Friday, November 17, 2006

Clearing the Smoke and Exposing the Mirrors

In a recent press release, Planned Parenthood's president and CEO, Sarah Stoesz, made clear that for her organization, the debate about Referred Law 6 wasn't about anything but maintaining the abortion-on-demand status quo.
“This historic vote ensures that the women of South Dakota will continue to have the same access to safe, legal reproductive health care that other woman across the country have. Planned Parenthood will proudly continue to provide reproductive health care to the women of South Dakota.” (emphasis added)
As you can see by Stoesz' own admission, Planned Parenthood is proud that they abort more than 800 unborn children in South Dakota each year. Very clearly, it is not about the 1.8% of abortions that are performed on women who have conceived in rape or incest, as they claimed throughout the campaign. It is about perpetuating abortion as a means of birth control "that women across the country have."

Stoesz continued,
“We had a coalition of men and women, faith leaders, business professionals and healthcare professionals that came together and sent a strong message to their legislators...." (emphasis added)
Of course, the "faith leaders" who take a stand against abortion are told that the "church" is to stay out of the abortion debate. They are cast as religious zealots who are trying to impose their will upon the rest of the world.

In spite of the best efforts of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and a bevy of pro-abortion activists and Hollywood elites who made contributions to the Campaign for (un)Healthy Families, Referred Law 6 garnered 44.4% support. Although it did not gain the majority we had hoped for, we still saw major progress in terms of the debate. Those in the abortion business were not able to make arguments that refuted the humanity of the unborn. After all, science is not on their side. They did not try to make a case that abortion is ever even necessary. Rather, they were left to argue in what cases abortion is "acceptable" in order to prevail at the polls.

As for the Planned Parenthood press release, I appreciate their willingness to speak freely now that the campaign is over. It helps to clear the smoke and expose the mirrors that they hid behind during the campaign.

Take heart, though, South Dakota. Blue skies ahead....

Friday, August 25, 2006

Frequently Asked Questions on HB 1215 a.k.a. Referred Law 6

I've received a few inquiries concerning Referred Law 6 lately. As such, I will be responding to frequently asked questions under the FAQ's link at as time allows. However, I will have limited access to the software I need to update the webpage, so I will also be posting my responses here. Please direct questions to, and look for responses either here or at the direct link,'s.doc.

The first question and my response are below.

Q: I am wondering, when would the abortion ban go into effect - now or when Roe v. Wade is some day overturned?

A: When HB 1215 passed, the rallying cry of the pro-abortion side (Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, & the other usual suspects) became “Let the people decide.” There are numerous examples of such rhetoric scattered throughout articles that have been written since Governor Rounds signed HB 1215 into law. One needs look no further than Planned Parenthood’s very own website for a couple examples. Click here to link to an article that highlights such sentiments. In the opening paragraph of this article, which originally ran in the Star Tribune, it says the petitions were being circulated “to let voters decide” this issue. When one woman opted not to sign, the abortion advocate said, “Are you afraid to put it to a vote?”

Based upon those comments, it would be fair and logical to say that if the voters uphold the law by voting YES on Referred Law 6, Planned Parenthood & company would be satisfied that the people have spoken, thus the law would be allowed to go into effect. Of course, we know that their intentions are not true. We can make the assumption that if the voters of South Dakota uphold HB 1215 with a YES vote, Planned Parenthood will go back on their word to “let voters decide” and will seek judicial intervention.

