South Dakota Right to Life

Clearing the Smoke and Exposing the Mirrors

2006-11-17T21:17:00.000-08:00

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....

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

2006-08-25T21:12:00.000-07:00

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 www.sdrl.org 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 brock@sdrl.org, and look for responses either here or at the direct link, http://sdrl.org/about/FAQ'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.

SD Right to Life State Convention

2006-08-23T00:32:00.000-07:00

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!

"Never"

2006-06-20T14:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Never

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!

Unborn Babies Feel Pain

2006-04-12T23:43:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2006-03-22T11:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Abortion Pill Claims Two More Women's Lives

2006-03-20T01:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Abortion Legislation Defense Fund

2006-03-06T15:02:00.000-08:00

Governor Rounds has signed HB 1215, the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, into law. The Governor has also inked his name to SB 154, which establishes the Life Protection Subfund. There have been a number of inquiries from people who wish to make private contributions to the fund.

Now that both bills have been signed, individuals interested in contributing to the funds should make their checks payable to the State of South Dakota. Be sure to include "Life Protection Subfund" in the memo line.

You may send your contributions to the following address:

Bureau of Administration
500 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501

Thank you for your interest in helping to defend the South Dakota legislation.

Abortion Ban

2006-03-01T19:59:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, House Bill 1215 passed the Senate floor last week (2/22/06), with the House concurring with Senate amendments on Friday. The bill was delivered to the Governor's desk on Tuesday, February 28. The Governor now has fifteen days in which to decide whether to sign or veto the bill, or to simply allow it to go into law without his signature. We encourage you to contact the Governor and ask him to sign the bill. You may click here to drop the Governor an e-mail or call him at (605) 773-3212.

Legislative Issues

2006-02-20T15:19:00.001-08:00

South Dakota Right to Life is asking for your help with two bills that hang in the balance at this stage of the South Dakota legislative session -- HB 1215, which seeks to prohibit the termination of an unborn life, and HB 1198, which, as currently amended, would require abortionists to screen for risk factors that may result in great future complications for a woman who has decided to seek an abortion. Both bills could have a huge impact on abortion not only in South Dakota, but also on the national front.

HB 1215 presents the same fundamental issue -- a ban on abortions -- that passed the Legislature with strong support last year. That law was set to become effective on the date the US Supreme Court allows the states to prohibit abortion at all stages. The chief contrast between that law and this year's proposed legislation is that the passage of HB 1215 would pose a direct challenge to the Court's rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In both the 2005 law that was passed and the 2006 proposed legislation, the primary issue reflects our number one goal, which is to effectively end abortion. In the recent past, when there were six pro-Roe votes on the Supreme Court, SDRTL was concerned with the timing element of a direct challenge. Now that one of those Justices has been replaced, we hold out hope that we have edged closer to a majority that might rule in our favor. Therefore, South Dakota Right to Life has decided to voice our support of HB 1215. This bill is scheduled to be heard on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

HB 1198 is an amended bill that could have a huge and immediate impact on abortions being done is South Dakota, putting abortionists under some of the same rules as other doctors. It would require that a qualified individual screen an abortion patient for physical, emotional, behavioral, familial, or psychological risk factors, which may lead to very serious future consequences, if the woman chooses to undergo an abortion. It truly is a health issue that is in the best interest of women who are contemplating having an abortion. This bill is currently tied up in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

We ask that you contact your legislators and Governor Rounds and ask them to support these bills.

--SD Right to Life Executive Board

Legislative Issues

2006-02-01T21:37:00.000-08:00

Check out the SD Right to Life website for a partial list of the bills we are monitoring this Session. We will work at updating the list within the next few days to include a more in-depth narrative on these bills, as well as other issues that we are involved with and/or keeping an eye on.

Christmas Blessings

2005-12-25T00:14:00.000-08:00

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Best wishes to all for a very blessed Christmas and a healthy and prosperous 2006!

New Discovery May End Stem Cell Debate

2005-12-16T14:18:00.000-08:00

According to news reports, recent research conducted by scientists at the University of Louisville has yielded the discovery of a new line of adult stem cells. In research conducted on mice, the scientists have found lines of adult stem cells that can change into brain and heart muscle cells, among others. As Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com writes,

The discovery could greatly expand the dozens of therapies and treatments already available from adult stem cells and the researcher say it could end the entire stem cell research debate.
"We have found a counterpart for embryonic stem cells in adult bone marrow. This could negate the ethical concerns," said Mariusz Ratajczak, leader of the research team and director of the stem cell biology program at the university's James Graham Brown Cancer Center.

For a direct link to the article in its entirety, click here.

This report comes on the heels of an admission by a South Korean researcher that he and his peers--all of whom had been working on an embryonic stem cell research project--had conjured most of the information contained in their recent publication in a leading medical journal.

