Rape and Health Exceptions = No Abortion Reductions

LifeSite features an article today on how the abortion rate among youth is rising in Spain, even as their population declines. This is a topic becoming discussed more and more lately (although in hushed tones), about how the West is driving itself to extinction with the declining birth rate.

Far, far more interesting than the main topic of the article (and very pertinent to the abortion discussion going on in South Dakota right now), however, was the last paragraph of the story:

While Spanish laws officially restrict abortion to situations involving rape, malformation of the baby, or threats to the physical or mental health of the mother, nearly 95.7% of all abortions are justified for concern for the mother's health, while 2.5% are for fetal deformity, and just 0.1% for rape.

Pro-abortionists in South Dakota are crying for rape and health exceptions in South Dakota's Referred Law 6 abortion ban. If only, they tell us with crocodile tears, Referred Law 6 had exceptions for rape or the health of the mother, by golly they'd be in full support of this bill, they say.

Well, that's essentially what they have in Spain, yet their abortion rate (8.8 per 1000) is even higher than South Dakota's (7 per 1000) where abortion is currently far less restricted. That seems to indicate that if you have an abortion restriction that has rape and health exceptions, you essentially don't have any abortion restrictions.

If 95.7% of Spain's 8.8 abortion rate can be justified under the nebulous "health" definition, that restriction means pretty much nothing. And if we throw in a rape exception (which incidentally says how children were conceived determines their worth and right to live) without requiring the alleged rape victim to report the rape--what pro-abortionists in South Dakota are advocating--then that "restriction" means nothing either.

The "health" and "rape" exceptions essentially become open-ended loopholes used to justify abortion on demand.

Here's a riddle for you: how do you have an abortion ban, yet have just as many abortions? Pass one with a rape and health exception!

Abortion Hypocrites

I think one of the Leftist blogs is gunning for the Hypocrites of the Year award.

In the same day the extremists at Coat Hangers at Dawn said

We have yet to meet a single person who supports choice who supports late term abortion post viability unless there are severe fetal abnormalities.

just a few hours later they post a piece about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice filing a brief which defends the barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion.

The article actually has the audacity to use the term "safest" in connection with this procedure which involves a breach birth in which the child is deliberately and purposefully turned around and brought down the birth canal in the breach position (feet first) which is the most dangerous position in which a child can be born. Why do they turn the child around and intentionally endanger the mother in this manner? So they can suck the child's brains out of the back of its skull when only the top of the head remains inside the mother.

How is this different from infanticide? Because with part of the head still inside the mother, the baby is not yet "born" and is therefore fair game for the killing.

Abortion extremists are so dedicated to protecting abortion at any time for any reason that this bill was vetoed by Clinton TWICE before Bush signed it. Of course, desperate pro-abortionists immediately sued to preserve the gruesome procedure, and there is where it sits.

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed more than 1000 of these murders, admits that "probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." Another abortionist, Dr. James McMahon, classified only 9% of over 2000 abortions he performed as being for "maternal health indications," the most common of which was "depression."

It's time everyone faced up to reality: the forces fighting South Dakota's abortion ban, Referred Law 6, have never encountered an abortion they would condemn.

"We have yet to meet a single person who supports choice who supports late term abortion post viability unless there are severe fetal abnormalities"? Go look in the mirror.

Abortion Extremists to Protest Woman Who Survived Abortion

It shouldn't be a surprise to me, yet I found myself shaking my head this morning as I read from the Robbinsdale Radical (a Leftist blog) that the South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families bunch are planning a protest of the Gianna Jessen event coming up Friday.

Gianna Jessen is a grown woman who, when she was a baby in her mother's womb, survived a saline abortion that should have ended her short life right then. But she was born, and born alive, and despite the cerebral palsy caused by the saline abortion, has gone on to not only lead a productive life, but ran the London marathon.

Gianna is the kind of people pro-abortionists like South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families wants to get rid of. She and millions of unborn people like her are the reason HB1215/Referred Law 6 was passed, and she and millions of yet unborn people are the reason VoteYesForLife.com are working so hard for this bill.

Because abortion doesn't just get rid of a zygote, cytoblast or "blob of tissue"--it gets rid of a human being with all the right to life, with all the potential as Gianna Jessen.

That is why passage of Referred Law 6 is so important. Because abortion isn't just a choice (any more than Elijah Page made a "choice" to kill Chester Allan Poage)--abortion kills human beings.

It is my sincere hope that once the event gets started at Open Bible Christian Center in Rapid City Friday night, the protesters will put down their signs, go inside the building and face what it is they are fighting so hard to destroy.

VoteYesForLife.com Responds to Misleading Ads

The VoteYesForLife.com campaign has responded to the misleading ad being run by South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families which claims there are "no options" for victims of sexual assault and women with health issues.

Read about it at the South Dakota War College...

Condoms Don't Always Stop HPV

AgapePress features a story today on the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) risk; HPV causes gential warts and cervical cancer.

Epidemiologist Rachel Winer of the University of Washington School of Public Health found that, even when women used condoms 100 percent of the time, nearly 30 percent of the women contracted the human papilloma virus (HPV) -- one of the most prevalent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among American college students.

The story points out that supporters of condom-based sex ed think a 30% contraction rate is a good thing. I wonder: if you knew that the brakes on your car were going to fail 30% of the time, would you drive it?

Yeah, promiscuity is fun and it feels good...at the moment. But somehow, God refuses to be mocked when he tells us what's good for us and what isn't. There is always a consequence when we act outside of God's design--one man and one woman for life. It's not only moral, but it's healthy and better for us all around

Marriage Amendment Threatens Legal Matters: Lies

The Constitutionally Correct blog has a feature today on the Washington Post's predictable hatchet job on Virginia's proposed marriage amendment.