It should be noted that the only way South Dakota stands to incur any costs associated with a lawsuit is if the pro-abortion side files one. They have claimed to be concerned about the costs of a lawsuit and have appealed to the voters to vote against the law in order to save the taxpayers’ money for other priorities. Let's be honest. Never in the past thirty-three years has Planned Parenthood apologized for suing the state of South Dakota at the expense of the taxpayer. If our opponents are sincere about either letting the voters decide this issue or their professed concern for the taxpayer, they will let the will of the majority prevail without filing subsequent legal challenges. In that case, the law would go into effect in South Dakota upon the electorate voting YES for Life on Referred Law 6. Otherwise, the usual suspects run the risk of challenging the law in the courts. This would prevent the law from taking effect immediately, but it also puts NARAL, PP, and the ACLU in the precarious position of going against the majority and possibly losing the “abortion-on-demand” status quo they currently enjoy nationwide.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

SD Right to Life State Convention

The South Dakota Right to Life State Convention will be held on Saturday, Sept. 9, 2006, at the Elmen Center in Sioux Falls, SD. Registration begins at 8:00 a.m. The event will conclude at 5:00 p.m.

This year's event features numerous blockbuster speakers, each of whom offers his or her own unique perspective on the abortion debate that has been thrust to the forefront of South Dakota politics.

For more information, as well as the registration form, click here. SD Right to Life encourages pre-registration for the event, but we also welcome registration the morning of Sept. 9. We look forward to seeing you there!

Tuesday, June 20, 2006


Over the weekend, I met a lady from the southern part of the state who had written the poem Never that appears below. She gave her blessing for me to share it. Pretty awesome for somebody who says she's not a writer.


Ten little fingers, ten little toes
One precious little button nose
Two little legs that will never dance
Two little hands that will never get a chance
Two little eyes that will never see the light
Two little arms that will never squeeze you tight
One little mouth that will never giggle or coo
One little tongue that will never say “I love you!”
Two little feet that will never kick the air
Two little feet that will never climb the stair
One little mouth that will never sing a song
A death so very needless and oh so very wrong
Was the baby a boy or maybe a little girl?
Was his hair straight or would it have had a curl?
Could she have been quite dark or maybe quite fair?
Maybe her little arms would have hugged that teddy bear.
Were his eyes dark brown or were they baby blue?
Did he look like his Dad or did he look like you?
One little girl will never serve you tea,
She’ll never read a book, or bounce upon your knee
One little boy will never learn to crawl
He’ll never hunt with Dad, he’ll never throw a ball
One little face that will never be caressed
One little soul led by angels into eternal rest
One little heart falters and then stops beating
And another baby dies, its life so fleeting
All because mama was told she had a choice
To kill the little baby who had no voice
Oh the possibilities that now will never be
Because mama demanded her life to be free
A life snuffed out, so gentle and meek
Cause mama was counseled an abortion to seek
So very many babies, so great is our loss
Have we forgotten Jesus and the power of the cross?
Have we forgotten God and His most Holy Book?
Let’s open its pages and take another look
Psalm 139 speaks of the mother’s womb
Who would have thought it could be a baby’s tomb?
America will pay and America will fall
If we don’t repent and answer God’s high call
To firmly take a stand, the innocent to defend
We must stop abortion, the evil must end!

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Unborn Babies Feel Pain

Of late, there has been increasing debate over whether an unborn baby can feel pain. These discussions have been prompted largely by studies seeking to determine at what point an unborn human being's nervous system is sufficiently developed that when exposed to certain stimuli, the "pain" message is relayed to the brain. There has been strong evidence that pain receptors transmit that message as early as the 14-20th week of gestation, if not earlier.

As many of our supporters know, in 2004-2005 South Dakota Right to Life and other entities were busy circulating petitions expressing our support of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act which had been brought before the U.S. Congress. The goal of that legislation was to provide women with more complete information about fetal development, as well as to require that women be given the option of anesthetizing their unborn babies prior to an abortion, in order that babies no longer be subjected to the excruciating pain associated with dismemberment.

Earlier this week, it was reported on the BBC News website that a team of researchers at University College London has determined from analyzing brain scans of unborn babies that they can, in fact, feel pain. Their research was conducted on babies 25-45 weeks post-conception.

According to the BBC website,

The scientists registered the brain activity in the babies....before, during and after nurses performed blood tests using a heel lance.