Roh Sung-il, a co-author of the paper, told South Korean media networks that "Professor Hwang admitted to fabrication" and added that he, Hwang and another member of the research team have asked Science to withdraw the paper.

Click here to read the whole article, also by Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com.

So far, embryonic stem cell research has shown little-to-no promise, while adult stem cell and umbilical cord blood research is continually moving science forward. Those who favor continuing on with embryonic stem cell research are apparently becoming desperate to show some sort of substantive progress in their field. Now that they've resorted to fabricating papers for publication, it's well beyond time to pull the plug on the clone-and-kill research.

SD Task Force to Study Abortion

2005-12-14T11:41:00.000-08:00

I've never seen anything so funny as that which appeared today (12/14/05) on the Dakota War College weblog. It is one person's summation of the waning moments of the final meeting (Dec. 9, 2005) of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion. Certainly, the Commission's final meeting was anything but a comedy for those individuals involved. Nonetheless, this response to the seemingly well-choreographed sympathy walk by some of the task force members, as well as those in the audience who shared their position, is certainly worth a look.

Stay tuned for more to come.

Nick Cannon's Big Bang

2005-12-01T22:58:00.000-08:00

I've discussed this before, but that was long before I knew the details I have come to learn. Nick Cannon has a rock-solid pro-life rap video (click for the direct link to the video) that is based on a true story.....that of his mother who was facing a crisis pregnancy back in 1979.

For those who don't know, Nick Cannon is getting to be a pretty huge in the entertainment world. He's appeared in such movies as Drumline, Love Don't Cost a Thing, and, most recently, Underclassman. Cannon has also worked as the executive producer of his own show, The Nick Cannon Show. Among the people he has worked closely with is Will Smith, who is said to have been his mentor.

Not bad, huh? And to think, for around merely $300, Nick.....or you.....or I.....could have been wiped out forever. The video is profound, and has left some folks more than a bit misty-eyed. The final scene is especially touching. As stated on LifeSite.net,

The video closes with Cannon hugging his present-day mother saying "I am just telling ya'll my story/ I love my life / I love my mother for giving me life / We all need to appreciate life/ A strong women that had to make a sacrifice / Thanks for listening… / Mama thanks for listening.

It goes on to say,

One woman recounted how his video confirmed her in her last minute decision not to have an abortion.

Check it out. It might just make you decide to call your mother and thank her for choosing life. In Nick Cannon's case, I have a hunch it is now apparent to his mother that her decision is paying off in spades.

Uplifting Article on Abortion Survivor

2005-11-17T09:39:00.000-08:00

Every so often, we hear an account of a baby who is unwilling to succumb to the hands of the abortionist. Whether by the intervention of God Almighty or simply the refusal of a few little human beings to give in, some aborted babies have thumbed their noses at their abortionists and have triumphed over death itself.

In Mark Pickup's short article, "She was aborted - but she lived!....My Glass is Half Full," we read of Gianna Jessen's victory over her attempted saline abortion 29 years ago. Jessen suffers from cerebral palsy associated with oxygen deprivation during delivery, but that does not stop her from sharing her message and her talents with the world.

According to Pickup, "she is a gifted and inspiring speaker, accomplished, talented and moving singer, a charming woman and a devout Christian."

Gianna Jessen's story is definitely uplifting and encouraging.

Redefining and Reshaping the Debate

2005-11-16T20:57:00.000-08:00

The following quote is from "Postmodern Self-assessment: Pretending Doesn't Make It So" by Steve Singleton.

Abraham Lincoln once asked a stubborn disputant, "How many legs does a cow
have?" "Why, four, of course!" was the reply. Lincoln leaned forward and looked
the man in the eye, "Well then, how many would it have if we called its tail a
leg?" With a sneer, the man answered, "Five!" "Nope!" said Lincoln. "It would
still have four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

During my time as a member of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, I have come to find that one thing the pro-abortion side is particularly adept at is redefining terminology and changing the complexion of the debate. I began compiling a list of some of the phrases discussed by abortion advocates. Allow me to share some of them with you.

One phrase I was not familiar with prior to the task force proceedings was that of "abortion care." Abortion care....oxymoron? I think so.

The task force discussion oftentimes turned to the reasons why women seek abortions, or "abortion care," as some would call it. Answers ranged from "unplanned pregnancies" to "unwanted pregnancies" to "unintended pregnancies" to "accidental pregnancies." I wonder, what is the genesis of an "accidental pregnancy."

When Planned Parenthood ushered in some college students from USD for the public testimony portion of the proceedings, a common theme was the need for "comprehensive sexuality education" in the schools. They said such a program was one answer to cutting down on unplanned, unwanted, unintended pregnancies. During their testimony, I learned that nowadays some people talk about "STI's" instead of "STD's". STI is short for Sexually Transmitted Infection.

