Abortion: Legitimate or a grave injustice?

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Once again the abortion or anti-abortion issue has surfaced in South Dakota. This time Initiated Measure 11 would prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is a substantial or irreversible risk and in cases of reported rape or incest. In other words, those sponsoring the proposal have sweetened the pie a bit from the last time it was introduced by adding "reported rape and incest" to the exceptions.

NEVER IN MY LONG history of observing the South Dakota political scene has there been proposed legislation with more adulation and denunciation from the voting public than the abortion, or should I say anti-abortion, issue.

There is no question about the poignancy of the television commercial about the parents who had to sacrifice the unborn life of one twin to save the life of the other. The message was that if the proposed bill was in effect, they would not have been able to have this choice.

Still, arguments abound about their rights to make this decision. Herein lies the problem. Would such an abortion be legitimate or would it be a grave injustice? If so, to whom? Would the proposed law provide enough exemption to cover such possibilities that are needed?

POIGNANT OR NOT, any legislation must at least attempt to cover such exceptions as mentioned above. Without them, the proposed law would be considered by many to be incomplete. If "11" passes the electorate, I would hope the exemptions would be generally broad enough to cover the above example.

Writing for the opponents of "11," Dr. Marvin Buehner of Rapid City, wrote, "This law requires government to interfere in the most difficult personal decisions that women and families make... Put simply, banning abortions has serious consequences, and Measure II is a poorly crafted law... This complex, personal decision should be between a woman, her family, her doctor and God. But this law will put the ultimate decision in the hands of government in virtually every instance."

But, according to Dr. Pamela Schmagel also of Rapid City, a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist, Initiated Measure 11 "contains provisions that would deter fraudulent claims, and in the case of rape and incest, it helps insure that those who commit such crimes can be prosecuted and will be prevented from hurting women in the future."

THIS ARGUMENT by Dr. Schmagel, in my opinion, trumps the fear of government intervention.

By adding to the exemptions of reported rape or incest, it is a good proposal that deserves a "Yes" vote next week at the ballot box. This is even though it probably will be challenged in court because of the Roe vs.Wade case in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Jan. 22, 1973, making abortions legal in this country.

NOW, IN REVIEW:
Constitutional Amendment G should be a "Yes" vote because South Dakota needs to get its legislative travel pay up to date.

Constitutional Amendment H should be a "Yes" vote because it is a housekeeping proposal relating to corporation law in South Dakota.

Constitutional Amendment I will extend the number of days from a 35-day legislative session to 40 days. With the increased work load of the Legislature this should be a "Yes" vote.

Constitutional Amendment J attempts to eliminate term limits for just our legislators. A vote "No" is definitely in order to leave the Constitution as it is. This is not the time to eliminate term limits.

Initiated Measure 9 would outlaw the short sale of stocks in South Dakota. While this proposal is confusing to one who does not dabble in the purchasing of stocks, we must vote "No" as requested by the director of the South Dakota Division of Securities.

Initiated Measure 10 would keep local governments from spending public funds (taxpayer dollars) for campaigning or lobbying. More than 60 South Dakota organizations oppose "10." It is a bad proposed law and doesn't deserve to see the light of day. Therefore, it's a "No" vote here.

TO MY READERS: I hope I have been able to clarify both the proposed amendments and initiatives. On voting day it still is every South Dakota voter's privilege to exercise their right to vote their choice. Please be sure to vote....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Dist. 32 Independent Candidate on Initiated Measure 11

Voters in South Dakota Legislative District 32 will soon decide who will represent them in the state senate.

This year, they have three choices: incumbent Democrat Tom Katus, Republican Stan Adelstein, and Independent Elli Schwiesow.

The entrance of Schwiesow in the race as an Independent is interesting because she is a life-long Republican who has held a number of official state and local Republican Party positions.

