 1996, chapter 161, approved February 21, 1996. At the time, the courts in Hawaii appeared ready to impose same-sex “marriage” on that State, and South Dakota and many other States responded by passing what became known as “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs).
The proposed constitutional amendment codifies the statutory definition of marriage as requiring a man and a woman, but it also does more. The amendment will provide added clarity and certainty where current law is silent.
Conjugal Marriage in South Dakota. Although the current version of Section 25-1-1 is only a decade old, the man-woman requirement for marriage in South Dakota law is older than the State itself. For example, in 1887, two years before the State of South Dakota was created, the following provision was enacted by the Territorial Assembly of Dakota: “From and after the passage of this act, women shall retain the same legal existence and legal personality after marriage as before marriage, and shall receive the same protection of all her rights as a woman, which her husband does as a man. . . .” Territorial Laws of Dakota, chapter 98, § 1 (approved Feb. 17, 1887), Compiled Laws of Dakota, Civil Code, §2600 (1887) (emphasis added).
II. The First Sentence of the Proposed Amendment
The ancient understanding of marriage is under attack across the globe, and the first sentence of the proposed amendment is a partial response to that attack. The sentence would have been advisable for South Dakota even if judges in Massachusetts hadn’t legalized same-sex “marriage,” but Massachusetts provides the best American example of why marriage needs to be defined explicitly in the South Dakota Constitution.
Four Massachusetts judges held that the male-female requirement for marriage was outmoded and unconstitutional, and they ordered that marriage be transmogrified to accommodate two persons of the same sex. Goodridge v. Dept. Public Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003). If South Dakotans want to insure against that same result in their State, they ought to amend their Constitution.
With an amendment in place, South Dakota’s courts will have clear guidance from the text of the Constitution, the document through which the people of South Dakota have expressed their will. Similarly, if an executive or administrative agency in South Dakota is required to make a decision about a same-sex “marriage” from Massachusetts, Canada, or elsewhere, the law will be as clear as words can make it.
III. The Second Sentence of the Proposed Amendment
The second sentence protects the amendment against redefinitions and word-play. Its importance is shown by the examples of Vermont1 and Connecticut2 which have created civil unions that give same-sex couples exactly the same legal benefits and obligations as married couples. In those two States, there are no legal differences between the two institutions (except for the name).
The first sentence of the proposed amendment says what South Dakotans believe that marriage is. The second sentence says that South Dakotans will accept no substitutes, however named.
Without the second sentence, a South Dakota court or executive or administrative agency would have no guidance on the legal status of a Vermont or Connecticut civil union. The statute, which speaks only of marriage, certainly does not provide any.
1“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” 15 Vermont Statutes Annonated §1204(a) (as added by 1999, no. 91, Adj. Sess., § 3).
2“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.” Connecticut General Statutes Annotated §46b-38nn (as added by 2005 PA 05-10, § 14).
Quasi-Marital Relationships. Sentence two encompasses all relationships that are “quasi-marital.” In America today, a Vermont civil union and a Connecticut civil union clearly are “quasi-marital relationships.” Hawaii’s current reciprocal beneficiaries law3 is more limited and probably does not create a “quasi-marital relationship” – but if the Hawaii law were to be expanded it might become a “quasi-marital relationship.” Conversely, if the Vermont or Connecticut laws were to be renamed but otherwise unchanged, they still would be “quasi-marital relationships.” Names are important, but it is the underlying legal reality that determines the status of the named relationship.
California has established “registered domestic partnerships” (see below), and those partnerships also are clearly “quasi-marital,” but New Jersey’s “domestic partnerships”4 are more limited (as currently constituted) and may or may not be “quasi-marital” under South Dakota’s proposed amendment.
Whatever judgment is made about New Jersey’s “domestic partnerships” under South Dakota law, the decision will apply to both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. New Jersey allows male-female couples to establish a domestic partnership if the partners are age 62 or older. N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4.b(5).
The term “quasi-marital” is unique to the marriage-protection law of South Dakota. As near as we can tell, no other State uses the term. The pending text was 3“The purpose of this chapter is to extend certain rights and benefits which are presently available only to married couples to couples composed of two individuals who are legally prohibited from marrying under state law.” Hawaii Revised Statutes §572C-1 (as added by Laws 1997, chap. 383, § 1).