It wasn't long ago when "Venereal Diseases" were renamed "Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Now we've ushered in a new day. Apparently the enlightened individuals in the abortion industry are shifting the conversation to minimize the reality that there are consequences to engaging in promiscuous sexual activity outside marriage. Either that, or maybe I haven't received the latest update. Can we now write off the cancer caused by HPV? Has somebody discovered a cure for herpes? How about HIV/AIDS?

Could it really be true that the venereal diseases of old have become mere infections that can be cleared up with a visit to the doctor when the contraceptives marketed by Planned Parenthood fail to protect against them? Well, since we know that isn't the case, then why is there such a concerted effort to change the tone of the conversation?

The task force heard testimony from post-abortive women that when they had their abortions, they were told it was nothing but a blob of tissue being removed. Of course, the advent of ultrasound technology proved that theory wrong, so the conversation shifted over the years. In a video Kate Looby brought from the Planned Parenthood office, abortion is described as emptying the contents of the uterus.

In other committee discussion, I heard abortion advocates speak of a "potential baby" and "potential children." (I wonder when the doctor listens to the heartbeat of an unborn child if the doctor refers to it as a potential heartbeat. Further, when a cat is pregnant, why do people say she's going to have kittens, rather than suggesting that she's carrying potential kittens? A better question, yet, is why are there laws forbidding people from destroying the eggs of bald eagles? What sets apart (and requires protection for) "potential bald eagles" still inside their eggs from unborn human babies as they grow and develop in the womb?)

Dr. Marvin Buehner, an OB/GYN from Rapid City testified that he has spent the last eighteen years of his life "basically dedicated to women's health care. At this time, the vast majority of my practice is obstetrics." He was called upon by the pro-abortion side of the debate to share his expertise with the task force. He stated, "While I respect the opinions and positions of those who believe that life begins at conception, for me the question of when meaningful human life begins is a difficult one." When asked to clarify his position, he said that he has "respect for those who believe that--and are convinced that--life begins at conception. I don't necessarily share that view, cuz I'm--I don't know."

Seeking further clarification, task force member Dr. John Stransky asked whether Dr. Buehner's testimony was that "human life does not begin with the fertilization of the ovum and the creation of a zygote."

Buehner replied, "I'm saying that I don't know when meaningful human life, from the standpoint of the question of abortion or other ethical issues regarding prenatal care occurs. I don't know the answer...."

That seems to be a lot of confusion and uncertainty expressed by a gentleman whose livelihood has been women's health care and obstetrics for 18 years. Maybe he has never seen the reaction of a couple who has found out they are expecting their firstborn baby. Perhaps he has never witnessed the response of somebody who has lost her baby. Whether or not the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, it will certainly illicit a response. Obviously, at the point the individual or couple learns news about a pregnancy, the little life has some sort of meaning to them. It is curious how an 18-year veteran in the field has failed to pick up on the significance (or "meaningful"ness) of life.

Retired Methodist Pastor Dick Pittinger also testified on the pro-abortion side of the debate. He weighed in on the topic of the beginning of life, saying, "Immediately after conception....organic life does begin--at conception--that's a fact. Now, human life in its fullness is another matter, and its at that point, of course, where we have a difference of opinion." He continued that another matter "is the endless debate as to when a human--or when a being--receives a soul."

Since the 1970's, science has improved by leaps and bounds. As science has changed, so, too, have the arguments of the pro-abortion side, in order to protect its interests in keeping the business of abortion legal. Unborn babies used to be called "blobs of tissue," but when science proved otherwise, the paradigm shifted. Now abortion activists have to come up with new terms and ideas to espouse to the public. Contents of a uterus; fetus; potential baby; potential children; meaningful life; organic life that is not yet life in its fullness or that which lacks a soul....it's all smoke and mirrors. All the while, the pro-abortion interests continue to spread their message of sex without consequences....and when consequences arise, they'll take care of them.

Word to the wise....Call them what you will. Unborn lives are still lives, and sexually transmitted infections are still diseases.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

2005-11-10T22:05:00.000-08:00

In testimony heard by the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion back on September 21, 2005, expert witness Dr. J.C. Willke, who has lectured on and written about the issue of abortion for more than 30 years, provided the committee with a historical account on abortion. As I revisited that testimony, something struck me.

Dr. Willke first took the committee back to the earliest abortions.

"...We hear constantly that abortion was common in the ancient world. I haven't found it to be so. One method of abortion was to feed her poison...a concoction of crocodile dung and a few other things. Now, the idea here was to kill the baby before the mother died of the poisoning. Sometimes that worked, and sometimes they both died."

He described another method which involved trying to "dislodge" the baby, thus causing a miscarriage. However, this resulted in many complications, and often even death. Dr. Willke asserted that because of such negative consequences, abortion was not commonly practiced.

