The Circus is Coming to Town!

According to a press release that went out today, we have this to look forward to...



Troy Newman Heads To South Dakota In Support Of Abortion Ban

Meanwhile, Operation Rescue’s Truth Truck Fleet will continue to expose Obama’s abortion extremism across the nation


Sioux Falls, SD – While every election is of vital importance for Christians to participate, this year’s election seems particularly so. As with each election, the lives of innocent babies can be saved or lost at the ballot box.

This year, along with the presidential race, where that is the case more then ever, there are a number of states with important races that could dramatically impact the practice of abortion. Among those states is South Dakota, where the campaign to pass Measure 11, a ban on most abortions, is currently a dead heat in the polls.

We believe that the South Dakota vote could be a turning point in our battle against abortion, and is perhaps the most critical race of the year, apart from who will be our next president.

Over the next few days, our fleet of ten Truth Trucks will continue to expose Obama’s abortion extremism across the nation and in several battle ground states. Operation Rescue’s Senior Policy Advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, will remain at our national headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, to continue to monitor George Tiller’s late-term abortion clinic and help with the important District Attorney’s race there.

But Operation Rescue’s President, Troy Newman, has decided to invest the last days before this critical election in South Dakota, in support of Measure 11.

Even though it is even in the polls, Measure 11 has had to contend with a great amount of dirty dealings from the abortion cartel.

Television ads have been aired by opponents of Measure 11 that are so fraught with error that the Vote Yes For Life group was forced to file legal action with the FCC.
Groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have bussed in pro-abortion carpetbaggers from out of state with the intention of influencing the South Dakota election.
The abortion cartel’s group that is opposing Measure 11 was caught red-handed on tape bragging about how they were committing voter fraud and encouraging others to do so.

Even worse has been the betrayal from some of the misguided so-called “right to life” groups who have actively worked to oppose Measure 11.

Newman’s intent on going to South Dakota is to provide support for the Vote Yes for Life campaign, expose any further deception on the part of the abortion cartel, and to do all he can to make sure that the election is honestly decided. He will be reporting daily from the campaign via brief video reports.

If you live in South Dakota, please join Troy Newman and the Vote Yes For Life folks campaigning in support of Measure 11. If you live elsewhere, please pray for the success of this measure. If you can, please also consider making a last-minute online donation to Operation Rescue by clicking here to help with the cost of our eleventh-hour election outreaches.

South Dakota has the opportunity to become the first abortion-free state. So much is at stake. Please pray for the success of Measure 11, the defeat of Barack Obama, and for pro-life measures and candidates across the nation to win the day, and with it the lives of the innocent.


This is a preview of what we have to look forward to in the next days. It's when Newman was arrested in 1998.

Halloween Treat

Happy Friday -- 4 Days and Counting!

Paranoia setting in

VYFL is going nuts. In today's Rapid City Journal, Kevin Woster reports that the influx of new Democratic voters may help opponents of IM 11.

Our pal Brandi Gruis dismisses out of hand the possibility that lots of people might have registered in order to participate in an historic primary election held in June, or that people are just plain pissed off at Republicans for the mess they've made over the last eight years. Nope. It's voter fraud:

Speaking in support of the proposed ban, VoteYesforLife spokeswoman Brandi Gruis of Sioux Falls said she was less concerned about the total of new registered voters than those who might have been registered improperly. Gruis fears that fraudulent registrations could unfairly increase the number of voters against the ban.

“If we’d seen both parties increase, due to an increase in population, there’d be less cause for concern,” she said. “This is imbalanced. So we’re suspicious.”

Is Gruis aware that not all adult eligible voters in South Dakota are registered to vote, even now? The Democrats, the Republicans, Healthy Families, they all agree that Democrats have made gains through aggressive voter outreach efforts by the Obama and Clinton camps this spring and summer. VYFL, though, thinks this all must be fraudulent. I mean, what? I'll be happy when we all get a momentary break from the VY paranoia after they lose next week.

By the way, a special quote for the haters:

The measure is opposed by the South Dakota State Medical Association as a government intrusion into medical practices.

Some things to keep in mind...

In the final days of the campaign, remember the following:

When VYFL suggests that IM 11 will "stop abortion as a form of birth control," or, as one wacko blog asserted today, will "end 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota," they're deliberately misrepresenting what the measure will do. IM 11 will criminalize nearly all abortions in South Dakota. Among the procedures explicitly banned under IM 11 include abortions when women are carrying fetuses with fatal anomalies, and abortions performed if the woman is facing a number of very serious health issues, including cancer, hypertension, or diabetes. Both South Dakota doctors and observers who study illegal abortion all over the world have suggested that a ban like IM 11 would have the effect of removing the option of abortion from the table under ANY circumstance. Doctors fearing prosecution would, at the very least, be EXTREMELY hesitant to perform an abortion, even if they think it might be covered under IM 11. Criminalizing abortion simply does not equate to "ending" abortion. It never has, and it never will...no matter how many times pinheads like DooHickey, Bob Ellis, or the Unruhs insist it will.

Banning abortion will not have the effect on South Dakota that ban supporters say it will. The economically depressed rural areas of South Dakota will not suddenly become prosperous and populated again. (As though it's the responsibility of South Dakota women to serve as brood mares for the purpose of repopulating the state, anyway.) God will not place oil under the soil of South Dakota if we ban abortion, even if Steve DooHickey suggests otherwise. Families will not be more functional, couples will not wait until marriage to have sex, and the ban will not cause more perpetrators of sexual assault to go to prison.

Incidentally, take a look at this video if you haven't already. I paid particular attention to VY's plans should IM 11 go into effect. They're going to DRIVE A BUS AROUND "providing information to young women, and also providing ultrasound for pregnancies..." According to Dr. Patti Giebink, "the plan is to give them a lot of detailed information on their baby." GEE, HOW INNOVATIVE. I mean, stuff as ridiculous as this is funny and stupid until you think of the desperate situation that hundreds of South Dakota women would face each year if abortion were illegal. Then it becomes a sick, sad joke.

If it makes you feel like you've accomplished something to criminalize abortion, feel free to vote yes on IM 11. But don't pretend for a second that you're doing anything other than adding an anti-abortion law to the books.

Yet another editorial board says 'no' to IM 11.

This time, it's the Rapid City Journal. They emphasize the costly legal battle that will certainly follow if IM 11 passes. The Unruhs, DooHickey, and New Jersey attorney Harold Cassidy think South Dakota taxpayers should foot the bill for their challenge to Roe v. Wade:

South Dakota should not be put in this position to run point on this issue and then be forced to manage the legal costs for many years to come. The state will be spending money fighting a battle it should not be involved with in the first place.

What would a legal challenge cost the state of South Dakota? How many millions of dollars should state taxpayers be asked to invest in a challenge to a federal law rather than spending the same money on education, the highway system or many of the other state needs?

Some in the medical community have concerns about the measure, pointing out the standards imposed on the medical community could effect the doctor’s treatment of a patient. The government and attorneys should not be making decisions best left to a doctor and his or her patient.

Western South Dakota doesn’t like government intervention — we enjoy our freedoms — including freedom of choice. To allow the government to intervene in a freedom isn’t in the spirit of western South Dakota.

...We’re opposed to IM 11. We’re opposed to government intervention in a decision best left to the family.

Goin' Off the Rails on the Crazy Train (or Bus)

Holy Leslee hilarity!

Jack Black: Pro-Choice and Proud

Here's the new NARAL video. I love it when I dig a celebrity and then later find out they're pro-choice. What a great feeling.

Biz Donations to VY

It might be time to pick a different car dealer, gas station, cell phone store, carpet cleaner, and insurance agent. This is straight from the VY finance report. Read it and weep (I did. I love Get 'n Go.) :(


Modem Machine Works, Bismark, ND - $200
Wollman Construction, Sioux Falls, SD - $1000
DLO, Inc., Sioux Falls, SD - $250
Steam Digital, Sioux Falls, SD - $172
Natural Healing, Inc. Rapid City, SD - $115
Heaven’s Best Carpet Cleaning, Sioux Falls, SD - $200
Olson Oil, Sioux Falls, SD – $20,000
Olson Oil owns and operates all of the Get 'n Go gas stations in Sioux Falls
Heidelberg Youth Camp, Piedmont, SD – $1211.21
Vern Eide Motocars, Inc. Sioux Falls, SD - $5000
Unruh Chiropractic, Inc., Valencia, CA - $1000
Priebe Insurance Agency, Sioux Falls, SD – $250
Wireless World, Inc., Sioux Falls, SD - $1500

SDSMA to South Dakota: We oppose Measure 11.