4“[T]he legislature believes that [domestic partnerships] should be formally recognized by statute, and that certain rights and benefits should be made available to individuals participating in them, including: statutory protection against various forms of discrimination against domestic partners; certain visitation and decision-making rights in a health care setting; and certain tax-related benefits; and, in some cases, health and pension benefits that are provided in the same manner as for spouses.” New Jersey Statutes Annotated §26-8A-2.c. (as added by Laws 2003, chapter 246, section 60). drafted expressly for the people, laws, and precedents of South Dakota, because the term “quasi” is entirely familiar to South Dakota law.
South Dakota’s courts have dealt with quasi institutions and quasi actions in nearly 300 cases. In those cases, quasi has been conjoined (sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes not) to all of the following:
admission ministerial act proprietary interest assignee municipal corporation public banking business negotiable remedy contract nonresident domestic rights of redemption contractual obligation corporation sovereign corporation permanently suretyship criminal personal property suspect class Indian reservation principals technical meaning in rem prerogative writs tenant judicial property title, and legislative trustee.
The South Dakota code uses quasi in some 60 sections. Most involve the “quasi-judicial functions” and “quasi-legislative functions” that are granted to various administrative agencies. South Dakota Codified Laws §1-32-1(10)-(11). Many of the cases have involved the definition and scope of those functions.
South Dakota’s Attorney General has issued official opinions on whether the South Dakota Housing Development Authority is an “independent quasi-governmental agency,” Opinion No. 88-41 (1988), and whether the Custer County Food Pantry is a “quasi-governmental organization,” Opinion No. 89-26 (1989).
With this history, no one can pretend that South Dakota’s courts or administrative or executive agencies will be baffled by the meaning of “quasi-marital relationship.” They have plenty of experience with “quasi” institutions and actions.
The Dynamics of Change. The use of the term “quasi-marital relationship” is wise and far-seeing. South Dakotans will be voting on an amendment intended to endure for generations, and it must take into account institutions and concepts and names that may not now exist. And even those institutions that now exist are not going to continue unchanged.
As noted above, California has established registered domestic partnerships for same-sex couples,5 but the California law was amended just recently. On September 30, 2006, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1827 which allows registered domestic partners to file joint tax returns under State law, something they were prohibited from doing under former law. The newly enacted bill removes what may have been the last legal distinction in California between married couples and domestic partners.
The California example shows that laws change, and that a term like “domestic partnership” may have different meanings at different times. Another State’s “domestic partnerships” may constitute a “quasi-marital relationship” at one time but not another. The results turn on the facts, not the titles.
Is Sentence Two Necessary? Sentence two is essential because current legal developments make it so. There are now in the United States civil unions and domestic partnerships that are either identical to marriage or its substantial equivalent. These quasi-marital arrangements did not exist when South Dakota’s DOMA was enacted in 1996.
If the second sentence were to be removed from the proposed amendment – ostensibly to make it more narrow or less ambiguous – the amendment would be silent about laws in Vermont, California, and Connecticut that are now on the books. The amendment would be a decade out-of-date and totally inadequate to deal with future developments.
It is impossible to say with absolute certainty what “quasi-marital relationships” will be interpreted to mean at some future date, but that is no reason
5“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” West’s Ann. California Family Code §297.5(a) (added by Stats. 2003, c. 421 (AB 205), § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2005).
to omit it. At some level, all language is ambiguous; law is not mathematics. Removing the second sentence would produce worse law, not better. The supposed gain to be had by removing the allegedly ambiguous term would be vastly overshadowed by new uncertainties.
A judge presiding over a trial that asks whether a Ford Taurus is “the same” as its Mercury Sable twin is, we hope, going to make an inquiry beyond the nameplates. In the case of marriage, the “quasi-marital relationship” language tells a court to look beyond the label that another State has affixed. Without the second sentence, a judge has no guidance whatsoever.