Dr. Willke testified that in those earliest of days, the role of the "doctor" was to both cure and to kill. He spoke of the fact that people would seek the services of the medicine man for remedies to what ailed them. However, if a person's enemy had previously gone to the medicine man and offered a higher payment, the doctor would provide a poison rather than a remedy.

That was prior to the arrival of the Greek physician named Hippocrates, from whom the Hippocratic Oath derives its name. Hippocrates lived roughly from 460 B.C. until around 370 B.C. According to Dr. Willke, "Hippocrate's great contribution to medicine was that he separated the healing and the killing function of the physician." Over the next several centuries, the standard was for physicians to cure only, and not to kill.

An internet search for the Hippocratic Oath shows that it has been modified over the years. It is notable that in a translation of the original version, the following language was present.

"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."

With the legalization of abortion, the Hippocratic principle (separating the healing and killing functions of the physician) was undone.

Now, we live in a time when physicians are able to provide "safe and legal" abortions. One method by which they perform abortions is chemical in nature. Such an abortion utilizes two different pills. The first, mifeprex (a.k.a. mifepristone or RU-486) essentially cuts off the child's nutrition source. The second, misoprostol, causes contractions and results in the miscarriage of the child.

The more I read about RU-486, the more horror stories I encounter. I've read of one woman's violent reaction that rendered her bedfast for several days. She literally thought she was going to die. Still others have died (including four California women) from this chemical abortion procedure.

Doesn't this seem strikingly similar to the above-mentioned abortion method from the days of yore when physicians attempted to feed women enough poison to kill their babies, but not enough to kill the women they served? Perhaps following the lead of those who choose to thumb their noses at the "Father of Medicine" by turning back the clock 2400 years isn't such a good idea, after all.

For more on the very real side-effects of RU-486, there is some good information at the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life website. Here is a direct link to one article entitled "RU-486: A risky and deadly abortion drug."

Adult Stem Cell Successes vs. Clone-and-Kill Failures

2005-10-28T18:09:00.000-07:00

For those who haven't followed the debate, the Pro Life community is generally supportive of the use of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood in conducting research and treating health conditions. To date, there have been numerous success stories associated with ASCs and cord blood. On Sunday, October 23, 2005, an article entitled "Medical Hope In Umbilical Cord Blood: Researchers find its healing powers may provide cures for many deadly maladies" ran in the Chicago Tribune. The article discusses a little girl named Gina who was diagnosed with a disease that apparently claimed her brother's life. Gina suffers some ill effects from her disease, but thanks to a cord blood transplant early in her life, she is basically a normal 5-year-old girl.

On the flip side, a person is hard-pressed to find a groundswell of support for continued ESC research in pro-life circles. This is primarily because as scientists conduct embryonic stem cell research, they create human embryos only to perform experiments on them, harvest their stem cells, and then kill them. Thus far, embryonic stem cell research has yielded little-to-no promise. That is a fact. Despite extensive ESC research, you will not find accounts similar to that of Gina associated with ESCs. Further, one of the common complications associated with embryonic stem cells is the growth of tumors. It doesn't appear there is a bright outlook for ESC/clone-and-kill science.

While Hollywood personalities and members of the community formerly known as "pro-choice" continue to clamor for more embryonic stem cell research, keep the above in mind.

Planned Parenthood...Pro-Choice? I think not!

2005-10-27T13:54:00.000-07:00

In Planned Parenthood's world, it's all about "choice," correct? Well, apparently not....not unless the final outcome is as they desire.

In this case, Target has come under attack by Planned Parenthood because some Target pharmacists have chosen not to fill so-called "emergency contraception" prescriptions. In fact, in an e-mail with the headline "It's OUTRAGEOUS!" Planned Parenthood states, "Alas! We finally know the truth about Target, and it's not good." They brag that their membership has inundated Target with 60,000 letters.

You might wonder what truth Planned Parenthood has learned about Target. What has mobilized a number of Planned Parenthood supporters? Check out Target's response to at least one of the sixty thousand to see what they find so objectionable. Below is a snippet of that correspondence.

"As an Equal Opportunity Employer, we also are legally required to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the unusual event that a Target pharmacist’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception, Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner. If it is not done in this manner, disciplinary action will be taken."

That kind of policy has the pro-abortion contingent up-in-arms?!?! I do not understand their outrage. So, some pharmacists are choosing to stand for life....in this case, a tiny human embryo which has not yet implanted into the wall of the uterus. And Target will not force some of its pharmacists to do something contrary to their system of values? The audacity! Never mind that the pharmacist is responsible to ensure the prescription is filled by somebody or the pharmacist faces disciplinary action.

The following is a portion of Planned Parenthood's response.

"Sorry, Target, but this just isn't good enough. Planned Parenthood insists that pharmacies guarantee prescriptions will be filled in-store, without discrimination or delay."

