Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Working

From CitizenLink: Many young Americans say homosexual "marriage" should be legal.

Operation Rescue Supports South Dakota Pro-Life Measure

Some pro-lifers and pro-life groups have experienced some hesitation about supporting South Dakota's pro-life measure, Initiated Measure 11. This is understandable, since IM11 doesn't protect the lives of children conceived in rape or incest--children with the same humanity as any other child.

Yet the voters in South Dakota in 2006 rejected a bill that would have protected these unborn children as well. In lieu of the most consistent bill, pro-lifers in South Dakota have come up with a measure which, according to the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health, would protect more than 98% of the children currently being aborted in South Dakota.

Many pro-lifers like myself have come to the conclusion that while we'd like to save 100% of the children, saving 98% is better than saving 0%.

Operation Rescue has also reached this conclusion, according to LifeNews:

South Dakota's Measure 11 is about saving many babies from certain death. Since that is the mission of Operation Rescue, it deserves our unwavering support," OR president Tory Newman told LifeNews.com.

"Measure 11 is a well planned and reasonable step toward the abolition of abortion. Statistically, Measure 11 will save nearly every child scheduled to die at Planned Parenthood," he added.

Newman said those who, like him, oppose abortions in cases of rape or incest, should appreciate that the drafters of the measure included strong language to ensure that provision isn't abused.

"Additionally, the strong fraud provisions for so-called 'tough choices' of rape and incest would prevent Planned Parenthood from exploiting legal loopholes as they have in many other states," he explained.

While not everyone who is pro-life is on board with the South Dakota legislation because of the exceptions, Newman says the pro-life movement should rally around eliminating virtually all abortions.

"The pro-life community must vote for legislation that would save 99.9% of children that would otherwise be killed. It would be immoral to condemn hundreds of babies to die each year that we have within our ability to save with this measure," he said.

IM11 provides exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother. While they allow abortions when these circumstances are reported to law enforcement authorities and are medically supported, as appropriate, they are written so that the exceptions cannot be used as loopholes to continue providing abortion on demand as is the current practice.

The rape exception requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement and that DNA evidence from the child be preserved for a match to the perpetrator. The incest exception contains similar requirements. Rape and incest made up 0.4% of the abortions done in 2006.

The health exception specifies that it is only allowed when there is "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system" which could be prevented by an abortion. This must be certified by a doctor.

A KELO poll taken in 2006 before the election found that 75% of South Dakotans said they would support a measure with the exceptions IM11 has.

Financial Crisis Good for Obama

Why is it that whatever is bad news for America is good news for liberals?

Yesterday we found that while out of one side of his mouth Barack Obama has been clamoring for troop withdrawal from Iraq, on the other side he's been secretly trying to convince Iraqi leaders to slow any withdrawal...until he might get a chance to take credit for it.

Now we hear that Obama's been rooting for financial hard times in order to capitalize on that. Apparently the country's financial problems are (yay!) providing him that opportunity.

From NewsBusters on CNN:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST:...And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don't know if he's going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there's no question right now that this -- this really dark economic situation is now going to be -- is going to really -- is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who -- the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.

GERGEN: And that's what -- that's what Obama has wanted to do. He's now got the opportunity.

Remember what happened right after 911? Bill Clinton was about 8 months out of office when the terrorists struck, and what was the cry from the Clinton camp?

Darn it! Why couldn't this have happened while Bill Clinton was in office. This would have given him an opportunity to look great! This would have been the perfect tragedy to make him look presidential.

Conservatives...we like it when America succeeds. We like it when America's doing well.

We also never seem at a loss to find reasons to praise and rejoice in our country...while liberals never seem at a loss for reasons to bash her and her heritage.

I wonder which of those attitudes is better suited to lead the country?

Pro-Life Campaign Responds to Misleading Pro-Abortion Ad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Brandi Gruis
605.271.7581

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The ads that the abortion proponents (“Healthy Families”) placed on their website today, in an effort to defeat Initiated Measure 11, is deliberately misleading in an effort to confuse the voting public. At the same time, the abortion proponents exploited and misrepresented a personal tragedy.

Vote Yes for Life has the following response to that misleading ad:

1. The law that appears on the ballot as Initiated Measure 11 is an extremely well written and well crafted law. The law was drafted by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long at the request of leaders of the State Legislature. Attorney General Long assembled and presided over a panel of eleven legal experts for the purpose of insuring that the law was well crafted. It was drafted over a period of about eight months.

Any suggestion that the law is anything other than well drafted and well thought out is false and deliberately misleading. The voters of South Dakota can trust their Attorney General.

2. The ad claims that South Dakota “already voted on this.”

This is a false representation.

In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that prohibited abortion, but it did not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. That law was referred to the election in November of 2006 and was voted on.