Schwiesow ran against incumbent Adelstein in the 2006 primary and defeated him. However, Adelstein then threw his considerable wealth and support behind Democrat Katus; Katus subsequently won the 2006 general election.

Rather than spend a large sum of money to defeat Adelstein again in the 2008 primary, and be forced to spend another large sum of money to defeat Katus--presumably with Adelstein's help again--in the general election, Schwiesow chose instead to wait until the general election was over and enter the race as an Independent.

Many have argued that, even as an Independent, Schwiesow represents the values of the Republican Party better than Adelstein. After all, the Republican Party has a pro-life and pro-marriage plank, yet in 2006 Adelstein fought strongly against a pro-life measure and a marriage protection amendment.

Yet because of Schwiesow's strong support of the 2006 pro-life Referred Law 6, her opponents succeeded in convincing the voters she was a "single-issue candidate."

Dakota Voice has featured a series of articles from an interview with Schwiesow on several important issues. They have included taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, and Native American issues.

This week, Schwiesow discusses abortion and the new pro-life measure, Initiated Measure 11.

"I support restrictions on abortion," Schwiesow told me recently. She believes the issue of life is of critical importance, and is something as fundamental as the principles which founded our country.

Schwiesow says, "The Declaration of Independence is generally regarded as the founding document of this nation and it declares for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It boils down to how we define 'life.'"

Informed consent laws are one way pro-life people have sought to reduce abortions. South Dakota passed an informed consent law in 2005 which requires abortionists to inform women of the consequences of an abortion, and that it ends a human life. That law was blocked by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, but this summer the injunction on enforcement was lifted by the South Dakota courts.

Judge Raymond W. Gruender indicated in the decision that South Dakota's informed consent law makes some very valid points:

Planned Parenthood presented no evidence to oppose the common understanding that a fetus is a living organism while in the womb, the court majority said.

"The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician," Judge Raymond W. Gruender wrote for the majority.

Schwiesow says she supports such laws.

"It is interesting that present day medical ethics require you be told of the nature of your illness, the possible treatments for that illness and the potential complications of any particular course of action in treating that illness," said Schwiesow. "Not so with abortion. It seems that anyone requesting an abortion should be denied the very same information that is required for any other medical procedure."

She says that while she would prefer a measure which recognize the value of all human life, she supports Initiated Measure 11, even though it has exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother.

Of the exceptions, Schwiesow says, "I'm okay with them.I would vote for any measure which lessened the number of abortions occurring. Dr. Donald Oliver [Rapid City pediatrician] said that if a building was burning and it was filled with people, would you not save as many as you could, or would you say 'If I can't save them all, I won't save any.' I thought about that for a long time because the exceptions were a smoke screen in 2006."

On whether Initiated Measure 11 would pass where Referred Law 6 did not, she said, "It was phenomenal that South Dakota had 44% standing on 'no exceptions,' or more than one in three. I'm confident this one will pass because it now has the exceptions that many people feel should be there. I'm still concerned about the babies conceived in rape, or babies that doctors thought wouldn't live, yet later we found out they were perfectly healthy."

Even though IM 11 has exceptions, the pro-abortion campaign now objects that the exceptions are "too strict" and "burdensome" to the woman who wants to abort her child. Schwiesown disagrees.

"I don't think the requirements for the exceptions in IM11 are too strict," she said. "Rape is an evil, evil crime and when something like this happens, law enforcement needs to be involved. The perpetrator needs to be arrested, and that involves coming forward, seeking police protection, emergency room treatment. Without these requirements, anyone could just say 'I was raped' and get an abortion with no proof that a crime had actually occurred. Especially in a situation where alcohol was involved and the woman might not even have a clear memory of what happened during a sexual encounter. For genuine crimes of rape, we can't sweep it under the rug."

Schwiesow commended Governor Sarah Palin and her husband for giving life to their son Trig who has Down syndrome, especially when so many abort such children. "What a statement on the value of human life."