Of course, the Planned Parenthood statement contradicts itself. They demand that prescriptions be filled "without discrimination." Clearly, the mandated filling of prescriptions would result in discrimination, but that's OK with Planned Parenthood, so long as it is discrimination rooted in religion or a personal system of morals and values. So the clamoring continues....Just fill up those pill bottles and don't ask questions!

Something is becoming abundantly clear. For the pro-abortion lobby, "choice" is a hollow argument of convenience. If they were truly "pro-choice", they would be embracing this corporate policy, which really is not so much a policy as it is an acknowledgement of the law. Of course, it's a policy/law that Planned Parenthood will likely attempt to circumvent. Their letter writing campaign will probably ultimately transition to Planned Parenthood seeking intervention from their activist friends in the judiciary. After all, any individual, corporation, law or policy that stands in the way of their agenda must be toppled.

As demonstrated by its own rhetoric, Planned Parenthood opposes choice and supports discrimination....These Planned Parenthood positions may be contrary to their battle cry, but could we really expect anything else?

{This post is not intended to be an endorsement for Target. Other Target corporate policies are subject to debate. It just so happens they are the unassuming target (haha!) of Planned Parenthood's misguided scorn.}

Agape

2005-10-26T15:12:00.000-07:00

I have alluded to the fact that some testimony shared with the abortion task force last week was very compelling. I wish everybody could hear the entirety of the expert and public testimony. Since I know that is not possible, I would like to direct your attention to the testimony of one young woman. I'm not going to kid you; this one will tug at your heartstrings, as it is a most beautiful testament to love. For those of you with RealPlayer, I assure you nothing I say can do justice to what you are going to hear, so disregard the remainder of this post and listen to the audio from 10/21/2005, beginning at 06:20:19 and running through 06:28:38. For fear of detracting from Rachel's account as it appears below, I will refrain from offering my opinion relative to the tone of the last person to question this witness. I simply find it notable. If you don't listen to the audio, you're missing out.

For those of you who are unable to access the testimony on your computer, it is the account of a young woman named Rachel who spoke with wisdom, strength, and compassion. As a sophomore in college, Rachel found out she was pregnant. The first time she visited her doctor, Rachel was told that her baby was not going to live due to some severe birth defects. Rachel was asked whether she would like to terminate her pregnancy. She declined, in favor of giving her daughter a chance at life, saying "I can wake up every day and say I gave my daughter the best chance I could, and I did everything I could for her, and I can live with that. I wouldn't have been able to live with the guilt of giving up on her."

During her pregnancy, Rachel consulted with four different doctors. Rachel was told that she may lose her baby during her pregnancy, but in a best-case scenario, her child would not live more than three days after being born. When Rachel's daughter Lily was born, she was not breathing. Rachel said, "The one thing that I got the minute she was born was I got to hold her....and that's a feeling you can't trade for anything in the world. Shortly after--which seemed like forever--she took her first breath. She continued breathing for thirty-two days...She was a beautiful baby. The same as I watched her take her first breath, I also watched her take her last, which I'm not going to lie, is an extremely hard thing to do--the hardest thing I'll ever have to do in my life."

Rachel continued, "If I would meet anyone on the street that was going through the same thing I was, I would tell them to give that baby a chance because the doctors, while sometimes they're right, they're not always. And I have a pride for myself, knowing that I did everything I could for that little girl, no matter what the outcome was going to be....I still got the chance to hold her....and she was real to me."

Rachel concluded her testimony, "Not every baby is perfect. Not every baby is formed perfect in the womb, but they should all deserve a chance to make it."

In response to committee questioning, Rachel said, "Being able to give birth to a child that's been growing inside you is the most amazing thing whether it's going to make it or not....there's nothing in this world I would trade for getting to hold my daughter for even a second."

In response to the final question, Rachel tearfully said, "If there's anyone in my situation, I would tell them the exact same thing....give that baby a chance because it deserves a chance just like every one of us. It may not be perfect, but it still deserves a chance."

Abortion....Helping To Protect Criminals From Being Exposed

2005-10-25T16:03:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in the previous post, the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion heard testimony from a number of individuals last week. One thing I found interesting was during the September meetings the pro-abortion members of the task force were quick to opine that some of the pro-life testimony was based on religious/theological beliefs. When Dr. J.C. Willke was challenged on such a basis, he said his testimony was not based on theology, rather science....Biology 101, which discusses human growth and development, to be exact.

The thing that makes the pro-abortion side's assertion (about theology and their apparent aversion to such as it relates to the debate) particulary odd is that during the October meetings, they were quick to usher in members of the clergy and retired ministers to testify on their side of the debate. Funny how religion is used to discredit pro-life testimony, but seems to be embraced when the testimony comes from the other side.

