The Mitchell Daily Republic showed us one of two things today (or possibly both things): (1) they are woefully ignorant and uninformed, or (2) like most of the "mainstream" media, they are liberally biased and journalism is just a pretense.
To read the Daily Republic's editorial on Initiated Measure 11, it seems they've been busy reading the Campaign for UnHealthy Families talking points...and not much else.
All of their "worries" could be easily assuaged by actually reading Initiated Measure 11 and applying just a couple of drops of common sense.
Here is what "worried" the Republic:
- Initiated Measure 11 could boost instances of wrongful accusations of rape or incest.
- Initiated Measure 11 may force health professionals into difficult situations. It may be tricky to precisely prove a woman’s health is in danger, and the decision-making process could result in potentially career-threatening decisions for a physician. One troublesome fact of Measure 11 is that debates about a woman’s health could end up in court, instead of simply within the discretion of a family doctor.
- We question the timeframe related to determining rape cases. For an abortion under the rules of Initiated Measure 11, a rape must be reported. But to prove a rape occurred can sometimes take months, through the courts.
- Measure 11 is unconstitutional. Attorney General Larry Long, in his explanation of the measure, said that if approved, Measure 11 likely will be challenged in court. The state may be required to pay attorney fees and costs.
To answer these lame excuses one by one...
Initiated Measure 11 could boost instances of wrongful accusations of rape or incest - Yes, as passing any law could boost instances of wrongful reporting. But guess what? Section 7 requires a teeny little thing called "evidence." The rape has to be reported to law enforcement authorities...and making a false report of a crime carries it's own criminal penalty which should dissuade many who might be inclined to make a false report. There is also a requirement that DNA evidence from the mother and the aborted child be gathered and turned over to law enforcement to tie to the perpetrator. If the DNA evidence indicates the accused didn't commit the crime, then the aforementioned criminal penalty for a false report once again applies.
Initiated Measure 11 may force health professionals into difficult situations - Really? Did they catch Section 3 and 4 of Initiated Measure 11, or were they in too big of a hurry to get to a Campaign for UnHealthy Families rally? These sections state that physicians will not be prosecuted for any actions as long as they meet "accepted standards of medical practices." Doctors have gone to school for a long time; they aren't dumb, and to grasp what is an "accepted standard of medical practice" is not beyond them. As Dr. Pamela Schmagel said, she won't be changing the way she cares for her patients, and that IM 11 will not affect the care of high-risk patients.
a rape must be reported. But to prove a rape occurred can sometimes take months, through the courts - Again, simply reading Initiated Measure 11 would really help. Nowhere in Initiated Measure 11 does it say a rape must be proven in a court of law before the abortion can take place. Section 7 (1) of IM 11 says the physician "...prior to performing the abortion shall report the rape or incest immediately by telephone..." Once the crime has been reported, the abortion process can move forward, and DNA evidence collected during the abortion. Again, if a rape was falsely reported, the woman can be prosecuted later for the crime she committed; the exception exists for genuine rape circumstances, not an excuse for convenient retroactive birth control.
Measure 11 is unconstitutional. Attorney General Larry Long, in his explanation of the measure, said that if approved, Measure 11 likely will be challenged in court. The state may be required to pay attorney fees and costs. - Initiated Measure is not unconstitutional. If it was, why would supporters waste everyone's time with a useless exercise? In our court system, if it is challenged by pro-abortionists, it will work its way up the levels of the court system to determine its constitutionality. It will not be unconstitutional until the highest level of the court system has declared it to be. And based on the mountain of scientific evidence available now that was not available in 1973, any semi-reasonable court will find that Initiated Measure 11 is constitutional.
But hey; when you don't want to support something, it's easy to come up with reasons not to.
Too bad the Mitchell Daily Republic took a pass on objective journalism and opted for pro-abortion excuses.