Pro-abortion forces recently lined up before the cameras to launch their national campaign to defeat the pro-life measure Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota.
This is a video from CSPAN of that recent press conference.
While it contains a lot of pro-abortion posturing and apologetics, there are some interesting admissions...and omissions.
Even as pro-abortion forces launched what they admitted was a "national campaign" to defeat Initiated Measure 11 (even the ACLU--one of the most anti-God, anti-family, anti-American groups in the country--was there), they attempted to portray the pro-life effort behind IM 11 as an "out of state" effort.
New Jersey lawyer Harold Cassidy was consulted in crafting the language of this measure, but it was, as it always has been, initiated and led by South Dakotans. I attended some of the meetings leading up to this bill, and I can tell you: South Dakotans started this, want this and have worked for it. South Dakotans have put their time, energy and money behind promoting the measure.
If that isn't good enough, the 58,000 or so registered South Dakota voters who signed the petition to put this measure on the ballot should tell you that.
Sarah Stoesz, President of Planned Parenthood for South Dakota, said in the press conference, "Proponents of the ban say that the ban contains exceptions. We do not believe that these are exceptions.
"Of course, even if it did contain exceptions we would oppose the ban. Let me just be clear about that."
She says the exceptions "are so narrowly drawn as to be completely meaningless."
Since they are drawn in such a way that they can only be used for their intended purpose, and not abused as an excuse to have an abortion, she obviously means "They are so narrowly drawn as to be completely useless to us as a vehicle to justify abortion on demand."
Which is really what Planned Parenthood wants to maintain: abortion on demand. The latest abortion statistics from South Dakota indicate that in 2006, 84.6% of abortions were done simply for the reason "The mother did not desire to have the child." Not rape, not health, not life, but that the mother just didn't want the child.
Stoesz says the health exception is so difficult to prove that she doesn't believe a doctor anywhere would perform an abortion. Apparently few situations meet this criteria, since the South Dakota Department of Health statistics show that only 1.5% of abortions performed in South Dakota in 2006 were for health reasons. And since there was no requirement in 2006 that a health risk actually be medically demonstrated, it's likely that the number of genuine health needs was even less than 1.5%.
Stoesz says the rape exception subjects the doctor to a "web of complex bureaucracy." Normal people call that "protection against unnecessary loss of life."
Currently, standard procedure when a woman reports a rape is to involve law enforcement by gathering material evidence of the crime so that when the perpetrator is caught, there is evidence to tie him to the crime and successfully prosecute him. Prosecuting the offender is obviously of paramount importance, both to obtain justice for the victim, and to prevent him from raping other women.
The only difference under Initiated Measure 11 is that this requirement would be set in law before an abortion for rape could proceed.
If we are going to end the life of an innocent human being, who has done nothing wrong to the mother or anyone else, a high thresh hold of proof should be required before we end that life.
One reporter asked the assembled group of pro-abortionists where they would draw the line, or which abortions would they consider acceptable to ban. After some hemming and hawing, the answer quickly became apparent: none.
For Planned Parenthood, abortion essentially comes down to this: there is NO abortion they consider bad, unpleasant or unnecessary.
All this caterwauling that there are "no exceptions" or "the exceptions aren't wide enough to drive a truck through" is just smokescreen for the extremist Planned Parenthood position: there is no abortion they would consider appropriate to ban.
And they will fight to keep every single abortion legal if they can, to ensure the pipleline of blood money to their coffers continues.
Featured Article
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Pro-Abortionists Start National Spin Campaign
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Pro-abortion? You must mean pro-choice. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing or who supports abortion.
As pro-choice activists, we understand that abortion is a heavy issue, but we also realize that outlawing it won't stop it. The only way to decrease the number of abortions is to provide comprehensive sex education, affordable access to birth control, and create a supportive environment for mothers to raise their children in - Federal programs, entitlements, etc.
I think, given that same logic, it wouldn't be fair to call the anti-abortion movement "pro-life". How many abortion doctors have been murdered in the name of life?
Quoting the story: "One reporter asked the assembled group of pro-abortionists where they would draw the line, or which abortions would they consider acceptable to ban. After some hemming and hawing, the answer quickly became apparent: none."