Since this seems to be getting lost in the anti-choice South Dakota blogosphere, I'd just like to remind everyone exactly what the SDSMA said about IM 11:

At its September 17, 2008, meeting, the governing Council of the South Dakota State Medical Association (SDSMA) reaffirmed its previous position of support for AMA policy that the issue of support of or opposition to abortion is a matter for individuals to decide, based on personal values or beliefs. Additionally, the Council established a position that the SDSMA opposes Initiated Measure 11 solely based on interference by the government in medical practice and restrictions on physician-patient communications.

Even after the fake controversy that Vote Yes for Cupcakes attempted to stir up, this statement has not been altered in any way.

More anti-choice crazies

A note to our Brookings-area readers: unfortunately, Tiffany Campbell has been forced to cancel her speaking engagement at SDSU on Thursday evening. The VYFL wackjobs are out in full force in the week before the election, and, though Campbell wanted to speak tomorrow, she has been advised to stay away for her personal safety. The e-mailer who informed me of this development said, "God help us that it's come to this," and I couldn't agree more.

Speaking of which, Chris Campbell had a letter in the Argus Leader today about Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. Each time this syndrome is explained in detail to South Dakotans, and each time the Campbell family risks their safety to tell people why they and their physicians decided to go through with selective termination, I hope that their reasoned and detailed explanations will be able to stand on their own. That, maybe, this part of the "debate" can be set aside. Clearly, however, VYFL has never cared about either reasoned debate or the incredibly difficult decisions that women facing pregnancy complications have to make. One would think we as a state would want to offer these women and their families all the options, at least if we're even going to pretend to be concerned with the well-being of women. In the editorial, Campbell asks VYFL why they're willing to harm pregnant women and their wanted children to advance their extremist agenda:

Our case is rare, however, is just one example of many medical conditions that would be impacted by Measure 11. Under Measure 11 some family will lose a mother, child, or both because all options were not available to them and physicians subjected a pregnant woman to a higher degree of medical risk for fear of committing a felony. It is rare until it happens to you. Why should someone else's wife, mother, or child be a martyr for your cause? Would you be willing to make this sacrifice?

The Campbells know firsthand what we at DW have argued since this blog began: women's health is at risk if abortion is criminalized. Women will die or suffer permanent health complications if IM 11 passes. Doctors will make decisions based not on the well-being of the patient, but on their desire not to go to jail as a felon if some anti-choice zealot chooses to second-guess their medical opinion.

Please keep the Campbells in your thoughts and prayers in the the next several days. Things are getting scary out there...

Worst Ads

The Rachel Maddow Show touched on Politico's "10 Worst Ads of the Season" and I felt they needed to be shared. Go here to see the entire list, complete with hilarious explanations. For this post, I decided just to feature my favorite and the runner up. Enjoy!

That Girl Fave:




Runner Up:

SD Family Policy Council Introduces Ad

Aren't ads supposed to win you votes, not lose them?

Some Non-Abortion Humor

(Not) Breaking news: Hickey is wrong!

Steve Hickey's latest post (I'm joining That Girl in not linking to Voices Crazy) claims that the SD State Medical Association sent a "cease and desist" letter to Healthy Families.

Not surprisingly, DooHickey and VY are lying. Again.

According to the campaign as of about 5 minutes ago, the SDSMA has *not* taken a neutral position. They did ask that HF read their entire statement when referring to their opposition to 11, which is fine. That's the statement that's been out there for weeks, and they're not changing it now.

Let me repeat that: They have not changed their position. At all.

News round-up.

Seems from the LA Times that Leslee and crew are looking to the future.

Even if the effort fails again, Unruh said activists would try again at the ballot box in 2010.

"I'm not tired," she said. "We're going to continue. We believe in this."

If I were an attention whore like Leslee Unruh, I probably wouldn't be tired of this either, but I think people in South Dakota who aren't professional anti-abortonists might be a little sick of the debate by 2010.

NPR featured the Campbell family yesterday morning. Amazingly, Vote Yes for Cupcakes still can't let go of the idea that the Campbells' procedure is "never necessary," even while medical experts say otherwise. This exchange is laughable:

Supporters of the ban, however, say the ad is deceptive, that aborting one twin is never necessary in cases like the Campbells'.

"The law just basically requires the doctor to do everything they can to save" both babies, says Allen Unruh of Vote Yes for Life, the group that put the initiative on the ballot.

Unruh says that if a doctor does one of several recognized procedures, "the doctor's not liable under any aspect of this law, because he's done everything he can to save them. They die from the condition, really, not the surgery. So to tell people [as the Campbells do in the ad] that we wouldn't have a baby if we wouldn't have done selective reduction is completely false."

The Campbells' doctor in Cincinnati declined to be interviewed for medical privacy reasons. But he referred questions to a colleague, Dr. Hanmin Lee, head of the fetal treatment center at the University of California, San Francisco. Lee sided with the Campbells, saying that while fetal surgeons always do their best to try to save both twins, it simply isn't possible in some cases.

"There are circumstances in which one of the fetuses is so sick ... that we would feel the chances of that fetus surviving are very low. And when that happens, the best way to ... maximize the possibility of survival of the other twin is to do a selective reduction," Lee said.

GEE, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHOSE OPINION I TRUST HERE. Local chiropractor and Patrick Henry impersonator Allan Unruh, or head of the fetal treatment center at UC - San Francisco? Let me think about that and get back to you.

We could just shake our heads and dismiss fools like the Unruhs and Steve DooHickey except that their agenda is frightening for women in this state. Flying Tomato Farms wrote a fabulous post about the real consequences of IM 11 for women in South Dakota:

Thinking about this measure becoming law makes me feel insignificant: like if it passed, it really wouldn’t matter what I achieved any more: who I teach or what I publish or how much I grow. It wouldn’t matter because the people of the state in which I live and work would have decided that as a woman, my right to self-determination and self-possession is limited by the fact that I have a uterus.

How can I, as a woman under this law, create and work and live and consider myself the equal of the men in my field when I walk in a room? Can men even know what it is like to have your fertility used as a threat against your personhood, your self-determination, your ability to make a living?

...The wider question of Initiated Measure 11 is not just about babies. The question is whether women are persons in their own right, with their own lives and motivations and needs, and with their own bodies that they are in full possession of.

Lots going on out there a week before the election.

From the inbox...

Brookings-area readers should note that Tiffany Campbell will be keynoting a SDSU Campus Women's Coalition panel discussion on IM 11:

Choice Saved my Son:
Tiffany Campbell speaks

Thursday, October 30
8 p.m. Ag Hall 100A

Breakin' the Law! Breakin' the Law!

KELO is reporting that Vote Yes for Cupcakes has decided not to reveal the source of over $11,000 in anonymous donations and instead is donating the funds to charity, namely Linwood Wesleyan Church, Abiding Savior Church, Church at the Gate and Calvary Chapel as well as the Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center in Rapid City. I wonder how long it'll take them to donate it back to the campaign?

Money laundering: It's not just for mobsters and drug dealers anymore!

First Stevens, Next Hunt?

Breaking news: Ted Stevens is found guilty, guilty, guilty. We can only hope Roger "Money Funnelling" Hunt will hear similar news when the Supreme Court hands down their decision. Not a good year for Republicans.

Giving Thanks

I know we're a few weeks from Thanksgiving, but an anonymous DW commenter made me think. They said, "Let's start our own thank you rally to these fantastic medical organizations for speaking up," in reference to those organizations who had spoken out against IM 11. I think that's an awesome idea. If we want people to be brave and speak up, we need to make sure they know how much we appreciate what they do for the people of South Dakota.

We need to thank Dr. Buehner, the SDMA, ACOG, and other healthcare professionals for putting themselves and their practices at risk and telling the truth about what Measure 11 would to women's health.

We need to thank Pastor Gist and other Pastors for Moral Choices who have risked ridicule and, at times, personal safety, to let South Dakota know that faith communities are not all anti-choice.

We need to thank the Campbell family for publicly talking about their personal tragedy, knowing they'd be second guessed and criticized by people who had no idea what they had been through. They've demonstrated what the pro-choice movement has been saying all along: the reasons that women choose abortions are varied, complicated, and should be no one's decision but their own.

Seriously, can we send a fruitbasket to these people or something? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Genuis Babies?

Ah, Vote Yes to Birth 1-Year-Old Children is at it again. This ad was recently posted on their website and we can expect to see it in newspapers across the state in the upcoming (and thankfully FINAL) days. I couldn't help but wonder: are these the babies that the esteemed Dr. Oliver spoke of at the Task Force to Study Abortion when he so brilliantly explained how incest can actually result in genuis babies? I wonder.