South Dakota’s proposed amendment has been thoughtfully drafted. Its terms are not broad, but limited and narrow. It defines marriage and makes that definition exclusive. Also, because the authors were not oblivious to developments elsewhere, the proposed amendment covers marriage-like arrangements that mimic marriage.
Marriage has its own dignity and compelling purposes that are rooted in real human experience. It is not based on animus toward homosexuals or anyone else.
Marriage needs both statutory and constitutional protection because it is under attack from those who will succeed if they can find just a handful of judges to agree with them.
# # # # # # #
Even though some would have you believe practically no doctors support South Dakota's abortion ban, there were two more ads in today's Rapid City Journal from doctors in support of Referred Law 6. Here is one of them.
The Rushmore Rally for life is tomorrow morning at Mt. Rushmore. It's going to be a historic event, so don't miss it!
My Dakota Voice colleague Greg Johnson has some great coverage about the upcoming event here, so read it and we'll see you there!
Thursday, November 02, 2006
VoteYesForLife.com says some pro-abortion folks are calling people and posing as volunteers for the campaign. Only these fraudulent "volunteers" are telling people there are no provisions for rape/incest in Referred Law 6 (see Section 3 of HB 1215 to dispel this myth).
If you get a call like this, dial *69 after you hang up and get the caller's name from the operator. Then call VoteYesForLife.com at 605-271-3975 and they'll take care of it from there.
It's bad enough they're trying to mislead people about this bill in their commercials; now some are making fraudulent phone calls. When you can't win on the merits of your argument, deception may be all that's left...
I don't really have a problem with money from outside the state coming into the abortion battle going on here. While Referred Law 6 is our bill, no one doubts it will have national impact. Abortion wouldn't be the big national deal it is if abortion hadn't been imposed on the states by a rogue federal Supreme Court in 1973. So while some people get worked up--or pretend they get worked up--over out of state money, I'm not one of them.
Having said that, I thought I'd perouse the financial report of South Dakota Campaign for (Un)Healthy Families just to see if I saw anything interesting...and I did. It was a little hard to miss.
When I glanced down the State column, those "SD"s were pretty rare; in fact, it reinforced the 8% in-state funding I noticed that the Argus Liar...er, Argus Leader glossed over (they gave the figures, but somehow failed to take any note whatsoever that 92% of the pro-abort money came from out of state). Note how they reported it:
The Healthy Families campaign said it raised $1,835,552.64 in donations during the reporting period. Nearly $160,000 of that was raised in South Dakota, according to information released by the campaign.Meanwhile, they did tell us that 65% of VoteYesForLife.com contributions came from within South Dakota.
As I said, personally I don't give a hoot where the money came from. But given that the Unhealthy Families contributions were so lopsided, and given all the blather about in-state/out-of-state, I would have thought that 92% figure at least worth a passing mention.
But I guess it was more important for the Argus to portray VoteYesForLife.com as a bunch of moneybags with the headline "More money falls on Vote Yes side."
Anyway, the interesting thing I found in all this was that, for all the heated rhetoric from the pro-aborts, they don't seem to be much for putting their money where their mouths are. Sure, not everybody can afford to make big contributions, but surely they could have done better than that, for all the (im)moral indignation they proffered.
Perhaps it'll turn out that way on Election Day, too. Maybe we'll find out they're good for a lot of hot air and not much else...
Yet another (and maybe the most important) reason to protect marriage is the welfare of children who might be forced to grow up in a home with two homosexuals.
There isn't a whole lot of data available on what it's actually like for children to grow up in a homosexual home, but what there is casts a pallor over the situation.
I just read this morning about Dawn Stefanowicz who was raised in a homosexual home. Her testimony has a lot to say about subjecting children to this kind of lifestyle:
I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.Morally bankrupt judges are already allowing some of these situations to exist even now, but if marriage is hijacked by homosexual activists, the floodgates will open to this sort of thing, and even more children will suffer for it.
