Abortion-rights group says anti-abortion lawmakers are out of touch with state (South Dakota)

Rapid City Journal ^ | 1/11/09 | Mary Garrigan

[wagglebee]

State lawmakers who consistently vote to ban more abortions in South Dakota are out of step with their constituents, a spokesman for an abortion-rights group said Thursday in Rapid City.

"We want to be able to tell the folks returning to Pierre that they should know how their constituents voted," said Nathan Peterson, a spokesman for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which released a post-election report. "We think it's a point worth revisiting, because not everybody heard the message."

Two of those returning legislators, Sen.-elect Jeff Haverly, R-Rapid City, and Sen.-elect Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, took exception Thursday to the idea that they were out of touch with their constituents. Haverly and Rhoden are two of seven legislators highlighted in the election analysis for having voted, between 2004 and 2007, for three bills that would have effectively banned most of the abortions performed in South Dakota.

Both men easily won election to the Senate in November after serving numerous terms in the state House.

"We're intelligent enough to look at our districts and say enough is enough," Haverly said, acknowledging the decisive defeat of the bans in 2006 and 2008. "If it comes back, I probably won't support it."

Rhoden said there was little new content in the report, calling it "somewhat inflammatory" and ridiculing Healthy Families as "poor winners" for issuing it.

Rhoden's District 29 voters defeated both bans, 58 percent to 42 percent, but elected Rhoden to his Senate seat with 67 percent of the vote.

"I have always been clear that I will not compromise my moral beliefs or my integrity on a piece of legislation when it's brought before me," he said, noting that Measure 11 did not come out of the Legislature last year.

Neither Rhoden nor Haverly expects to see another abortion ban come forward in the 2009 Legislature.

"It would be unwise and out of line for us to bring the issue of an abortion ban forward," Rhoden said. "I think that we've been sent a clear message. It's run the gauntlet. I would be very, very surprised if it was brought forward again this year."

"Maybe they know something I don't," Haverly said of the Healthy Families pre-legislative news conference. "There's not even a bill that I know of, and I don't see this coming back this session."

Like a lot of other South Dakota politicians, Haverly thought, when he voted in favor of a 2007 bill to ban abortion, that a majority of South Dakota voters would be supportive of a ban on abortions that included exceptions for victims of rape and incest and for the health of the pregnant woman.

"It was surprising to me, but obviously those exceptions were not what they were looking for," Haverly said.

Abortion numbers have fallen yearly in South Dakota since 2003, and fell from 748 in 2006 to 707 in 2007, according to the state's Vital Statistics report, down from 819 abortions performed in 2003.

"In the last five years, we've had abortion in the news here in South Dakota more than any state in the U.S.," said Leslee Unruh, leader of the anti-abortion group VoteYesForLife.com. That attention, along with campaign billboards and advertisements, probably changed some minds and prevented some abortions, she said.

"It proves that you can lower these numbers if you get involved in these young women's lives," she said.

There's no way to know definitively why abortion numbers are falling in South Dakota, according to Rapid City physician Dr. Marvin Buehner. Buehner suspects it is a combination of positive and negative factors, which he said might include political intimidation for women seeking elective abortions. The lower abortion numbers may also mean that more women are traveling out of state for the procedure as the South Dakota Legislature puts additional restrictions on abortions rights here.

Buehner said Thursday that both bans proposed in 2006 and 2008 showed a "profound disrespect" for the wishes of South Dakota voters, but he and Unruh agree that finding common ground in reducing abortions should be a goal of both sides.

"It's time to stop fighting about what we don't agree on and start working on those things we do," Buehner said. "People are looking for solutions, not more heated ballot issues."

[wagglebee]

State lawmakers who consistently vote to ban more abortions in South Dakota are out of step with their constituents, a spokesman for an abortion-rights group said Thursday in Rapid City.

Being "out of step" with people who condone murder IS NOT a bad thing.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Andyman]

Didn’t I read recently that Planned (De)Parenthood closed both its SD offices?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Abortion-rights group says anti-abortion lawmakers are out of touch with state...

That may be true but they seem to have a tight grip on their human decency and the U.S. Constitution. Denying a person the right to life by murdering them in the womb is unconstitutional.

[SECURE AMERICA]

We want to be able to tell the folks returning to Pierre that they should know how their constituents voted,” said Nathan Peterson, a spokesman for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families

Amazing how screwed up this Nation has become. Up is down down is up right is wrong and wrong is right.
We call a group that lobbies to kill babies an “abortion rights” group.
A group dedicated to pushes for abortions is called Campaign for Healthy Families?? Healthy for who? Certainly not for the babies that they get killed. Certainly not for the women that suffer many emotional problems in later years because of their abortions.
Yes we have really allowed things to become bass ackwards.......

[NellieMae]

Video link to very good message on life:

http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH0902_S

[MountainFlower]

They are trying to cloud the issue. The reason the abortion ban in 2008 did not pass was BECAUSE of the exceptions. I did not support it and I know many other Christians and conservatives did not support it based on conscience. The pro-aborts in 2006 were pushing for the exceptions just because it gave them something to fight the first ban with.

Arguing that the legislators don't know or vote according to their constituents has nothing to do with what happened in 2007 or 2008 on Pro-Life issues because they were not voted on in the legislature. They were initiative and referendums brought forth by petitions of the people. So the person speaking was CLUELESS! The reporter was also CLUELESS to not have made that point...OR BIASed to the Pro-abort side. (Ahem! did I say that?!)