More VY bullying

A DW commenter pointed me to yet another comment thread on Voices Crazy, where "Doc" makes the following statement:

Dr. Marv Buehner will hopefully lose his position at SDSMA and be forced to leave its membership.

Again, I have to ask: for what reason would Dr. Buehner lose his membership? Why would "Doc" work to "force" Dr. Buehner from membership? What tactics might they use to "force" him to leave the organization? Why are they so upset and surprised about this particular statement - SDSMA came out against RL 6 and has been testifying against anti-abortion bills in Pierre for some time now. In fact, they testified against HB 1293 in 2007, which was almost identical to IM 11. Why the outrage? Is it because they see that the SDCHF message is reaching more voters? What's causing all of this?

If you want to know why people are hesitant to take a leadership role in the campaign against 11, look no further than the histrionics from Vote Yes on this issue. A few commenters have suggested that anti-abortion doctors have experienced similar reactions for their involvement in VYFL, but I'm just going to come out and say it: I don't believe that at all. I don't see pro-choicers picketing Patti Giebink's office. I don't see anti-abortion doctors pulling their children out of school. I don't see pro-choicers organizing to force people with whom we don't agree from the medical profession. Until I see evidence, I don't believe it.

I sincerely hope that clearer heads will prevail once the dust settles from this election.

Just a Thought.

Yesterday, NARAL Pro-Choice America held a live web-chat about convincing your pro-choice friends not to vote for McCain. It pains me that this is even necessary.

Obviously, abortion rights is not necessarily a partisan issue. I've actually voted for a pro-choice republican and, under the right circumstances, I'd do it again. But if you're pro-choice and voting for John McCain, you are nuts -- or worse. If you're not literate enough to check out the man's record, check out the video posted here a while ago where he uses scare quotes when referring to women's health. And Sarah "Feminists-for-Life-No-Exceptions-for-Rape-Incest-or-Anything" Palin is even worse. There is no question that if elected, these two will work against women's health and women's rights. If you're against making abortion illegal for them, you must not understand how law and policy decisions are made in this country. I know I have a "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!" button from 2000 around here somewhere...

Uh-oh...

A little birdie tells me that VYFL has been taking donations from their good friend "Anonymous" for quite a while now...this isn't the first finance report from this cycle where Anonymous has shown up to give them dough...

Aberdeen American News says no to 11

Looks like the editorial board endorsements are adding up for our side. The Aberdeen American News is the latest to urge its readers to vote no on 11:

Regardless of the reworked allowables presented in this measure (rape, incest, mother's health/life), we believe that Measure 11, at its base level, still intrudes where it shouldn't: government intervention in a supremely personal decision. Such an intensely intimate decision whether to undergo such a procedure belongs to the woman, her husband/partner, her family, her physician and her faith minister.

"Anonymous" is apparently rolling in the dough!

I was taking a look at the campaign finance report (PDF) from Vote Yes For Cupcakes, and saw some interesting things.


Most notably, one of their repeat donors is someone named "Anonymous." I'm not sure where Anonymous lives, since there isn't any address or location information. Anonymous has given several times to VY, and has given more than $10,000 to date. Anonymous must have gotten a big paycheck on August 11, since Anonymous gave $5,000 that day.


Perhaps after the legislature changed state law to prevent Roger Hunt from funding VY through a shell corporation, they gave up trying to skirt the spirit of state law and decided to throw the whole thing out the window.

Here's what the Secretary of State's office has to say about anonymous contributions:

Anonymous Contributions (SDCL 12-27-2 thru 12-27-6)
Every contribution must include the name and residence address of the contributor. If this information is not provided, the treasurer may not deposit the contribution. If any contribution, money, or other thing of value is received from an unknown source the treasurer must donate it to a nonprofit charitable organization.

It appears that VoteYes should have given $10,000 or more to charity. It appears that they haven't. They shouldn't have even deposited the checks. Since they've only got $5,000 on hand, it looks like all of the money they have left is dirty, illegal money, and that they're legally obligated to give it to charity.

For a campaign who's spent lots of time throwing up baseless accusations about Healthy Families, they sure seem to be okay with violating state law.

R2K polling on IM 11 for DailyKos

DailyKos diarists have committed to supporting the No on 11 campaign, and part of the blog's support involves commissioning a polling company to do research.

Looks like we're ahead, but within the margin of error. 42% yes, 44% no.

I wonder if VYFL's polling is showing something similar, which is now why we're seeing slimy charges of voter fraud, lies about the SDSMA and South Dakota ACOG, lawsuits for deceptive advertising (how on earth are they going to do THAT with $5,000 cash on hand?), etc.

Let's make sure we vote this thing down once and for all. Volunteer, volunteer, volunteer!!! I'm even considering requesting calling lists so I can make calls from my during-the-school-year home base, and those of you who know me know how much I hate making phone calls.

VY's opinion of South Dakota's OB-GYNs.

Voices Crazy calls (edit based on DooHickey's comment) the authors of the ACOG statement "liberal, ideologically-driven idiots." Because, of course, DooHickey received his medical degree from...oh, wait. I love that because DooHickey is a conservative, ideologically-driven idiot, he assumes that everyone involved in this issue has the same motivation for it as he does.

Brandi Gruis of VYFL says the state's OB-GYNs are deceitful liars who are out to "protect the abortion industry in South Dakota." A hint to Brandi: maybe they're out to protect their patients, and to protect themselves from becoming felons for treating their patients to the best of their ability.

Bob Ellis pointed out a weak example of a national pro-life OB-GYN group that supports 11. And here I thought we didn't want national involvement the campaign on 11?

And a chilling comment from "Mark" in the comments at Voices Crazy:

We're waging a battle with the SDSMA at this time over their stance on IM 11...

By the way, could this be our friend and Unruh in-law Mark Rector, who blatantly lied to us in 2006 when he promised South Dakotans that there were exceptions in RL6? I also wonder if "waging a battle" is the right terminology to use, considering the violence that has been known to come from the anti-choicers.

With all the bullying going on from the VY side, it's amazing that so many medical professionals and average South Dakotans are willing to stand up against this awful piece of legislation.

Watertown Public Opinion readers give IM 11 a big 'no.'

As a native of the northeastern part of the state, I remember family members filling out the Public Opinion straw poll every fall before an election. I also remember discussing the results (and the reader comments, which were sometimes pretty funny) over the dinner table when they were tabulated and published.

Badlands Blue has this year's results. Not only are most of the Democratic candidates doing well, but IM 11 is losing, big. 72% say no, in fact.

Obviously this is a straw poll, not a scientific result, etc...but still good news to wake up to on a Friday morning.

The editors of the Public Opinion are also calling for a no vote on 11 (login required):

[I]f IM 11 passes it will be in direct violation of current federal law and will force South Dakota into a very protracted and expensive lawsuit. It’s our belief those financial resources would be better spent elsewhere in our state and that’s something voters should keep in mind when casting their ballot on this measure.

No wonder VYFL is calling for a fast...

VYFL gets a smack down from SD's OB-GYNs.

Oh, snap.

The South Dakota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has come out strongly opposed to IM 11. Some choice quotes below:

The intervention of government into medical decision-making should be opposed. We urge the citizens of South Dakota to reject Initiative 11. The government’s intrusion is ill-advised and dangerous.

Proponents claim this ban will not interfere with a physician’s medical judgment. In fact, the threat of criminal prosecution will significantly hamper doctors treating women who need life-saving abortions. Physicians will be forced to place themselves in legal jeopardy to provide appropriate care to their patients. This ban betrays a
dangerous misunderstanding of day-to-day medical practice and the physician-patient relationship. And by claiming that abortion “subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks,” it shows contempt for over two decades of scientific and medical standards, research and data.

Although proponents claim this ban will not apply in certain cases, a careful reading and an understanding of medical practice reveal the “exceptions” to be flimsy and unworkable.

South Dakota's OB-GYNs repeat a number of the objections that Sanford and the state medical association expressed in their statements on the issue. They add a particularly chilling possibility to the mix as well:

Obstructs women’s access to contraceptives. Although the ban appears to exempt the prescribing, dispensing and use of contraception from prosecution, in fact, its definition of terms including “pregnant” are contrary to accepted medical and scientific knowledge. The ban could be interpreted and enforced as making some types of hormonal contraception illegal in South Dakota, including emergency oral contraceptive pills and copper IUDs. These methods work to prevent, not terminate, a pregnancy.

In addition, because the ban permits only contraceptives “prescribed or sold in accordance with manufacturer instructions,” it would make a common and medically acceptable method of dispensing emergency contraception – where the physician combines different types of ordinary birth control pills in an emergency situation – a prosecutable offense.