So, the people of SD were lied to regarding the 2006 initiative. We wanted exceptions for rape and incest and that still would not be enough. Vote YES on 11.
Anonymous 9:11, When I was pro-abortion, I at least had the intellectual honesty to call myself what I was: pro-abortion.
I wanted to keep abortion available; I was "for" the availability of the procedure, so I was pro-abortion.
If someone thinks family is a good thing, they're pro-family. If someone thinks homosexuality is a good thing, they're pro-homosexual. If someone thinks America is a good thing, they're pro-America.
If you think people should have the right to murder an unborn child, aren't you really in favor of murder? Of course you are. Only someone trying to justify immoral behavior or moral cowardice would claim "I'm not for murder, but I believe people should have the right to murder."
Are you pro-choice with rape? Are you pro-choice with prostitution? Are you pro-choice with meth use? Are you pro-choice with theft? Are you pro-choice with assault? Are you pro-choice with child abuse?
Have a little backbone and take a stand. Either you're for something or you're against it.
As far as abortion is concerned, does the fact that over 1 million fetuses are aborted each year in the United States bother me? Of course. I'm quite sure that it bothers anyone with a conscience (even those evil Pro-Choice people). I am also bothered by the fact that 30,000 kids die each day globally because of hunger or hunger-related illnesses. And the 9,000 people who die each day from AIDS.
Republicans proclaim, "Vote for us because we are anti-abortion. We are the Pro-Life party..." While they frame the Democrats as pro-abortion - baby killers. Yet when elected, the issue is not effectively addressed.
It's like someone gave you a set of movie tickets because you gave them your vote. When you arrive at the theater with your date you’re told the tickets are worthless. You've been duped. And, the guy still has your vote - you can't get it back.
The approach of promising to make abortion illegal is ineffective on two levels. First, the promise is seldom acted upon. But, more importantly, it doesn't address the ROOT CAUSES of abortion. Outlawing abortion would be just as effective as making illicit drugs illegal. Drug use is still epidemic. Underage drinking is illegal – but still rampant…
Essential to bringing the abortion rate (or any troublesome issue for that matter) under control, is not to make it illegal - but to LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES that cause the problem in the first place.
Looking at just one set of the many statistics on abortion, one can easily discover the underlying issues that force a decision to abort:
Two-thirds of women who have abortions say they do not see how they could afford to raise the child. The 30-year trend confirms this. Abortion rates move in tandem with unemployment rates of women over the last 30 years. Black and Latina women tend to be poorer and more unemployed - their abortion rates are two to three times higher than white women.
What can you determine from these statistics? That poverty and/or unemployment are important underlying issues in the abortion issue.
So, when you're searching your soul for your RESPONSIBLE VOTE TO END ABORTION, ask candidates if they are working to ensure a living wage for American families. Look for a party platform that demonstrates a desire to end poverty. Look for voting records more in line with the interests of the lower and middle classes. Look for social programs that support the mother and baby AFTER the baby is born.
Let's all do our homework before we step into the voting booth. Then we can cast a vote that is REALLY Pro-Life.
- Tim Nyberg
The "poverty" excuse is just that: an excuse and a copout.
What did people do when they had children during the Great Depression? They had them, and they survived.
What they mean is they can't afford to have children and maintain the same level of spending on their own priorities like houses, cars, boats, and other forms of recreation.
In the latest statistics available from the South Dakota Department of Health, 84.6% of abortions done in South Dakota in 2006 were done because "the mother did not desire to have the child." Just didn't want the child. Meanwhile, 21.4% of abortions done in South Dakota in 2006 were for the reason "The mother could not afford the child."
Again, I submit that if the mothers of the Great Depression could have children and survive (which they did), then that 21.4% is bunk.
Besides, they could still give up the child for adoption. There are tons of couples who are waiting to adopt; both they and many adoption agencies will provide for medical care, etc. during the pregnancy.
So I'll say it again: "poverty" as a reason for abortion is an excuse and a copout.
Pursuit of convenience is THE underlying cause for abortion. Until we decide to put the lives of children ahead of our creature comforts--or until we choose to outlaw this barbaric procedure--the blood letting will continue.
Post a Comment