Incredible Pro-Abortion Spin from Rapid City Journal

I never would have thought someone could spin the abortion statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health in a positive manner...yet there I go again, underestimating the capacity of liberals for deception and misdirection.

The Rapid City Journal had a series of articles today on abortion and the upcoming vote on Initiated Measure 11 to end most abortions in South Dakota.

On Page A8, Marry Garrigan did an article on "Who gets abortions in South Dakota? A quick profile."

Now, one might reasonably think that since the latest Department of Health statistics show that 84.6% of abortions done in South Dakota were because "The mother did not desire to have the child," that this would be the primary focus of this article.

After all, the article's headline says the article is ostensibly about "who gets abortions in South Dakota." If the most common reason for getting an abortion--by 63.2 percentage points-- is "The mother did not desire to have the child," you'd expect that to at least be discussed, but most likely be the subject of the article, right?

Yet it doesn't make a single appearance in the article. Why is that?

Could it be that this statistic reveals the damning fact that abortion is mostly used as a form of retroactive birth control?

Could it be that the "tough cases" trotted out by the pro-abortionists are not even close to this 84.6% that abort their children for convenience?

Could it be that these "tough cases" are indeed a rarity, and when seen in light of the reason most abortions are performed, are really of no use to justify their pursuit of continued abortion on demand?

In fact, the exceptions clamored for in 2006 (the reason given by the pro-abortionists then why, oh my, they just couldn't vote for Referred Law 6), only make up 1.9% of the abortions performed in South Dakota.

So what in the world could this article possibly point to as to "who gets abortions in South Dakota," you might ask?

Garrigan's article blathers on about some irrelevant income and education data, then grabs onto these two "common" statistics: 55% of women in South Dakota seeking an abortion already had a child, and are white.

And Garrigan also finds a creative way to link these statistics to the sympathetic figure of Tiffany Campbell, the woman in the pro-abortion ad whose twins had the Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS).

Wow. When an overwhelming majority of abortions in South Dakota are done because the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced by the child, and a tiny percentage of abortions fall within the exceptions, and an even tinier percentage are in any way related to fetal anomalies, Garrigan finds the big profile factors to be previous children and skin color.

Why was I so naive? I should have known that when it comes to maintaining a legal avenue to a "failsafe" for sexual license without responsibility, pro-abortionists will always find a way to spin everything to their advantage.

This article is one of the most pathetic excuses for journalism that I've seen in a long time.

Works pretty good as pro-abortion propaganda, though.