If this concern surprises you in the least, you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in South Dakota over the last several years.

Read ACOG's statement in its entirety. Then consider why it might be that physicians who specialize in women's health care are so strongly opposed to this measure.

Bzzt..

Wrong AGAIN, Steve.



He had this entire conspiracy theory going about what happened to this ad - well, here it is. Steve's just plain wrong an awful lot for someone who says he has a direct line to God.

Leslee "Anything Goes" Unruh

Remember that one time Leslee "Unruh pleaded no contest to unlicensed adoption and foster care practices as part of a plea bargain in which 19 charges, including four felonies, were dropped. The charges resulted from Unruh's promises to pay teenagers if they remained pregnant so she could put their babies up for adoption." Yeah, me neither.

And we're still seeing the same intimidating tactics coming out of Leslee today, courtesy of Vote Yes for Dirty Politics. This whole new piece to the Sanford issue really doesn't matter at all; it's just another example of how VY can not and will not let anyone take a public position that isn't in line with them. Apparently as we speak, they're even going after the SD Medical Association, too. In 2006, my own (pro-choice) gynecologist told me that she would have gotten more involved in RL6, but she was afraid someone would "crucify themselves on [her] lawn or something." Probably not an unreasonable concern -- some of these people are completely unstable. Not only are they crazy, but they attract the craziest of the crazy. Remember the barrage of national loonies who were also here during that time (you know, the ones who Leslee had to hire her own body guards against that were ON THEIR SIDE of the issue)?

Well, Sanford isn't saying that VY is right; they're basically saying exactly what everyone's been saying all along: THIS LAW IS A GIANT, OVERLY COMPLICATED MESS with one bottom line -- intimidating abortion out of the question while the Supreme Court awaits. During the 2006 legislative session, Roger Hunt, Larry Rhoden, and many other notorious antis said that a ban with exceptions would be a giant legal mess and it just wouldn't work. Yet, Les' continues to be clouded by her own deeply rooted and unresolved personal issues, so we all have to suffer.

Is it November 4th yet?!

Women for McCain

I love this video. It takes the feeling a lot of us get when we see a Women for McCain bumper sticker, and puts it into the easy-to-digest form of a hilarious video. It's from the lovely and talented Katie Halper.

Political Science Experiment

Obviously, it isn't cost effective to fight the presidential campaign in every single state. But I was talking to someone the other day about what the results would look like if the Obama campaign actually had a presence here in South Dakota. I'm not sure if he could ever win, but I think there's a good chance the numbers could be substantially moved, especially if McCain's views on corn-based ethanol were really stressed. What do you think?

Ad Wrap Up: No One Cares, Moving On

1) Last night KELO reported (in a "we don't really want to cover this story, but we have to" sort of way) on the ridiculous claims made by VY against the latest HF commercial, saying they were going to file a complaint with the FCC unless the stations removed the ad on their own volition. And by "volition" they mean after they encouraged their army of crazies to call the stations and harass them into removing them.

2) Then KSFY further developed the story, saying they were gathering signatures to go along with their FCC complaint. But I thought it was such a 'legitimate' complaint! Why, then, would you need to include a petition?

3) Today HF made a statement to the Argus Leader that they still stand by the accuracy of the ads (Note: SDMA), though it was time for them to cycle this ad out of rotation anyway, so it was coming down and being replaced by a new one.

Meanwhile, VY kicks off (some how, some way -- still no details on this) their 'massive' ad campaign where they will likely look crazy, scare people, and lose votes.

Conclusion: HF ads accurate, VY desperate, no one cares, moving on.

VY Crazy Ad Campaign: T or F?

According to Steve Whackjob over at Voices Crazy (which -- reminder -- I'm no longer linking to) maintains that somehow VY is "is launching an extensive television ad campaign tomorrow in South Dakota to tell the truth." Uh huh. Like in 2006? THAT kind of truth?! Given my previous posts about their alleged crises, I'm curious how all of this is possible. If anyone's got any ideas, comment away!

I really hope they run this crazy ad. Hmmm. The South Dakota Medical Association versus a totally drammatic piece about the "billion dollar abortion INDUSTRY?!". Reason #587 that Leslee should ask for reimbursement from her 'campaign school': she still doesn't understand how to hide the crazy to actually *persuade* anyone.

You Don't See That Too Often...

That's right, it's a map where South Dakota is colored blue. Thanks Tim Johnson! It warms my heart.



Read more at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Latest HF Ad

I'll have more on VY's desperate ploy at earned media through bogus 'legal action' later, but until then, enjoy the new HF ad. Perhaps next VY will 'sue' the SDMA.

Message to Sarah Palin Video

By way of Feministing, I came across this video treat. It's kind of amazing, so check it out.

VY Press Conference Today: "They're Lying Because We're Broke!"

According to the Christian News Wire, Vote Yes to Throw Money Down the Toilet is holding a press conference today to "announce the legal action being taken to remove TV ads being run by a pro-abortion group."

The Real Story: Based on overspending of funds on things like bulk plastic feti, VY recently had to pull their ads completely off the air. Naturally, the media outlets were less than happy about the unpaid bills that came along with that move, so they raised their ad buy prices, nearly ensuring that unless Roger "Money Funnelling" Hunt is sitting on another 750k wad somewhere, VY would not be able to be back on the air before E-Day. So, now VY's pulling a crazy press conference out of their assess in an attempt to scare and intimidate Healthy Families into pulling their own ads, because if VY can't have air time, NO ONE SHOULD!

Perhaps Leslee's polling isn't really telling her that VY wins afterall.

Rapid City Journal on IM 11.

The R.C. Journal published a series of articles on IM 11 today, and at least one of them has local crazy person Bob Ellis in a tizzy (I'm joining That Girl in refusing to link to VYFL, Voices Crazy, or Dakota (crazy) Voices).

He's referring to Mary Garrigan's article on page A8, a brief overview of who gets abortions in South Dakota, with a profile of a young, working class, unmarried white
woman who chose to have her child when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, but who opposes IM 11. (I'm pleased, by the way, that so many people in South Dakota get the fact that keeping abortion legal is all about CHOICE - allowing women to make the best decision they can with all options on the table.)

Bob Ellis is upset because Garrigan decided not to pass any kind of moral judgment on the 748 women who chose to have abortions in 2006. He wanted Garrigan to suggest that the women were having abortions for selfish reasons, "convenience," or as "retroactive birth control."

Let's take a look at Garrigan's statistical breakdown and see if Ellis's narrowminded moral judgments hold water:

60% of the women who had abortions in 2006 were in their 20s.
85% were single.
81% were "low-income," with an annual salary of less than $20,800/year for a single person.
23% were educated beyond high school.
55% already had at least one child.
84% were Caucasian, 7% Native American.

Now, Ellis considers this "blather[ing]" about "irrelevant income and education data," which is unfortunate because low incomes and an education that limits a single woman from holding a job that would pay enough to support a child (or, most likely, more children) are precisely why women are having abortions.

Why not try better funding of higher education in the state, and support low-income women who want to get a degree beyond a high school diploma? Why not attract jobs that pay more than $20,000/year? Why not hold men as well as women accountable for their actions?

I know it's easier to play the moral monitor (and it's a role that Bob Ellis loves so much) but banning abortion isn't going to make women like the vast majority of the 748 who had abortions in 2006 less desperate. It isn't going to give them supportive male partners, a better paying job that might allow them to feel they could adequately care for another child, or an education that would make good jobs available to them.

If IM 11 passes into law in South Dakota, nothing will change, except that abortion will no longer be a legal option for women. What will women facing an unplanned pregnancy do? Some will have children they aren't capable of caring for. Some will travel to other states for abortions. Others will do what women have done for, literally, millenia - they'll find other ways to induce abortions, and some of them will kill or permanently injure themselves.

The fact that Bob Ellis and his cronies at VYFL know all of this and don't care should terrify you.

Their moral crusade is misguided. Instead of addressing the difficult issues (no money, no education, no husband/boyfriend) that cause women to choose abortion, they're picking on an easy target - a bunch of young, working class women who more often than not lack the tools to defend themselves. If the problem is with the women - they're selfish, slutty, no moral compass - then suddenly the bigger issues don't matter or don't exist. It's a world view that requires no courage - it's very easy to criticize your neighbor. It's much harder to face life's complexities head on and try to do something about them

Abortion-free?

Vote Yes for Cupcakes advanced yet another fallacious argument in support of their loser initiative:

Unruh said that the measure might provoke a legal challenge but that her focus is on preventing abortions in South Dakota.

"We'd be the first abortion-free state," she said.