Like South Dakota and about 7 other states, Virginia will be voting this November 7 on protecting marriage from being hijacked by homosexual activists.

Like they are trying here, they are trying to scare heterosexuals into believing the marriage protection amendment threatens legal relationships like wills, pensions, hospital visits, domestic violence protections, etc.

The Virginia Attorney General has posted a 13-page advisory which thoroughly debunks these fear-mongering, bogus claims.

It's a very interesting read, and very applicable to South Dakota. Read it here (pdf).

Pasadena: The Rest of the Story

As I suspected, there was a little more to the story about the liberal Pasadena church under IRS scrutiny for a nonprofit violation. An All Headline News report says

Regis says he only said that Jesus would have told President Bush that his preemptive war strategy in Iraq "has led to disaster."

All Saints first came into IRS scrutiny after Regas delivered a sermon that depicted Jesus in a mock debate with then presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said the sermon did not endorse either candidate.

I still think Rev. Regas should have been able to do even what he did without any nonprofit repercussions. I think it's safe to say I would completely disagree with him theologically, but he should have the right to be wrong without jeopardizing the church's nonprofit status.

Nevertheless, what Regas did sounds a lot like what Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Gary McCaleb said a couple of months ago that churches should not do unless they want to get in hot water with the IRS. From the All Headline News report, Regas still didn't plainly endorse or denounce a candidate, but McCaleb described similar activities as flirting with a violation in the eyes of the IRS.

Perhaps there's a chance that since a liberal church is now in the IRS crosshairs, we might get a little more movement out of Congress on legislation to get rid of the church harassment brought on by LBJ's 1954 law.

South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families Commercial Rebuttal

Received this email this afternoon in response to the new South Dakota Campaign for (Un)Healthy Families TV commercial:

RAPE & INCEST: No recourse for women?
"Note that the confusion about an exception for rape and incest is due to the fact that the language of the bill does not 'specifically' use the words rape and incest... yet this is what is the provision is for ...rape and incest."

SECTION 3:

Nothing in Sec. 2 of this act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instruction.


** Also, with Plan B, emergency contraceptives recently approved for over the counter use & in effect today, there is no longer the
excuse that there is 'no recourse' for victims of rape. There is. (this has 'no' effect if the woman is pregnant so is 'not' an abortion pill)

* Of all of the abortions performed because of rape last year in SD, reported by Planned Parenthood, NONE were prosecuted. Why? This is because most rape cases are reported by the parents of minors who report 'statutory rape' as an excuse for an abortion. Pregnancy is so rare in an actual rape that it is likely that 'none' of the abortions were because of the rape.

LIFE/ HEALTH ISSUE:
Section 2:
9 No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or any substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.
24 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.

5 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.'

7 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.

Abortion Blitzkrieg

David Bereit on PipeLineNews.org has an interesting observation on why we're going through this ballot exercise on the already-passed-by-70%-of-the-legislature abortion ban in South Dakota, instead of just going straight to the pro-abortion lawsuit we might have otherwise expected had the law gone into effect in July as scheduled:

When the South Dakota abortion ban was passed, Planned Parenthood instantly realized that a legal challenge of the law could actually result in the reversal of the Roe decision, and shut down its $100 million-dollar-a-year abortion empire. That's why, instead of challenging the abortion ban in court, Planned Parenthood decided on a more radical - and risky - approach: forcing the law to a vote by the people of South Dakota.

This was a risky approach because even the Left knows that South Dakota is overwhelmingly conservative and pro-life.

To combat this reality, Planned Parenthood and its allies immediately went to work planning a massive propaganda campaign to distort and demonize the ban in an effort to convince enough pro-life voters that the ban was "too extreme" in order to get them to vote against it.

Planned Parenthood knows it can't afford to lose in South Dakota, and the abortion chain has already raised millions of dollars around the country to fund their campaign. Now they are calling on abortion activists in all 50 states to hold fundraisers on the weekend of September 29 - October 1 to raise millions more for their South Dakota war chest.

As Tom Daschle's tenure and subsequent end of that tenure illustrate, the only way liberal plans receive approval in South Dakota is when people can be fooled into believing they aren't really as liberal as they seem. When people see liberals and liberal plans for what they are--as they did in 2004--South Dakota voters know what is right and vote accordingly.

You can rest assured that when the voters approve Referred Law 6/HB 1215 on November 7, the pro-abortionists will trot out the lawsuits, but in the meantime they will have taken a gamble that will, if nothing else, have bought them a few months more of abortions...and a few more innocent children killed.

I Agree With a Liberal Church

The world can be a very odd place, at times. For once, I find myself agreeing with a liberal church.

I heard about All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena in CA yesterday. Every report I've been able to find so far says the pastor delivered a sermon on the eve of the 2004 election which was "critical of the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts," but indicates the pastor did not endorse a particular candidate or advise church members against voting for a particular candidate.

If this is true, then this pastor, while probably wrong in his theology, was acting within the bounds of tax laws for non profits.

Contrary to what secularists would have us believe, churches CAN address moral issues during an election; whether they address them Biblically is irrelevant to the law.

This church in Pasadena would be one of the extremely rare instances where a liberal church was threatened and harassed (most of us are familiar with Je$$ie Jack$on's fundraising and conservative candidate-bashing he does in liberal black churches), but if it's true as presented in the media, then for once I stand with a liberal church.

Churches should not be intimidated by the IRS when they are operating within the law, regardless of whether their theology is correct.