Though she is concerned about a number of issues, the value of innocent human life remains near and dear to Schwiesow's heart.

Next time Schwiesow talks about education funding.

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright © 1974, Thomas L. Johnson


1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology. This is reprinted, with the author's permission, from the National Right to Life News, April-May, 1974. It also appears in "The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life," by Scientists for Life. $1.75 plus postage for two ounces for each copy to: Sun Life, 2399 Cool Springs Road, Thaxton, VA 24174, 540/586-4898.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense. Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite." Libertarians for Life responds to the pejorative sense in other articles. Briefly, as libertarians, we strongly agree that women as well as men have the right to control their own bodies. Nonetheless, we hold that under principles of individual liberty, parents have the obligation to support their dependent children. Our children have a right to our support, whether they are in the crib or in the womb.

Reprinted by permission of Libertarians for Life.

Barack Obama's Variety Half-Hour

Featuring Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright singing "White Devils Be Crazy"

From Saturday Night Live...

Measure 10 ban on tax-funded lobbying fully constitutional

GUEST COLUMN

By Stephen Wesolick

Voting "Yes" on Measure 10 will stop politicians from using our tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns, prohibit campaign contributions by government contractors, and require posting government contract information on the Internet.

As a lawyer and drafter of Measure 10, I am obliged to set the record straight. Voters can be assured, knowing that such laws in place federally and in other states have been upheld as fully constitutional.

For example, the Hatch Act prohibits federal contractors from making campaign contributions. The Securities and Exchange Commission and a growing number of states have adopted the same restriction.

The SEC prohibits municipal bond underwriters from doing business in states where they've made political contributions within the previous two years, saving taxpayers an estimated $500 million the first year alone. A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that law in Blount v. SEC, specifically finding that restrictions on "indirect" contributions by underwriters' family members are constitutional in cases where "(the government contractor) is directing their contributions."

Anti-"pay to play" laws, which stop politicians from kicking back government contracts to campaign donors, have been routinely approved by courts nationwide to advance the public's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.

States with such laws already in place: Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, West Virginia, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Ohio -- plus Illinois, just last month. Like South Dakota, Alaska and Colorado will decide such laws on the ballot.

Other states have adopted industry-specific bans to stop trading of government contracts for campaign contributions. Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Virginia apply such laws to the gaming industry; Delaware and Montana, the insurance industry; Florida, the retail food and insurance industries; and Georgia, public utilities and "all regulated entities."

Measure 10 will empower average citizens to speak without being drowned out by tax-funded lobbyists and tax-financed government contractors.

Everyone knows the Constitution protects every American's free speech, and that no state law or ballot measure can change that. That is why the "No on 10" campaign's television ads are so deceitful. It helps to explain that all those television ads were financed entirely out of state. Liberal NEA union officials in Washington contributed $1.1 million to the "No" campaign, 85 percent of its entire budget.

The majority of that money was collected, by compulsion, from teachers in non-Right to Work states where they can legally be forced to financially contribute to NEA union officials’ political activity as a condition of employment. In layman’s terms, “pay up, or you’re fired.”

The broader off-the-books campaign against Measure 10 is financed with our tax dollars by city, county and school district officials, along with their tax-funded lobbying groups which -- like the NEA’s lobbyists -- also spend our tax dollars lobbying Congress and the legislature for things like gun control and higher taxes.

Compulsory NEA union dues and our own tax dollars are being combined to deceive voters and crush the citizen-led reforms by which Measure 10 would level the playing field for taxpayers.

Measure 10 will end "pay to play" contracts and stop politicians from "laundering" our tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns. Please vote "Yes," knowing it will simply require state and local politicians to play by the same commonsense, constitutionally-tested ethics already required of our federal officials and in other states.

Rapid City attorney Stephen Wesolick is responsible for drafting Initiated Measure 10 and is legal counsel for South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, the ballot campaign committee promoting a “yes” vote on the measure.