Obviously, this is false. First of all, what happened to the frequently-touted exceptions in IM 11 that make it "reasonable"? Secondly, anyone who knows about the history of abortion law in the United States, or about the widespread availability of illegal abortion throughout the world in 2008 will tell you that criminalizing abortion won't make it disappear.

I'm reading this incredibly interesting book about how abortion laws were enforced in the United States from the post-Civil War era through 1973. The author uses her knowledge of pre-1973 abortion law to make some conclusions regarding what an America without Roe v. Wade would look like:

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned and abortion made illegal again, the history of when abortion was a crime suggests that the results would be dire indeed. The practice of abortion might dip in response to pressure, but it would not stop. Women would once again besiege physicians and other health-care workers with requests for abortion. Enforcement of new criminal statues would no doubt be patterned on the old system. State authorities would again expect medical personnel to assist the state by reporting, interrogating, and physically examining women suspected of having abortions; police would revive the practice of raiding abortionists' offices and capturing women. Any woman who miscarried would be treated as a potential criminal and subjected to medical examination which could include internal "viewing" via ultrasound. Medical mistreatment of women would become routinized as the health-care system became further enmeshed in the state's law enforcement apparatus. If abortion is made illegal, some women will die; many more will be injured. The old abortion wards will have to be reopened, a public-health disaster recreated. Making abortion hard to obtain will not return the United States to an imagined time of virginal brides and stable families; it will return us to the time of crowded septic abortion wards, avoidable deaths, and the routinization of punitive treatment of women by state authorities and their surrogates (249-250).

This sounds a lot like what would happen in South Dakota if IM 11 were to pass into law. Physicians serving the needs of the state over those of their patients, the health-care system being used to interrogate women instead of treating them...VYFL and their allies sincerely seem to believe that this type of state involvement is perfectly fine. Read the initiative (specifically the rape/incest exceptions) if you doubt that. Doctors collecting tissue samples for the police, directing women to file police reports...no wonder the state medical association opposes this.

KELO Gets Sanford Memo Reactions

Here's the little piece that ran about the big, bad Sanford memo that's raised such a fuss amongst the conspiracy-obsessed antis. You might note the difference between the appearance of both the volunteers and the offices of the two campaigns. I'm sure those volunteer uniforms over at Vote Yes to Throw Money Out the Window didn't come cheap.

VY Is Brokety-Broke-Broke?

Hmmm, interesting. I recently caught word that Vote Yes to Fund Leslee's Crazy Train is out of cash...and almost out of time, too. Apparently they had to pull their ads off the air and some media outlets may or may not still be unpaid (and pretty unhappy) with Leslee and Co. Their website would indicate that this is correct with their "Help us air this powerful ad. Donate now!" message. (I'm no longer linking to sites like VY or Voices Crazy, FYI). Could this be the result of the mismanagement of funds on ridiculous amounts of things like, say, VY Lifesavers, balloons, and other trinketing crap? Or is Roger Hunt, who was recently singled out as NOT being endorsed by the Arugs Leader, waiting in the wings to hide another big wad for them to drop before the big day? The plan meanwhile: sell lemonade?

New Initiated Measure 10 Video

I got this video in my inbox, and I think it does a great job of laying out exactly why Measure 10 is about the worst idea since Sarah Palin for VP.




On its face, an "Open and Clean Government" law sounds great. Too bad IM10 isn't it.

McCain: Protecting women's health is crazy!

I can't believe I missed this in last night's debate, but NARAL Pro-Choice America kept it from falling through the cracks.


During the debate, McCain felt the need to test out his ability to use those hip new "air quotes" that all the young kids use these days. He picked a pretty poor place to use them. Check out the video below:





"Health" of the mother? Yeah, what a crazy idea.

Roger Hunt Un-Endorsed by Argus Leader

The District 10 endorsement piece in today's Argus is pretty hilarious. It opens with...

Three incumbents are seeking re-election to state legislative seats in District 10. Only two have done enough in their time as legislators to merit our endorsement.

and finally elaborates in the end with...

Incumbent Roger Hunt, seeking a third term in the state House (he also was a legislator from 1991-2000) made a poor decision when he worked to conceal the identity of a donor to the effort to pass an abortion ban in South Dakota two years ago. He's fighting to keep that identity secret even now. Whichever side of the abortion debate you're on, we should expect more from an elected lawmaker.

I hope District 10 voters take that into consideration. It'd be a nice gift to have Roger "Obsessed with Abortion" Hunt ousted this November. Read the whole breakdown of D-10 here.

Debate Wrap Up: Steve Whackjob and Co. Happy, No One Else Cares, Obama Still Wins

Might Be Time to Switch Doctors...

My Last Crazy McCain Supporter Video

Actually, I should say, "My Last Crazy Palin Supporter Video." I actually think there's a person inside of John McCain that is way too good for this horror show.

First, I'm relieved that the Al Jazeera reporter made it out of there alive. Second, I feel terrible for normal, non-racist people in Ohio who are now represented globally by these freaks. Fellow South Dakotans, lets try to avoid this. If you have a crazy racist grandma or something, make sure that she doesn't talk to any reporters between now and election day. Maybe you can show her this video and convince her they're all undercover Al Jazeera reporters. Whatever you have to do. Leslee Unruh has done enough to the reputation of our state. We don't need some person ranting about "the blacks" taking over associated with us, too.

Sweet No on Prop 8 Ads

I came across these web videos yesterday, from the California campaign against their marriage ban. They're pretty much amazing.







I really wish SD had similarly cool web videos against this year's abortion ban. I'm sure if we beat the ban this year, we'll have another ban on the ballot in 2010, so we'll have plenty of chances to make cool videos like this, too!

More Vote Yes for Cupcakes

I coined the term, and I love it. I shall use it from here until November when VYFL insists that their ban wouldn't have the chilling impact that it certainly will if it's passed. Geez, they aren't looking to overturn Roe (though they've spent the last five years telling everyone who will listen about how that's exactly what they want to do), and now we're supposed to believe that the lawyers and physicians at Sanford Health just can't wrap their minds around this simple, silly little law that anyone should be able to interpret.

VYFL and their wacky allies at Voices Crazy now assert that Sanford Health's normal procedures regarding abortion wouldn't be affected, though Sanford does abortions in cases where the fetus isn't viable or has a lethal anomaly, which would both clearly be banned under IM 11. Sanford is also concerned about the legal implications of the unclear health provisions.

So the medical association along with the state's leading health care provider are expressing public concern about this measure and how vague it is.

I'm going to be totally frank here and tell you that I take them more seriously than Pastor(?) Doohickey.

Larry Long and IM 11

In case you missed it, there's an interesting comment thread at Hog House Blog regarding Larry Long's involvement in the drafting of IM 11. One commenter, Sam, took me back to the 2007 debate over HB 1293:

During House State Affairs hearings on 1293, AG Long testified he helped craft the bill and did not testify against it, though even Right to Life chair Greenfield did, concerned it would not pass Constitutional muster. As to his credibility in implying to you that he just wanted a bill he could stand in court with a straight face with and defend (like the 05 Informed Consent Act?), recall that when a legislator asked him, during the HB 1293 hearing, if he was familiar with Doe v Bolton, the companion piece to Roe, he told a packed and stunned hearing room: No.

Does anyone else remember this? I wasn't actually at the hearing, but I remember hearing this over the internet feed and being shocked that our Attorney General, who was so concerned with drafting anti-abortion legislation that he could defend in court, had no clue what Doe v. Bolton was. The legislator who asked him the question, Joni Cutler, explained her reasoning behind bringing up Doe v. Bolton in her statement on the house floor:

Sadly, the only hope for a woman in this situation would be at deaths' door under sub 1. Secondly, a woman's life is relegated to the mere functions of her bodily organs. Even the law that was struck down in 1973 in Doe v. Bolton wasn't this cruel. It said a woman's health consisted at least of her physical, emotional, psychological, and familial persona. All of those things were part of the woman's health under the Georgia law. The Georgia law also provided for abortion in the cases of the serious defect of a fetus. This bill is not so kind as to do that. And yet this Georgia law was struck down as a companion case in 1973.

And we're to believe this law wasn't crafted as a challenge to Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, right? Well, maybe not Doe - since our genius anti-choice state officials don't know what that is.

Lessons from Latin America

This 2006 LA Times article, written before South Dakotans voted on RL 6, remains relevant as we consider IM 11.

Lesson 2: Providing limited exceptions to an abortion ban does little to improve access to safe abortions.

In reality very few, if any, women get such “non-punishable” abortions because there are no clear procedures. Fearing that they’d be charged with a crime, many of the women I interviewed who might have qualified for a legal abortion because they had been raped or because their health was endangered by the pregnancy did not dare to out themselves as potential abortion candidates. They went straight for the illegal and mostly unsafe back-alley abortions. A large proportion of maternal mortality in Latin America is caused directly by the consequences of such unsafe abortions.