The results showed a surge of blood and oxygen in the sensory area of their brains, meaning the pain was processed in the higher levels of the brain, the team said.

The team claimed the implications of the findings were clear, saying there was a potential for pain experience to influence brain development.

According to the article, a premature baby charity, known as Bliss, said that the findings confirm that unborn babies feel "'true' pain and confirm the need for a protocol for pain for premature babies." They further stated, "....more attention should be paid to providing comfort and relief when painful procedures are undertaken...."

We couldn't agree more. Anything less would be uncivilized.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

SD Abortion Legislation....What Does It Really Say?

Since the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215) passed the legislature a month ago, there has been much discussion about what the bill allows for and doesn't allow for. Section 2 of the act establishes that abortion is illegal in the state of South Dakota. The precise text of that section of the bill is as follows:
No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnantwoman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.

In Section 3 of the bill, there is an exception for the abortafacients that have become known as emergency contraception drugs, so long as they are taken before a pregnancy can be determined. For those who have expressed concern that there is no rape & incest exception, it was pointed out on the Senate floor that this section of the bill would allow a victim of rape or incest to legally use a so-called emergency contraceptive measure. The text reads,
Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.

The fourth section of the bill discusses the "life of the mother" exception. Section 4 in its entirety is included below.

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to
prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

The full text of the final version of the bill can be found here if you have adobe acrobat reader or here for those people who do not. The bill history, including audio links may be found on this page, which is found on the SD Legislative Research Council website.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Abortion Pill Claims Two More Women's Lives

On Friday, March 17, 2006, the Associated Press reported that two more women have died after taking the abortion pill, RU-486. These most recent tragedies represent two more strikes against the use of the highly controversial drug.

According to the AP report, Planned Parenthood and most other clinics in the abortion industry have been recommending that women use the abortion drug in a way that is not consistent with FDA instructions. The article states,

Those women did not follow FDA-approved instructions for the pill-triggered abortion, which requires swallowing three tablets of one drug, followed by two of another (drug) two days later.

Instead of swallowing the final two tablets, the second course of pills was inserted vaginally in the four women, an "off-label" use that studies have shown effective and that has been recommended by a majority of the nation's abortion clinics. That use does not have federal approval though studies have indicated it produces fewer side effects.

A move is underway in the US Senate to suspend sales of RU-486 until a review is conducted concerning the process the FDA followed in granting approval of the drug. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina stated, ""RU-486 is a deadly drug that is killing pregnant women. This drug should never have been approved, and it must be suspended immediately."

The article goes on to say,

Monty Patterson, a California man whose 18-year-old daughter, Holly, died in 2003 after taking the abortion pill, also said the drug should be pulled from the market. The Senate bill is informally called "Holly's Law."

"The bottom line is that this is not about the abortion debate. This is about the safety, health and welfare of women," Patterson said.

According to the article, Planned Parenthood has ceased recommending that the final dose of the abortion drug be inserted vaginally. According to Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Planeed Parenthood's vice president for medical affairs, four of the women who have died from using the abortion drug have received the pills from affiliates of Planned Parenthood.

A related article discusses a possible reason for the harmful effect the abortion pill has on women (and unborn babies). Brown University professor Ralph P. Meich has conducted research on the effects of RU-486. The article reports,

His study shows that during an abortion, mifepristone works by blocking the effects of progesterone, shutting off nutrition to the placenta and fetus.

But Miech points out the anti-progesterone effects of mifepristone also cause changes in the cervix that allow a common vaginal bacteria, called C. sordellii, to enter the cervical canal.

The bacteria thrives in the low-oxygen environment and derives nutrition from the decaying fetal tissue. Mifepristone also disrupts the immune system, which "impairs the body's ability to fight off C. sordellii and may help spread the bacteria's toxic by-products, a combination that sometimes results in widespread septic shock," Miech says.

He points out that the women don't exhibit the usual warning signs of an infection, mainly, a fever.