The 2008 law is totally different and represents what the voting public said they wanted in place of the 2006 law.

In 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, every poll taken in South Dakota, showed that the vast majority of South Dakota voters (between 58% and 67%) wanted abortion prohibited. But many thought that there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Although 44% of the voters voted for the 2006 law with no exception, the 2008 Initiated Measure 11 prohibits abortions but incorporates the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother, and represents what the South Dakota voters wanted as their law.


3. The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has “Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome” is illegal under the law. That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child.

Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.

If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.

There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.

Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is “with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:

“Medical treatment ... that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act.”

It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.

4. The ad says that there is no way for a doctor to “give good advice” and that every case should be judged on an “individual case” basis. The implication is that the law prevents both.

That implication is deliberately misleading. Section 4 of the law specifically preserves the right of a doctor to make “a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk “of injury to a major bodily function of the mother. A doctor is not liable under the law if he performs an abortion to preserve the health of the mother, unless the “physician knowingly disregards accepted standard of medical practice.”

This means that only if the doctor knows good medicine does not require the abortion, is he prohibited from performing the abortion.

5. The ad makes the false claims that the voters can’t know what they are voting on.

The abortion proponents make these false claims because they cannot win a debate about this law if they made candid admissions about its content.

The law simply says that it is illegal to deliberately and intentionally kill an unborn child except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a serious risk to the health of the mother.

Having actors read Section 15 (chapters 187 and 188 etc.”) is intended to create the false impression that the law is difficult to understand. Section 15 is a technical section meant for the courts to let them know that one other law is not repealed.

Playing Dumb about Initiated Measure 11

Does nature favor the stupid? Not according to Charles Darwin. Not according to any other source I know of either...unless you're a liberal.

You know how liberals like to play the "race card," right? Did you know they sometimes play the "dumb card"? It works a little different, but it's intended to do the same thing: play upon fears and obscure the real issue.

The liberals are playing dumb again, just as they did with the marriage protection amendment in 2006 when they claimed, "Duh, I don't know what 'quasi' means. Oh, and while I'm at it, duh, I don't know how to find a dictionary and look it up.

Like Barack Obama who claims something as simple and obvious as human life is "above his pay grade," pro-abortion liberals from the South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families have a new ad up their sleeve to try and fool the voters of South Dakota into believing the exceptions in Initiated Measure 11 are so complicated that no average human being can figure them out.

Go read them for yourself here; see if they're as complicated as the pro-abortionists claim.

In this ad, the pro-abortion folks pull an extremely rare medical condition out of the hat as if it were realistically something that many pregnant women would face--and this condition does not always necessitate the death of one twin as they imply.

Notice, too, how they talk out of both sides of their mouth in this ad. One moment, they're complaining that "trying to cover every medical circumstance" results in a complicated measure, and the next moment they're complaining that one rare instance might have been left out. Logical consistency is optional; whatever fear-mongering tool will convince the audience is acceptable.

The UnHealthy Families gang wants you to believe IM 11 is a real mind-bender. It's only a mind-bender if you want to try to find a way around these exceptions without really having a situation covered by these exceptions. Yes, finding a way to get an abortion because "I don't want it" under these exceptions will be pretty confusing and hard to figure out.

The exceptions require proof that grounds exist for an abortion under those exceptions, plain and simple. They were designed not to be abused. Of course, the pro-abortionists would rather have an "exception" that didn't require any proof of a rape or a health threat...so they could push any abortion they wanted through a loophole the size of Mount Rushmore. But that isn't really what it's about, is it?

In 2006, pro-abortionists lied to the voters of South Dakota and said Referred Law 6 was "too extreme," and "if only it had exceptions" then reasonable people could support it.

Now that we have Initiated Measure 11 with those exceptions they whined for in 2006...oh, now they aren't broad enough. They're too restrictive. They're too complicated. They're too hard to figure out.

In reality, they prevent the only thing pro-abortionists will settle for: full access to abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, including the one chosen by 84.6% of South Dakota women seeking an abortion: "The mother did not desire to have the child."

Also, the 50,000+ South Dakotans who signed the petition to put this measure on the November ballot obviously didn't have any trouble figuring it out, either.

Folks, they're not as dumb as they let on. And neither are you. This "I'm too dumb" act is just a thin ruse to make a very clear issue seem far more complicated than it is...in order to scare you into voting against the most reasonable, common-sense abortion measure ever to come out.

No, the pro-abortionists aren't dumb at all. They're smart enough to realize that, as the polls indicated in 2006, more than 70% of South Dakotans will vote for a measure with these exceptions. And they're smart enough to realize they must come up with a fresh excuse that you might buy, in order to keep abortion on demand available as retroactive birth control.

Voters of South Dakota, you'll get your chance in November to show the pro-abortion extremists that you are smarter than them ...and their tricks.