The "exceptions" spelled out in IM 11 are not nearly as clear as VYFL insists they are - we've proved that here at DW. And were IM 11 to pass, I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to find a doctor who would be willing to face felony charges to perform an abortion on anyone - because, as VYFL's own "experts" have illustrated, it's difficult to determine under which circumstances abortion would be acceptable.

It's unclear to me why VYFL thinks South Dakota's laws against abortion will cause any different effect than all the other anti-abortion laws on the books in countries around the world.

Rally Wrap Up

As expected, the rally in opposition to IM11 drew a large crowd today in Sioux Falls and lemme tell ya, people were fired up! The event even got some decent pre-rally press at the Argus. A great line up of speakers (from former legislators to organizational leaders, med students to law students) addressed the myriad of reasons why SDans need to vote NO...AGAIN! But many rally vets couldn't help but notice something was missing this year: the opposition. Some of you might remember the rally of 2006 when a not-so-stable Leslee Unruh directed her gigantic Fleet for Little Feet through the downtown area during our rally and released 800+ balloons into the air at the end. Or maybe the second rally of 2006 where the psychos of AbortionCams.com showed up and started yelling insanities throughout the street. Needless to say, I certainly didn't miss the opposition, but it did make me a little suspicious as to why they weren't there, considering they feed on crashing and/or sabotaging pro-choice events.

Nader in South Dakota!

Apparently, Ralph Nader decided to make a pit stop in SD as part of his presidential campaign.

I can't exactly tell what's more surprisng here:
1. Nader's actually still running

2. He thought it would be a good use of his time to come to South Dakota

3. He brought up his opposition to ethanol subsidies. In South Dakota.


Wow, Nader. Wow.

Debunking VYFL's laughable new claim

The lovely and talented That Girl directed us to Friday's KELO story about the abortion ban, where VYFL's Brandi Gruis makes a claim that should startle anyone who has even remotely followed this issue over the last couple of years:

But Vote Yes For Life says overturning Roe versus Wade isn't the reason this ban was brought forward again.

Gruis says, "That is actually not the intent of this legislation. This law is really representative of South Dakota."

Those of us who are vets of the 2006 campaign may want to think of this as the equivalet of VYFL's lie that there were rape, incest, health, and life exceptions in RL6. If anything, this may actually be more of a lie.

Even a cursory Google search of articles from 2008 alone proves Gruis is clearly lying to the voters.

In a press release from VYFL, publicizing a September, 2008 anti-choice teleconference, Leslee has this to say:

"In just over 50 days, a simple majority of South Dakota voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of the first law that has a very real chance of overturning the unjust Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in the death of more than 50 million unborn American children," said Leslee Unruh, a longtime pro-life advocate who has been involved in the pro-life campaigns in the state.

From an August, 2008 Yankton Press & Dakotan article:

Ban supporter Leslee Unruh of Sioux Falls said the ballot measure is intended to prompt a court challenge aimed at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

“I think this one this time definitely has been designed to challenge Roe,” she said. “We are totally looking at the whole thing.”

A Medical News Today article about a series of controversial ballot measures throughout the country:

According to the Journal, South Dakota has become a "focal point" of the abortion rights debate in recent years largely because of Leslee Unruh, founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Alpha Center, which aims to counsel women on alternatives to abortion. Unruh said her goal is to have Roe v. Wade overturned. Proponents of the ban hope that if it passes, it will be challenged in court and trigger a challenge to the precedent set by Roe in the Supreme Court, which has implications in the presidential race, the Journal reports.

From the anti-choice Catholic News Agency:

Unruh explained that Initiated Measure 11 was drafted after surveying voter opinion concerning why they voted against the 2006 ballot measure. Such surveys found that South Dakota voters did not want to see abortion used as birth control and would accept a ban that included exceptions for rape, incest, and cases where the life of the mother is endangered.

She told Cybercast News Service that the ballot measure is “designed to go to the Supreme Court.”

The Washington Post:

Voters rejected a more restrictive measure in 2006, but polls suggested that South Dakotans would have voted yes if it had included exceptions. A group called Vote Yes for Life soon pushed the new version, which they hope will prevent more than 700 abortions a year and produce the case that will overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion nationwide.

Abortion foe Leslee Unruh calls Measure 11 "urgent for the babies who are aborted."

KARE 11 News:

As it stands now, abortion is a constitutional right protected by the Roe v. Wade decision. For South Dakota's law to take effect, Roe would have to be overturned.

When Leslee Unruh was asked if the South Dakota ban is designed to be the test case for overturning Roe, she was direct. "Yes," she said. "It is."

You get the drift.

It's really hard to have anything even remotely resembling an honest debate on a serious issue like this when VYFL and their allies will blatantly lie about anything and everything in order to get votes. Left is right, up is down, black is white in their world. Anything that will get them a couple of votes. They're playing pretty desperate for a campaign that is so confident it will win in November.

Remember how mad fools like DooHickey were when they claimed that the Campaign for Healthy Families was treating South Dakotans like we were stupid?

What on God's green earth do people like DooHickey think VYFL's latest strategy is about? They're openly lying to South Dakota voters about their intent with this initiative. For MONTHS - OVER A YEAR, in fact, as Joni Cutler's remarks on HB 1293 indicate, they've been shouting from the rooftops that THIS IS THE BILL that will challenge Roe v. Wade (to get that sweet national pro-life $$$$$$ rolling into their campaign coffers/pockets, no doubt) and, what, they expect us to think that suddenly last Friday they changed their mind?

How stupid do these people think we are? If this doesn't outrage you, you haven't been paying attention.

More VY Lies

Considering the inability of Vote Yes for Lies We Can't Keep Up With to tell South Dakotans the truth about, well, anything, I thought I'd post the KELO piece that ran on Friday in case anyone missed it. In addition to the previously discussed confusion about their own 'exceptions,' it seems that now VY is actually trying to argue that this ban (and the last one for that matter) has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade, though Allen, Leslee, Roger Hunt and even Harold Cassidy have OPENLY discussed that a Supreme Court challenge is exactly the point of this law. Refer back to the KARE11 piece and see Leslee's firm "Yes it is" when asked if this is a vehicle to get to Roe. Jesus. What are these big fat liars going to say next?

VYFL can't get their story straight.

Todd Epp reminded me of the video I received via e-mail the other day.



It points out the confused message VYFL is putting forth about the situation the Campbell family faced - it might be legal, it might not be legal, doctors might do it, doctors might not do it, it might be a morally acceptable choice, it might not be.

The confusion and conflicting points of view from VYFL leaders seen in this video (often expressed by the same people on different days) is a pretty powerful piece of evidence that proves SDCHF's point. This truly is a confusing law, and even its proponents can't clearly explain many of the types of procedures it would ban, and which types it would allow.

McLame Defends His Insane Supporters

If you are a moderate McCain supporter, it might be time to get off this sinking ship. Despite his attempts to make it seem like some other party has been in control for the last eight years, the American people seem to have figured out who might be responsible for their financial woes. He's spending his time in states where he doesn't even have a remote chance of winning (maybe he'll make it to South Dakota -- that should have zero impact on the outcome of the election). Then, to top it all off, instead of distancing himself from the violent extremists that likely make up a tiny part of his base and scare the heck out of the rest, McCain basically says that it's Obama's fault they're so mad.

Let's ignore the moral element here (i.e. stoking the flames of violence and hatred) and just look at it strategically. I think I probably agree with about 90% of what I've heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright say. But if a few months ago during the big Wright flap, Obama would have come out with a statement saying, "It's because of rich white people like Hillary Clinton and John McCain that Rev. Wright is so mad. Shame on you!" I think we would've all agreed that he had idiots running his campaign.

I'm starting to wonder if McCain wants to lose. Maybe he's heard about those actuary tables that say there's a 1 in 6 chance he won't make it through his first term and thought, "Is this really how I want to spend my remaining years?" He could be golfing, spending time with his wife and kids, visiting his houses, repairing his legacy Al Gore/Jimmy Carter-style. If he shows in Sioux Falls before Nov. 4, I think we'll have our answer.

UPDATE: "I call on Sen. Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election." Uh, yeah. And maybe you could reign in your John Birchers who are actually threatening violence.

A blast from the past

A breath of fresh air from the archives, Rep. Joni Cutler's 2007 remarks to the South Dakota House of Representatives on HB 1293, a bill nearly identical to IM 11.