Here is what Dawn has to say about the value of a normal home with a mother and father:
Not only do children do best with both a mother and a father in a lifelong marriage bond, children need responsible monogamous parents who have no extramarital sexual partners. Parental promiscuity, abuse and divorce are not good for children. If same-sex marriage is legalized, a person, couple or group who practice any form of sexual behavior would eventually be able to obtain children through previous heterosexual relationships, new reproductive technologies, and adoption due to the undefined term sexual orientation. This would force all public and private adoption agencies to hand over children into experimental relationships or risk charges of discrimination.Did she love her father? Of course she did. But
I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father's love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.What was it like growing up in a homosexual home:
From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all-inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father's relationships.What was the long-term effect on this child (now an adult):
My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, "Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?"
Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.I have said it before and I'll say it again: turning a blind eye to an immoral and destructive lifestyle is NEVER the "compassionate" thing to do.
When voters approve Amendment C next Tuesday, they will be doing so for a variety of reasons. They will be preserving the sacred institution of marriage, but they will be making a vote to protect untold numbers of children who could suffer in households lacking the stability and balance of a mother/father home.
The Alliance Defense Fund blog "Constitutionally Correct" has an excellent post today regarding Arizona's effort to protect marriage. As is common with many things, the obfuscation and misinformation there mirrors what is going in on South Dakota:
Opponents of Proposition 107 realize they are unlikely to win in Arizona if they argue in favor of marriage redefinition, so their primary tactic has been to argue that the Proposition would restrict benefits to various classes of unmarried people in the state. The text of the amendment doesn't restrict benefits. It merely restricts creation or recognition of a legal status similar to marriage. States and localities remain free to grant benefits so long as it is not done by recognizing a legal status similar to marriage.As I and others have long said, this business of homosexual "marriage" under another name such as "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or whatever the flavor of the day is, is simply calling it something by another name:
If the NJ legislature doesn't redefine marriage, but grants increased domestic partner benefits watch for same sex "marriage" advocates to immediately file another lawsuit. If that happens, the NJ Supreme Court will then need to decide whether there is any rational reason to distinguish between "marriage" and domestic partnerships now that the only distinction under state law is in name only. Any predictions regarding the outcome of that suit given the propensities of the NJ Supreme Court court? If the people of NJ hope to save marriage from redefinition they need to speak up loudly and clearly to urge the adoption of a marriage amendment.Do homosexual activists really think we're that stupid? The voters of South Dakota will show them on Nov. 7 that they weren't born yesterday.
The NJ case demonstrates that recognition of domestic partnerships, as a legal status, does endanger state marriage laws. Advocates of Arizona's Proposition 107 realize the danger that domestic partnerships, as a legal status, pose to marriage. Hence, the prohibition on any legal status that is similar to marriage. Informed pro-family forces have long realized and same sex "marriage" advocates have argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships are a trojan horse designed to conquer marriage.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Downtown Rapid City was filled with color and excitement as people from all over the Black Hills rallied to influence voters who are "yet to cast" their vote on November 7th.
The West and East corners of 9th and St. Joe were very different as each side touted their desired outcome on Referred Law 6.
Clearly, the VoteYesForLife folks outnumbered the Vote No for Death side.
The Vote No side rallied with speakers for about 15 minutes while the Vote Yes For Life folks sang songs, waved and cheered as the ongoing sound of approval honks brought affirmation and encouragement.
Notables attending the rallies included for the Vote No on 6 campaign Senator Adelstein, state senate candidate Tom Katus running for the Senate, campaign organizers, staff and local business professionals. Vote Yes For Life had Representative Kraus, Representative Van Etten, state senate candidate Elli Schwiesow, campaign volunteers, organizers, families, high school and college students, retirees and business professionals.
VoteYesForLife had a special balloon lift of 814 balloons which represented the 814 babies lost and women who were hurt by abortion in 2004.
If the honks, waves and turnout for this rally were any indication based on today's downtown display, Referred Law 6 will win on Nov. 7.
Check out some pics below of this exciting event (the middle one is a response to the disingenuous name of the pro-abort group South Dakota Healthy Families--and of course, the third is how some on the other side engage intellectually in the debate):
What a bunch of losers! :-) The whiners at Coat Hangers at Dawn are too cheap to go out and buy a newspaper so they can see the the names of the doctors they've been carping for who support life. (Maybe they should just call themselves "Big Whiners at Dawn")
Okay, just for you cheapo pro-aborts, I've uploaded a much larger copy you can access by clicking the smaller image. It's 1674 x 2996 pixels (which is considerably bigger than will fit on a screen in it's entirety), so hopefully you can read it now.