One of the especially alarming pieces of testimony from a member of the clergy came from Lin Jennewein who serves as a minister in Rapid City. She was discussing situations in which she felt abortion may be an option that warrants consideration. She said, "I ask them to presume that it is their 12 year old daughter who has been raped or it is their 15 year old pregnant niece who files a case against her father, or granfather or uncle as the father of her child and exposes him to an incestual relationship that has been going on for years." She continued, "I know of such a case." The implication was that it is in some way preferable for the 15 year-old victim of incest and statutory rape to abort a baby, rather than to have a family member's crimes made known. I simply fail to follow that logic. Regardless of one's feelings about the rape and incest exceptions, clearly in both cases a crime has been committed, and there is a duty to expose the crime.

The audio of the October 20-21 meetings is now available online. I will attempt to link directly to the quotes I have spoken of at a later time. For now, you will find the statements by Ms. Looby and Ms. Jennewein contained in the Oct. 21 audio link.

South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion

2005-10-21T22:41:00.000-07:00

Over the past two days, members of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion heard testimony from a number of individuals. These were days 4 and 5 of the summer study, which began working back on August 1. I thank everybody who traveled to Pierre and who joined us over the phone lines to provide their insights. Both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides have contributed lengthy testimony as the committee has conducted its business. The input from these people was oftentimes extraordinarily compelling. Also, thank you to the members of the committee. Things have been relatively cordial given the nature of the debate. The few spats have not resulted in any blood-shed as yet. Please stay tuned to this site over the next several days as I will be posting portions of testimony. Some statements will affirm your positions, others may astound you, regardless of which side you are on.

I strongly encourage you to listen to the testimony as it is made available online. To date, the audio of the first three days of meetings has been posted. The first day consisted largely of organizational matters. For those who choose to listen to the committee hearings and discussions, I would recommend starting with the testimony from September 21 & 22 and then proceeding to the Oct. 20-21 hearings. If you skip the Aug. 1 meeting, you're not missing much.

Here is one teaser of things to come. Executive Director Kate Looby of South Dakota's primary abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, expressed that some people just don't do babies and that's their choice. She continued that "I have four children, and I've bonded with each of them, but I don't do babies either." That statement seems consistent with her organization's position. After all, back on October 16, 1996, Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota ran an ad in the Burnsville/Lakeville Sun-Current which stated "Babies are loud, smelly, and expensive. Unless you want one."

Abortion-Breast Cancer (ABC) Link

2005-10-19T21:28:00.000-07:00

The abortion-breast cancer link has been terribly understated as a result of the abortion industry's concerted effort to conceal one of the realities of abortion. It needs to be made well-known that there is overwhelming evidence that a woman who undergoes an abortion faces a dramatically increased risk of breast cancer. In his article, "Had an abortion? Call an attorney," Andrew Schlafly provides some staggering statistics that would certainly cause a woman seeking an abortion to rethink her decision. Further, it discusses the legal victories of women who have undergone abortions without being made aware that breast cancer is a potential side-effect of abortion.

Among the points made by Schlafly is that the chance of a woman developing breast cancer may rise "from only one in 13 to one in three, depending on her original risk." Further, "women who have a genetic disposition towards breast cancer see their risk of developing the disease before age 45 rise to one in one after an abortion--a virtual certainty."

In several cases, women who have taken legal action subsequent to having an abortion--including one who had not yet even developed breast cancer--have been awarded damages due to the failure of the abortionist to inform them of the heightened danger of developing breast cancer.

The abortion industry purports to be concerned with the health of a woman. Why, then, do they fight so hard to conceal the fact that women often suffer any number of adverse side-effects associated with abortion? Once again, it appears that the individuals involved in the abortion business put the almighty dollar ahead of the well-being of those they "serve." They must be held accountable for their reckless disregard for women.

Check out the article and help to spread the word. Let's all do our part to cut down on the tragic and unnecessary prevalence of breast cancer.

American Girl Dolls, Mattel Support Abortion

2005-10-13T13:30:00.000-07:00

It would appear that American Girl doll company and their manufacturer, Mattel, have teamed up with a strong pro-abortion activist group called Girls Incorporated. Under the partnership, Mattel will be selling a bracelet that says "I Can" and remitting a large portion of the proceeds to Girls Incorporated. Further, American Girl will be making a separate contribution of $50,000 directly to Girls Inc. over and above the per bracelet contribution.

The following is a snippet from the Girls Inc. website.

"Girls Inc. firmly believes that girls have the right
to...reproductive healthcare..."

Here is another statement from Girls Inc.

"Reproductive Freedom
Girls Incorporated affirms that girls and young women should make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood.
We recognize the right of all women to choose whether, when, and under what
circumstances to bear children. Reproductive freedom and responsibility are
essential to other rights and opportunities, including pursuit of education, employment, financial security and a stable and fulfilling family life. Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.'"

Girls Inc. is very forthcoming about its pro-abortion stance. Therefore, Mattel and American Girl cannot plead ignorance when it comes to their alliance with the pro-abortion group.

You may feel compelled to check labels more closely when making purchasing decisions in the future.