I would like to talk to you about the Constitution, but I know really you don't much care about what the Constitution says on this matter. But I do for the record have to tell you that a bill like this is unconstitutional, and there isn't any reasonable or responsible reading of it and of the law that could conclude otherwise.

But more importantly, I'd like to talk to you about what this bill really doesn't do. In section 2 under sub 1 and 2, we are given the excections for the life and health of the mother. Sadly, the only hope for a woman in this situation would be at deaths' door under sub 1. Secondly, a woman's life is relegated to the mere functions of her bodily organs. Even the law that was struck down in 1973 in Doe v. Bolton wasn't this cruel. It said a woman's health consisted at least of her physical, emotional, psychological, and familial persona. All of those things were part of the woman's health under the Georgia law. The Georgia law also provided for abortion in the cases of the serious defect of a fetus. This bill is not so kind as to do that. And yet this Georgia law was struck down as a companion case in 1973.

The onerous reporting requirements under subsection 3 that are supposed to be the exceptions for victims of rape and incest are really more in the nature of a criminal investigation than they are help for the realities that incest and rape victims face. We know that sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in our state. And a bill like this only drives it more in that direction. Additionally, the doctor patient relationship is invaded under subsection 3 when a physician must interrogate the victim and do a crime scene analysis and preservation of tissues and samples.

Indeed, only reported, documented, investigated and interrogated victims find any help under subsection 3.

This struggle about abortion needs to go back where it belongs. We need to take it back to the hearts and the minds of the people that you seek to change. Continual use of government processes to make statements about abortion will not change one situation. The effective fight against abortion will be made elsewhere. House Bill 1293 is nothing more than a political statement about abortion. It won't save even one life or help even one person. It is time that we stop politicizing the abortion issue, which has no real practical value. And it is time to vote no on this bill.

...and to vote no on Initiated Measure 11.

Bzzt.

DooHickey's wrong again.

SDCHF was, in fact, canvassing in July, and was, to the best of my knowledge, using the brochures shown in the KARE story in July. I believe I was scheduled for a canvassing shift in July, and I worked at the Sioux Empire Fair for SDCHF in the second week of August.

So, if Voices Crazy is operating as normal, he'll remove the post I linked to in 5...4...3...2...

More on McCrazies

In lieu of posting the videos, I though this time I'd just link. So, if you want to see more angry McCain supporters, go here and here. Even if I didn't support Obama, I'd consider voting against McCain just based alone on the types of people who support him.

Sally Kern is at it again!

Sally Kern, who you'll remember became nationally infamous in March after she said "homosexuality is a bigger threat to our nation than terrorism or Islam," is at it again.

Apparently, she didn't learn much from the over 20,000 calls, emails, letters, and faxes she got from all over the country.

At a debate against her challenger Ron Marlett, Rep. Kern defended her hateful remarks, and elaborated on them for good measure. She said:

"While terrorism has killed more than 3,000 people in the continental United States in the last 15 years, homosexual behavior has killed more than 100,000. It's a danger to life. It is a danger to health.”

It floors me that she's saying this from Oklahoma City, where people are still trying to heal from the wounds left by Timothy McVeigh.

It's also pretty clear that she's pulling random numbers out of nowhere, to scare people into voting for her. 100,000 people? Really, Rep. Kern?

Really?


I've said it before and I'll say it again: the antis are nothing if not super over-dramatic. Thanks for proving my point, Rep. Kern!

SD Medical Association Opposes IM11!

According to the Argus, the SD Medical Association has adopted a statement in opposition to IM11.

The SDMA said:

"The council established a position that the SDMA opposes Initiated Measure 11 solely based on interference by the government in medical practice and restrictions on physician-patient communications."

and...

"The issue of support or opposition to abortion is a matter for individuals to decide, based on personal values or beliefs."

Time To Rally! Be There Monday!

Rally for Families
Monday, October 13th (This Monday!)
12 Noon
Outside the Federal Courthouse
400 S Phillips Avenue
Sioux Falls, SD 57104

It’s time to rally in opposition to IM11, the new abortion ban. Bring everyone you know and together, we can send a strong message that SD voters need to let “Families Decide.”

Connecticut Court Legalizes Marriage for Everybody!

I'm excited to report that Connecticut's supreme court ruled that it's unconstitutional to deny couples the freedom to marry.


As alerts fly into my inbox, news is sketchy. I do know it was a 4-3 decision, and that they've ruled that LGBT couples have the same rights to call their unions "marriage" that hetero couples have.


Fantastic.


In related news, Iowa's supreme court will be hearing arguments on their pending marriage case on December 9. Hold on to your hats.

KARE11 News Exposes Leslee As a Liar...Again!

...and the deja vu continues.

If the SD local media learned something from this -- it's called investigative journalism -- and did more of it, maybe we could act now to prevent abortion ban #16. What do you think?!

As Angie points out below, in Kelsey's newly posted video (the one you're hearing play this very moment), Leslee is all about going on camera and telling straight-up lies...lies that I'd like to point out, have been caught not once, but twice by this SAME reporter at KARE11 News in MN. Dig this...

In 2006, veteran blogger Coat Hangers At Dawn posted a piece that said this:

Mpls TV Busts Unruh On EC Claims

KARE 11 out of Minneapolis busts Leslee Unruh and Vote Yes on 6 on the emergency contraception claims. They have been repeatedly trying to confuse voters that emergency contraception can be used for up to 10-14 days. The drug manufacturer and FDA say otherwise. KARE corners Leslee and gets her to finally admit there is only a 3 day window on EC. Too bad they had not also cornered her on the recently passed law allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense it or that only about half of the pharmacies even carry it.

In KARE's own story about that dealing, they said this:

In an interview with Unruh, KARE reporter Scott Goldberg pressed Unruh on this point, because her group's suggestion -- that access to the so-called "morning-after" pill is an equal alternative to abortion -- does not square with an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration.

Last year, the FDA's chief of drug research wrote, "There are no clinical data that indicate emergency contraceptive drug products will disrupt a fertilized egg that has already implanted."

In the interview, Goldberg said: "Emergency contraception, Plan B, works within three days of unprotected sex."

Unruh then asked, "Are you sure of that?"

Goldberg said, "According to the FDA."

Unruh shook her head.

Later in the interview, Goldberg said, "It's too late to use emergency contraception after you're pregnant. So this law does, in fact, ban abortion for women who get pregnant as the result of rape or incest. Correct??"

Unruh said, "No. She goes to her medical doctor prior to."

Unruh stressed the words "prior to" and insisted that, prior to the sperm meeting the egg and the fertilized egg implanting itself "and after a woman has been raped or is the victim of incest" she can take advantage of that three-day window in which emergency contraception is most effective.

And when Unruh lobbied the state legislature to pass the abortion ban, she said she consulted with doctors and lawyers who agreed that was good enough.

So, between Leslee outing herself as a big fat liar and her confession that women, voters, and the Supreme Court fall second to her own selfish crusade (that let me remind you, she threatened will come back and back), you really just can't ignore the obvious anymore: this isn't about babies or women, this is about Leslie Unruh and her unresolved personal issues.

Vote Yes... for Leslee's Lies!

There's a lot of comedic gold in the video Kelsey just posted.

I feel the need to point out an absolutely shocking (or non-shocking, if you're used to Vote Yes's lies) part of the video. With about :30 left in the video, we see this exchange:

Leslee: "...and in South Dakota, she will make the decision to give her baby life."
Reporter: "She won't have another choice, if this ban passes."
Leslee: "That's correct."

Interesting, Leslee. I happen to agree with Leslee's analysis, that terminating a pregnancy under twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome cases like Tiffany Campbell's would not be allowed under Measure 11.


Here's the kicker: Leslee apparently doesn't agree with her own campaign!


The campaign has said several different times that the Campbell family would be able to seek the same treatment under Initiated Measure 11.


Wow, Leslee, it's got to be hard to keep track of all those little lies, isn't it?


The campaign had no problem lying about "exceptions" in this ban in 2006, and they apparently don't have any qualms about lying to voters now. Leslee seems to have pretty much proven that.

Women Don't Matter...And Leslee Will Not Be Stopped!

Yes, it's another video. But seriously, if you don't see the craziness of Leslee's personal crusade here, you're blind. (She starts her craziness near the end.)

McCain Supporters: Taking Classy to a Whole New Level

I know I'm sort of a video-a-holic these days, but these are seriously scary and I felt they had to be shared. They're sort of long, but totally worth it. Obama '08: Because sense matters.

SD Right to Life Against IM11...and Now Being Threatened By Their Own!

Operation Rescue (the org that wants to "stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates" while basically advocating violence against doctors) just released this rich press release that wreaks of an impending implosion within the anti community.