About 165 or so doctors, by my rough but fairly accurate count. And who knows how many were never even contacted about doing the ad...
Oh, since you need to be spoon-fed everything, here's the link to the original post with the now much larger linked image: http://dakotavoice.blogspot.com/2006/11/doctors-who-care-about-saving-life-not.html.
Lots of interesting ads in the Rapid City Journal today. Here's one from the video lottery repeal folks.
It mentions the "natural experiment" in 1994 when video lottery was found to be unconstitutional for 100 days. The world didn't come to an end. In fact, treatment for gambling addiction went down 93.5%, according to a study entitled "Video Lottery and Treatment for Pathological Gambling: A Natural Experiment in South Dakota" published in January 1996 in the South Dakota Journal of Medicine.
Is video lottery good for the people of South Dakota? Hmmmmm...
Is anybody surprised that the so-called "Mainstream" Coalition supports the killing of unborn children for the crimes of their fathers? It's safe to say I'm not.
Another interesting ad from the Rapid City Journal today:
Lots of interesting ads in the Rapid City Journal today.
This one from the Pastors for Immoral Choices, morally adrift, failing in their duty to teach God's truth (including the sacred nature of His human creation) and encouraging the continued killing of the most innocent among us...
From the ad in the Rapid City Journal today:
“There are some things so ingrained in our history that even the rocks cry out...” -Janet Folger
It was from his farewell address, but the message from the father of our country is just as true to the people of South Dakota: “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.” – George Washington
Answering the accusation that our country should “get government out of the issue”, here are the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson
A bold statement from the third face of Rushmore: “I cannot stand idly while directly or indirectly an apology is made for the murder of the helpless.” – Theodore Roosevelt
As if speaking directly to the issues of our times: “No one has the right to choose to do what is morally wrong.” – Abraham Lincoln
Some of the pro-abortion Leftist blogs have been bellyaching for names of South Dakota doctors for life. Well, here ya go, Baby!
I count at least 165 names here, and I'm sure there were 3 times that many who simply weren't contacted or didn't hear about the ad in time to sign on.
Most doctors take the oath to do no harm and try to save ALL human life very seriously.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Also from VoteYesForLife.com today, an ad featuring young Maria Barnett, daughter of Megan Barnett of Aberdeen.
Megan was raped two years ago, but instead of aborting her child, she chose to give life to her child. She realized that the baby was also hers, and gave birth to her beautiful daughter you see in this picture.
Rape is a terrible crime. But the violence of abortion only ends the life of the woman's child, and adds a lifetime of regret for the mother.
If you believe a child in the womb is a human life, vote YES on Referred Law 6. Because no matter what crimes her father may have committed, the life of every child is precious.
The latest release from VoteYesForLife.com features the endorsements of some heavy-hitters: Bishop Paul Swain of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, Senator John Thune, and Governor Mike Rounds. The Mitchell Daily Republic also endorsed Referred Law 6.
Do your part to support life and protect women by voting for Referred Law 6.
Fox News features an op/ed by Dr. James Dobson regarding some criticisms made by the former Republican House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.
In a piece on Armey's site, he takes Dobson to task for some things which Dobson disputes (at one point he refers to Dobson as a "bully").
Before I go any further, let me state for the record that I have been ad admirer of Dick Armey since back before the Republican Revolution of 1994. But when I read something a few weeks ago about this growing discontent of Armey's with the so-called Religious Right, my response was "huh?"
While Dobson's response is fairly lengthy, and he makes some guesses as to what's behind Armey's bone of contention, I just don't know. They may answer some of the "why's" but don't go all the way back to whatever the source is for me.
I've always considered Armey a man of principle, and someone who was a genuine conservative and a well-grounded Christian. But if he's working for the ACLU--that doesn't speak well for Armey AT ALL.
Anyone who's been exposed to Dobson more than just in passing realizes that a charge that he's a "bully" is laughable.
While I once would have had only positive things to say about Armey, now I'd have to recommend: keep a wary eye on him.