For a related article published today on the LifeNews website, click here. Another article appears at the American Family Association's website. To access the AFA article directly, click here.

NRLC on Harriet Miers

2005-10-07T11:56:00.000-07:00

It appears that President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, will be a strict constructionist who believes in a limited judiciary and who will base her judgments on the Constitution's framers' original intent. If this is true, Miers' confirmation should prove to be favorable for the pro-life community. After all, we all know that nothing in the Constitution of the United States even remotely resembles language guaranteeing a right to abortion-on-demand. That interpretation was something conjured by the Supreme Court activists in 1973 and upheld by other activists since. We must hope for confirmation of nominees who will read what is written in black-and-white, and base their judgments upon what is written. Here's hoping Harriet Miers will help put an end to the judicial activism of legislating from the bench.

For more on Miers, click here to see what National Right to Life has put out on her nomination.

2005-10-04T19:53:00.000-07:00

In an e-mail sent to an acquaintance of mine, Planned parenthood was trying to rally the pro-abortion troops to come to Pierre to testify before the SD Task Force to Study Abortion. I do not fault them for that. It is their prerogative and part of the fact-finding process the Task Force has been charged with. However, I do take issue with a notion espoused in their propaganda that strong pro-lifers are illogical, while the abortion advocates amongst us are the only ones capable of studying abortion because they are not biased. Since this is an e-mail put out directly by Planned Parenthood of MN, SD, and ND, I am going to interpret it as I believe it was intended.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. Below is Planned Parenthood of MN, SD, & ND in its own words.

"It is imperative that people who support women’s decision making ability go to Pierre for the public testimony. The majority of the members of the Task Force are unable to study this issue logically because of their strong bias on the issue. The voice of South Dakota citizens must be heard! Please make plans to keep abortion safe and legal in South Dakota!" (Bolding added for emphasis.)

MUST-READ ARTICLE!!! "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended"

2005-10-03T14:44:00.000-07:00

A Los Angeles Times article entitled "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended" published on September 14, 2005, will likely astonish you. Among other things, it discusses what was contained in former US Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun's papers, which were released on the 5th anniversary of his death. The article outlines the evolution of the interpretations stemming from the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court rulings. It tells that when Blackmun was a mere rookie on the Court, his friend and colleague, Chief Justice Warren Burger, put Blackmun in charge of writing the Roe ruling. Blackmun set out to write a narrow ruling that sought to facilitate change in abortion laws across the nation, not repeal them.

So, how did we get from Chief Justice Burger's declaration that "Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand" to today's abortion-on-demand American society? Find out.

Further, the article states...

"Blackmun proposed to issue a news release to accompany the decision, issued Jan. 22, 1973. 'I fear what the headlines may be,' he wrote in a memo. His statement, never issued, emphasized that the court was not giving women 'an absolute right to abortion,' nor was it saying that the 'Constitution compels abortion on demand.'"

South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion

2005-09-30T17:48:00.000-07:00

Among this issues recently discussed at the SD Abortion Task Force meetings was the degree to which the decision to abort an unborn baby is actually voluntary.

A report on LifeNews.com discusses some of the testimony presented by Vincent Rue of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss and an abortion advocate and New York attorney named Lynn Paltrow.

Within the article it states, "Rue said a large percentage of women who wind up having abortions report later that they wish they had more information about the procedure and more time to reflect on it. Some later feel pressured or rushed into the abortion."

There was some phenomenal testimony presented during the first two-day meeting of the task force. I will try to give you a heads-up when the audio is available on the state's website.

Planned Parenthood Cares More About Abortion Than Teen Girls

2005-09-28T15:35:00.000-07:00

Check out this news story from the LifeNews website. I have also read other stories about Planned Parenthood turning a blind eye to statutory rape. It appears that compliance with laws designed to protect minors from sexual predators is not a top priority in the abortion industy....not so long as those minors are paying customers.

On Cloning....

2005-09-28T11:17:00.000-07:00

From Susan B. Anthony List

Did you know that in some labs in the United States, scientists are creating clones of animal fetuses and growing them to nearly full term before killing them and harvesting their tissues as "therapeutic" treatment for adult cows? Bioethics experts reviewing these experiments are already calling them, " A Case for Harvesting Older Human Embryos."

Mount Blogmore audio

2005-09-22T22:47:00.000-07:00

For those of you interested, Denise Ross interviewed me about taking on the responsibility of being the State Director of South Dakota Right to Life. You can listen to the hour-long audio file at the address below. The post appears at http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=846.

Clean Cut Kid criticizes SDRTL

2005-09-15T14:30:00.000-07:00

from Clean Cut Kid:

I see the South Dakota Right to Life has a new blog. I look forward to many entertaining posts from the authors.

In the meantime, I wonder when they are going to get abortion finally abolished for good?