SDRTL’s public hypocrisy earns rare public rebuke from Operation Rescue

Sioux Falls, SD – South Dakota Right To Life (SDRTL) has betrayed the innocent children that it once defended by joining with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in active opposition to Measure 11, the proposed South Dakota ban on abortions that will be on the November ballot.

“We almost never publicly criticize other pro-life groups, but this time we cannot keep silent while South Dakota Right To Life actively works to ensure that as many babies as possible continue to be aborted in their state. They are out of step with nearly every credible pro-life group in the nation that has worked to support this abortion ban,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “It’s time they changed their name to ‘South Dakota Right To Die.’”

In their most recent newsletter, SDRTL used hypocritical reasons for opposing Measure 11, stating:

South Dakota Right to Life opposes Initiative 11, the so-called abortion ban, not only because it fails to protect all life from conception to natural death, but more importantly because it names specific lives expendable, those conceived from rape or incest and those who threaten their mother’s health. We believe it is the wrong bill at the wrong time and that it is presumptuous to believe it will save over 95% of the babies now aborted in South Dakota. We encourage pro-lifers to instead channel their energies toward electing a pro-life president and pro-life representatives on both the state and national levels.

“Measure 11 was never meant to protect all life from conception to natural death. It was meant to save as many babies as possible by banning abortions except in the rarest of circumstances. It’s never the ‘wrong time’ to save a life, and there is nothing presumptuous about expecting people to obey the law,” said Newman. “One has to wonder why the SDRTL is so adamant about making sure every baby possible continues to die.”

In a referendum last year, South Dakota defeated a similar abortion ban that only provided for an exception to save the life of the mother. Measure 11 added exceptions for rape and incest, after polling data indicated that such exceptions would insure passage.

“Measure 11 is not making any life ‘expendable.’ It is saving every one it can under the circumstances. To say otherwise is hypocritical coming from a group that is willing to expend the lives of thousands of babies yearly by opposing Measure 11,” said Newman. “And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. They encourage their membership to instead invest their efforts in the McCain/Palin ticket, when McCain supports destructive human embryonic experimentation. By their logic, they are making the lives of human embryos ‘expendable.’”

“SDRTL needs to get out of bed with Planned Parenthood and rejoin the pro-life movement, before they get innocent blood on their hands.”

What's That? The 2006 Abortion Ban Had Exceptions?

As a little bit of a look back and a friendly reminder of which doctors never to see, I decided to pull up the old Vote Yes 'doctor' ad. Call it a little nostalgia to go with your constant deja vu.

Oh, what's that, (Non)Dr. Mark Rector?

This measure DOES provide exception for the life and health of the mother.

The 'Duh' post of today

Bob Ellis states the obvious:

Today, VoteYesForLife.com posted an email they received from a woman whose twins had TTTS. This woman points out that abortion is not the only option to save one or both of the twins.

Um...yeah.

The funny thing is that no one has ever said there aren't other ways to treat TTTS. What the Campbell family is arguing (FOR THE NINE THOUSANDTH TIME) is that treatment involving abortion was the option that they and their doctor decided was best for them.

Pro-choice people think decisions like this should be private, and that doctors should have the freedom to consult with their patients and decide what is best with all possible options on the table. Ellis and crew disagree, and they don't even have the guts to face the issues that bans like IM 11 create. If IM 11 were to become law, doctors would not be able to make decisions based on the needs of the patient. They would need to worry about whether or not they'd be charged with a felony for performing a procedure like the one the Campbells underwent.

The e-mail VYFL received is beside the point.

Being Stupid is Hilarious!

Apparently a lot of people think that being stupid is not only hilarious, but also something that should afford you one of the most powerful positions in the world. This video is further proof that we live in a society that rewards incompentence. We need to turn that backasswards idea around! Obama '08: Because I want a president that's smarter than I am.

Five Myths About John McCain

In this video, contributing Rolling Stone editor Tom Dickinson summarizes the points in his upcoming feature story "Make-Believe Maverick: A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty." Though the points are sort of obvious, it's very well-researched and well-articulated. Give it a watch!

Here's a preview of the myths:

5. JM is a Washington outsider.
4. JM is a "Top Gun" pilot.
3. JM is the central hero of the P.O.W. camp.
2. JM is a straight-talking reformer.
1. JM always puts "Country First."

Trans & Allies for Obama Update!

Here's a quick follow-up on my earlier post about the Stonewall Democrats fundraising page raising money from Obama through the trans community.

I'm *thrilled* to tell you that that page has become the 7th most popular fundraising page for Obama. (Check out the rankings for yourself here.)

The goal was to get 261 donors, and we've blown that out of the water with 293! The trans & allies page is even ranked higher than Wes Clark's Obama page.

So here's a new goal: I think this page should be able to beat the Classical Musicians for Obama page, which would require an additional 90 donors. The beauty of it is that even if you only give $5, your gift still gets us closer to that goal.


If you *still* haven't given to Obama, after his opponent who doesn't even know how many houses he owns has the nerve to call the guy with ONE house an "elitist," I'm disappointed.

If you *still* haven't given to Obama after McCain has said he wants to see Roe overturned (which was the opposite of his position in 1999), I'm disappointed.

If you *still* haven't given to Obama after McCain said he doesn't understand the fundamentals of the economy, I'm disappointed.


We're less than 30 days from the election. This is a hugely important election, that deserves at least $5 of your hard-earned cash. And what better way to give it than through this page?

Facial Coding Expert Looks at VP Debate

What? Minnesota voters thought Palin's ridiculous overdoing of the folk speak was insulting? No!

More Hypocrisy

The Candidates = Phones

Scroll through more hilarious comparisons here.

Oh the Push Polling

This blog has a great take on one of the push polls currently being directed at South Dakota voters. Hopefully everyone else who gets one of these called is as well-informed on the issue as this blogger.

Edit -- I actually got the call this afternoon. Some funny things I noticed: they described the drafters of the bill as "a blue ribbon team of legal expects who worked for months and month to get the wording right." Also, at one point the recording was like, "Do you plan to vote yes or no on measure 11?" So I said, "No." Then it said, "You plan to vote no?" "Yes." Doesn't that series sort of sound like it was put together to trip people up?

Voting Abstinence = Hilarity

I Heart Joe Biden

I heart Joe Biden. I also heart the fact that Sarah "Don't Know What I'm Talking About" Palin sticks her foot in her mouth on privacy. Even Palin supporters just can't deny any longer that this lady doesn't know what heck she's talking about. It's not that she doesn't know *the* answer, she doesn't know *AN* answer -- big and scary difference.

Tonight's gonna be good. If you want a preview at the rambling nonsense you're likely to hear comin' out of Palin's mouth tonight, check out the Palin Answer Generator. Tune in tonight for what is likely to be Joe Biden sounding competent and being familiar with American history and the way the world works and Sarah Palin sounding, uh, scarily not.

Argus Leader Says Roger Hunt Should Reveal Donor

The Editorial Board of the Argus Leader took a pretty strong stance with it's piece on Roger "Money-Funnelling" Hunt today, saying that some of the arguments against his revealing the name of the mystery donor are basically irrelevant and that SD people deserve to know who fueled the 2006 Vote Yes to Hide More Money campaign. Check it out here.

Nothing works like celebrity peer pressure

Not that I wasn't going to vote anyway (already have my ballot in the mail!), but if I wasn't, maybe Leo DiCaprio would help change my mind. Or Sarah Silverman telling me I can even "register to vote while pooping!"

Hilarious.

I Wish I Could Vote For...Darrell Solberg

I love living in District 17 for a whole host of reasons. I wouldn't move for anything. But every time the election comes around, I meet some great candidates from other districts that I really wish I could vote for. I'd like to tell you about one of them today.

I met Darrell Solberg in 2007 when he showed up at the Sioux Empire mall at about 5:30 a.m. to see if in anyone going to Women4Women Day needed a ride. As it was, we had a little more room on the bus, so Darrell hopped on, not the least bit self-conscious about being one of two men on the bus. I've had to opportunity to visit with Darrell several times since and I have always been impressed by his warmth and intelligence.

I wish I could vote for Darrell, but since I don't live in District 11, I'll just have to be content contributing to his campaign, encouraging you to do the same, and trying to persuade our District 11 readers to check him out.

Futher Proof VY Is All About Out of State Benefits

Long-time looney, Jill Stanek (you know, the one who used to work at a hospital where "babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled ultility room" as according to her website's bio), posted on Vote Yes for Insanity today, calling for donations to the campaign. I just had to point out yet another example of VY not only accepting, but requesting out of state funds, one of their favorite accusations of Healthy Families.