More Deception from Progressives

McChesney is telling more fibs. The latest blog post says my comments last night were posted in their entirety. Funny, I checked and even refreshed the page before making my response today...and they weren't there...but now they are. What a magic act!

I'll let my lastest comment speak for itself (hope it gets posted there):

You said you posted my comment in it's entirety, and while it's there now, it definitely wasn't there a few hours ago when I sent my response to you.

As if your attempts to throw dirt on the truth about Section 3 weren't enough, this latest lie proves the Left relies on lies when they're bereft of support for their arguments (which is most of the time).

The pro-aborts just can't handle it when people see through their obfuscation. Placing desperation to keep abortion on demand ahead of the health of a rape victim and the pursuit of justice for her is despicable

Mainstream or Leftstream?

Aberdeen News has a piece on the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition coming out in the open about where they stand on several issues.

Is it any surprise to anyone that the South Dakota "Mainstream" Coalition would be against:

- banning abortion
- stabilizing property taxes
- protecting marriage from homosexual activists

Response to Charge: No Rape Exception in Abortion Ban

Theron McChesney is claiming I said in a comment to the SD Progressive blog that there is no exception for rape in Referred Law 6.

That's not what I said. I said there were no "broader" exceptions (i.e. one that would make the bill meaningless. (Public school grads may want to look up the definition of the word "broader").

Since my comments were not posted to the Progressive blog in there entirety, I'm including them here so they can be taken in context, rather than misconstrued:

Section 3 isn't something that legislators "changed their tune" on; it was in the bill from the start. They didn't go back and stick it in there as the Left alleges. It was intentionally placed in the bill for a reason.

The abortion ban doesn't contain any unreasonable exceptions (i.e. ones you could drive a truck through, or ones that don't make any sense).

Why would a woman who's been sexually assaulted wait weeks to report that she's been raped? She needs medical care right away, not to mention counseling. And the perpetrator needs to be brought to justice; the longer she waits, the more evidence is lost.

It makes no sense that a woman would need more than a few days to report a rape.

Someone who is committing incest also needs to be brought to justice. Are we going to let the child sexual abuser just get rid of the evidence of his crime (and revictimize the child) with a convenient abortion

Section 3 of HB 1215 is a common sense provision that allows the woman who feels she needs EC to have access to it, while preventing any frivolous use of a broader rape exception. It also helps ensure that sex criminals are brought to justice.

Why does the pro-abortion crowd want to let rapists and child sexual abusers get away with their crimes, just to preserve abortion on demand?

My response to todays subsequent post which attempts to misconstrue what I said is as follows:

By the way I don't work for the VoteYesForLife.com folks. I just believe in what they're doing and try to help out where I can.

Why didn’t you post my entire comment so folks could take everything I said in context?

If pro-abortion folks aren't arguing that Section 3 wasn't in the bill from the beginning, why are they trying to make it sound like an afterthought, or something that pro-lifers "came up with" to respond to charges that the bill is "too extreme?" The implication can be nothing that Section 3 is some "rabbit out of the hat" that pro-lifers came up, and that it wasn't deliberately included.

The difference between conventional "birth control" and emergency contraceptives is that conventional birth control is something you use before or during intercourse, whereas EC is something which is used after intercourse. It's disingenuous to lump them together.

No one is saying Referred Law 6 allows you to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest. If you'll read again what I said instead of trying to misconstrue it, I said provides a common sense provision which allows recourse to a woman who has been raped to use emergency contraception within a few days of a rape. Why would a raped woman want to wait more than a few days to report a violent crime like rape anyway???

What the bill does not allow is some kind of broad "exception" that you could drive a truck through and essentially get an abortion on demand, simply by saying "I was raped" long after any evidence of the alleged crime is long gone. You would most likely see reported rapes go up considerably, but most would remain "unsolved" due to lack of evidence.

If pro-abortion folks are really interested in helping women who have been raped, they would be urging rape victims to report the crime immediately so they can (a) get the medical attention they need and (b) begin the investigation to bring the rapist to justice, instead of propagating some sort of lackadaisical attitude about rape which essentially conveys the attitude that rape isn't an urgent, serious matter which warrants immediate attention. By demanding access to abortion beyond any reasonable timeframe in which a rape victim would reasonably report the crime, they reveal that the true intent isn't some feigned concern for rape victims, but simply an excuse they hope will convince good people to vote against the bill and keep abortion on demand.

Pro-Abortion Vision for the World

The VoteYesForLife.com blog has a vision of the "Planned Parenthood Paradise." Beware: you too might be in the crosshairs...

Abortion Hides Sex Crimes?

That's what a probe in Kansas is investigating. Read more at the VoteYesForLife.com blog.