(11/9/2006)

Pro-Life Campaign Continues in South Dakota

Supporters disappointed but already planning next opportunity to defend life

BY BOB ELLIS

DAKOTA VOICE

South Dakota has long been recognized as a very pro-life state. There is only one abortion clinic in the entire state, located in Sioux Falls on the east end of the state, and none of the abortion doctors are from South Dakota. Instead, the abortionists fly in from Minnesota to perform the abortions by appointment. South Dakota also has some of the toughest restrictions on abortion in the United States.

So many people wonder how Referred Law 6, an abortion ban passed as HB 1215 by a bipartisan majority of the legislature earlier this year, could have failed to pass muster with the voters.

From the beginning, the rape/incest exception was the number one objection to the abortion ban. Most supporters of the ban knew they would have to educate the voters not only on the provision in the bill for emergency contraception, but about the humanity of the unborn child--even one who was conceived in rape.

Exceptions that allowed abortions to be performed for any reason other than to save the life of the mother were rejected by the legislature because they were inconsistent with the findings of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion that the unborn child is a person deserving of equal protection under the law.

A great deal of energy was spent on both sides making the case for and against the provision in Section 3 of the legislation which allowed for the use of emergency contraception up until the time when it could be scientifically determined that the woman was pregnant. Referred Law 6 supporters pointed out that this provision had been placed in the bill specifically to allow a compassionate provision for women who had been raped. However, abortion supporters denounced the provision as not meeting the full-fledged exception they sought which would allow an abortion in rape and incest cases.

As early voting by absentee ballot began to take place in late September, misinformation again plagued the abortion ban, with reports that some people had voted "no" to Referred Law 6, thinking they were voting "no" to abortion itself.

“I believe there were a number of things working against us,” said VoteYesForLife.com campaign manager Leslee Unruh. “Historically, the voters go against the legislature on 80% of referendum issues.”

Unruh said that in addition to history not being on their side with a referred law, there were some problems within the coalition in staying on message, with some well-meaning pro-life groups and individuals using methods and tactics that may have distorted the message that abortion not only hurts the unborn, but is devastating to women as well.

The legislation suffered, too, from a dearth of leadership support within political circles. While South Dakota’s Democrat Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth and Senator Tim Johnson came out strongly against Referred Law 6, Senator John Thune, a pro-life Republican, was largely silent. Governor Mike Rounds, also a pro-life Republican, signed the bill after it passed the legislature, but gave only lukewarm support of the measure once a successful petition drive referred it to a vote of the people.

There was also a lot of nastiness from opponents of the ban, coming in the form of threats of violence to Unruh, and the vandalism and theft of hundreds of campaign signs throughout the state, which may have served to distract those involved in the campaign and those the campaign was trying to reach.

Facts are still being gathered, but Unruh said that in the final days of the campaign, many people received phone calls from people claiming to be from VoteYesForLife.com, but the calls urged voters to vote “no” on Referred Law 6. Unruh said she had received one of these calls herself. The investigation into this development is ongoing, she said.

Although some effort was made by the campaign to point out that one of the key legitimate roles of government is to protect the innocent, it was not heard often, or until near the end of the campaign. Many Referred Law 6 supporters, including VoteYesForLife.com board member Stacey Wollman, believe the strong sentiment in western South Dakota against what was seen by some as “government intrusion” hindered the effectiveness of the campaign.

Many pro-life advocates are uncertain about the future of any bills which might be introduced in the legislature that have exceptions allowing for rape, since most pro-life supporters view the life of the child conceived in rape as being just as valuable as the life of any other child. Others believe that if strict parameters were placed on a rape exception, such as a requirement to report the crime to authorities in a timely fashion, it might gain the support of pro-lifers as a pragmatic compromise, reducing the number of abortions in the state if not stopping it altogether.

The VoteYesForLife.com coalition brought together many pro-life individuals and organizations to focus on passage of this bill. Some 3,000 volunteers across the state joined the effort, from the two main offices in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, to county coordinators and other volunteers spread throughout South Dakota. Those working on the campaign were a diverse group of Catholics, Protestants, Native Americans, men and women, young and old.

Unruh says VoteYesForLife.com isn’t going away, as most election campaigns do. “We realize this effort is a marathon, not a sprint,” she said. “We have a strong coalition and we’re going to keep it together. The strategy for South Dakota is in the process of being worked out, and in the meantime, we’ll be in a position to help other states as they pursue pro-life legislation.”

Though the Rapid City office will be closing to conserve financial resources, the Sioux Falls office will continue operations. Unruh says the organization will remain active in educating the public on the dangers of abortion, providing informational resources to other states that pursue pro-life legislation, and advocating additional restrictions on abortion here in South Dakota.

Mark Skogerboe, a field representative with the South Dakota Family Policy Council, remains buoyant despite the setback and says he’s strongly encouraged by the growing cooperation between Catholics and Protestants, and Native Americans and other South Dakotans.

“This shows great potential for the future,” said Skogerboe. “We’re developing a model of Christian activism and a process that is bringing much light on this darkness.

“For the first time, there has been a focus on abortion’s harm to women, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. We have seized the issue of ‘Who loves you, Baby’ from the pro-abortion crowd. If there had been more time, it would certainly have succeeded, but it will continue to spread, even now.”

Skogerboe was also encouraged by the newfound courage he saw from many churches, some of which have not engaged moral issues in the public arena in the past.

“The greatest thing of all,” Skogerboe said, “is that hundreds of pastors have stood up for the unvarnished truth, regardless of any consequences to church membership fears about tax exempt status. We’ve seen the model that if the pastors have ‘Aarons’ to hold up their arms, they can be powerful agents for social change.”

Supporters of the ban were very disappointed the day after the vote, but they were also determined to find the best way to ensure success when they make their next attempt to bring abortion to an end.

Expect the fight for life at all stages of development to continue in South Dakota.