For that matter, what are they doing to prevent abortion from happening in the first place?

Or are they only interested in using the tragedy of abortion as a political football during election years?

And what are they doing to save the "life" that is being sacrificed in Iraq? My guess is nothing. Even though nearly 2,000 "beating hearts" have been stopped in the war, they've done nothing to stop it.

Or how about saving the lives of poor people who don't have access to affordable medical care and are forced to go without it? Nothing again. They don't care about those "beating hearts".

How about supporting embryonic stem-cell research to find cures for diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year? They probably aren't interested in protecting "that kind of life". Diabetes, just one disease that could be cured with this research, stops nearly 75,000 "beating hearts" every year. But you'll see South Dakota Right Life fighting this research.

Is South Dakota Right to Life interested in making birth control more accessible to women, particularly poor and minority women, to prevent abortions? My bet is they would fight any government initiative to make birth control more readily accessible to women.

I've always viewed groups like SDRTL as only being interested in using the issue for political gain and keeping women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen -- you know, "like it's supposed to be". They have very little interest in "beating hearts". And I know that is excessively harsh. But it has always been painfully obvious to me that they are only interested in using a tragic choice for their political gain instead of trying to solve a serious problem.

And that is truly shameful.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.cleancutkid.com/trackback/614
Chad – September 14, 2005 – 02:24

Sen. Brownback discusses the fallacies upon which abortion-on-demand was established as the law of the land...

2005-09-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

excerpt from LifeNews.com
by Steven Ertelt

Earlier this year, Brownback held hearings on the two Supreme Court cases that ushered in an era of 44 million abortions. He told Roberts the two women who were the subject of the cases have said they never wanted an abortion and have filed a lawsuit, which courts have ruled against, seeking to overturn the cases.

"I believe I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping a woman in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation," Brownback quoted Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade, as saying.

"I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion," McCorvey told Congress.

"Facts. Facts. In Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, falsified statements," Brownback told Roberts. "And upon this we've based this constitutional right that's been found that we now have 40 million fewer children in this country to bless us with?"

EMILY's List takes credit for Herseth Election

2005-09-13T17:25:00.000-07:00

On their website, EMILY's list notes that one of the pre-requisites of candidates they help to elect is that they are pro-abortion. It is notable that on the page that outlines the candidates they've helped elect, they proudly list Stephanie Herseth as one of their success stories. This really is not a surprise to those who paid attention during the election....it's just confirmation of what we already knew....and a glimpse of things we South Dakotans can expect in her political future.

Liberals Begin Attack On Judge Roberts

2005-09-13T17:04:00.000-07:00

From the American Family Association.....

The U.S. Senate will soon be voting to confirm nominee for the Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Now is the time to let your Senators hear from you in support of Judge Roberts' nomination.

The liberals are doing all they can to get Judge Roberts' nomination defeated. A look at what one liberal group stands for shows the philosophy of those who oppose Judge Roberts. They say that Judge Roberts is outside the mainstream of American values. They want to bypass the legislative branch of government and continue to use the judicial system to impose their agenda on every American. Here is a list of what People for the American Way, which strongly opposes Judge Roberts, stands for.

People for the American Way opposes…
pornography filters on public library computers
regulation of hardcore internet pornography
restrictions on simulated child pornography
school choice
voluntary prayer in public places

People for the American Way supports…
deleting "under God from the Pledge of Allegiance
homosexual marriage
voting rights for felons
forcing Boy Scouts to permit openly gay scoutmasters
partial birth abortion
judicially imposed tax hikes
removing The Ten Commandments from public settings
racial quotas in college admissions

If People for the American Way is using everything it has to defeat Judge Roberts, then surely Judge Roberts deserves our support.

Please send your email now asking your Senators to vote to confirm Judge Roberts! Then forward this to others asking them to do the same. The vote is expected to be very close. It is vitally important that we secure as many letters of support as we can for Judge Roberts.
Click Here To Email Your Senators Now!

Pro-Life Music Video

2005-09-12T21:17:00.000-07:00

A friend forwarded this link to me about Nick Cannon, a popular musician, whose new strongly pro-life music video, "Can I Live", has provided hope and encouragment to young women in crisis pregnancies. Check out the link to his website and the discussion forum where women are posting their stories. It's very uplifting.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061002.html

Welcome to the SD Right to Life Blog

2005-09-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

Here at SD Right to Life, we have created our very own Blog that will allow you to keep up-to-date with pro-life happenings, as well as to share your comments on any number of life issues.

This interactive weblog will serve as a supplement our regular website, which can be found at sdrl.org, and will allow us to respond quickly to any questions and concerns you might pose.

The weblog allows an easy format to provide links to news articles and to point out websites the SD Pro-Life community should be familiar with. You are invited to make suggestions for posts, as well as to comment on material that is discussed.

We look forward to being your SD Weblog resource on South Dakota pro-life information.