I wonder why Healthy Families is even bothering to balk about anything. They won! I am also uncertain about the "work together" thing. I would NEVER turn my back on PP or unHealthy Families let alone try to work with them. They cannot be trusted, as has been proved often in the past. Me thinks the snake speaketh too loudly. I have to wonder if the last bit there was a typical "media twist" on the words actually spoken. I would be quite surprised if Leslee Unruh would work with unHealthy Families or PP. I have seen the friction and felt the tension in the rooms with the various hearing in the past.

[MountainFlower]

I tried to get that statement retracted as it was an untruth....onenewsnow and lifenews refused to do so. What happened was the day a law was to take effect in SD there was notice on the door of the Sioux Falls PP that stated simply that their office was going to be closed for the afternoon. Someone, who I will not name, out of respect, though it makes my blood boil, took that and ran with it to the media saying they were closed and allowing the media to assume the were CLOSED for good, not just for the afternoon as the notice has said. Then there was even further "speculation" that it was all connected to the law. However, it was not. They continued to open doors a few days later, with the parking lot half or more filled on the days that they are open...implying abortions continue. I can assure you that the amount of time they are inside constitutes more than a stop to pickup condoms.

You are right that there are 2 offices. The one in Rapid City does not perform abortions. The one in Sioux Falls does.

Also in the news is that the tri-state PP (Nd, Sd, Mn) laid off 9 employees. Kate Looby the head of the Sioux Falls office (I don't know her title, but believe she was higher up and over-seeing the tri-state area, tho I could be wrong) was one that was laid off. I am not doing a 'dance of joy' yet. There is speculation that it was done in advance of FOCA, to open up PP for something provided in FOCA. Remember, I said it is speculation, not confirmed.

[MountainFlower]

The other fallacy is that the numbers are down because people are going elsewhere for abortions. NOT likely. Those in SD will go to the closest...which is Sioux Falls. They cannot afford to drive to Omaha or Minneapolis. People in Wyoming do not have a closer place. Those who are closer to SFalls in Nebraska and Iowa and Minnesota are still coming here. It has nothing to do with them going somewhere else for it.

[MountainFlower]

There isn't much time to do something about FOCA.

FOCA in FOCUS

[MountainFlower]

PING!

[MountainFlower]

AMEN!

[B Knotts]

The reason the abortion ban in 2008 did not pass was BECAUSE of the exceptions.

Well, supposedly the previous ban failed because it lacked those exceptions.

I think the truth is that the pro-life movement failed to unite behind either of the measures.

There ought to be some measure that all pro-lifers can support.

FWIW, I oppose exceptions, as abortion is never medically necessary. There are procedures which are rarely indicated which may result in the death of the baby, but these are not truly abortions, since the purpose of the procedure is not to kill the baby, but to save the life of the mother.

That said, even a ban with exceptions is better than the status quo.

[MountainFlower]

The first time around I believe that the message was not clear enough. They were trying to muddle the fact that it had no exceptions and PP and unHealthy families used that to spin it. There was also moneys coming into the state from the CA Gay agenda that were used to create a fog on the issue so voters really were not sure if a YES vote meant what and a NO vote meant what. The advertising with that money was done to spin the words and confuse the voters. Then they (PP and proponents) claimed that exceptions would have passed it....note that was supported by the pro-aborts and stated and then bought by the leaders of the pro-life movement in the state.

The way the most recent initiative came about was underhanded. Things were not on the level with all the pro-lifers in the movement...in any case, many pro-lifers were not willing to say exceptions are ok, just to get a bill. You can't back-pedal from there to get all abortions declared illegal, so any concessions would be permanent concessions. The information again that came out on this one and the advertising was not all clear on it, muddling the minds of some. For the most part it was defeated because it was a bill that some pro-lifers could not and would not support due to the exceptions. Had they pressed forward again with the measure of the year before, and changed their advertising to be upfront about it all, it may have been different. That is just my opinion. I believe they gave up on the real thing too quickly.

I have heard all the arguments that some is better than none...if a building were burning or a boat sinking...but those comparisons are not the reality. If they want to stop the building from burning, get in there and get everyone out... Get in front of PP on a daily basis and fight the fight on the frontlines. It was hard to watch this last referendum rip apart the pro-life movement in the state, to say nothing of what it did to families, friendships and churches. The warnings were out there and not heeded. Now there is a damaged movement, split when it didn't neet to be, wounded where it did not need to be. PP and unHealthy Families did not need to fight this one at all. The damage was done with Satan's use of the divisive spirit from within.

Reality ~ The only way this will be taken down is with a personhood issue addressed at the constitution level. That gets to the heart of the matter. That and changing hearts.

[MountainFlower]

EIGHT RESPONSES TO THE PROCHOICE MINDSET

[MountainFlower]

Another thing that aided in a lack of clear focus was the Bishop decided to ride the fence on this last one, with the exceptions. He left the decision up to the individual vote and would not give a direction. It was anticipated he would support it because they could say that all attempts to meet the real standard had been made, so concessions would be acceptable at this point. However, there were some in the movement, also Catholic, who reminded them that in reality the IDEAL legislation would have included abortafacients (I probably spelled that wrong) and birth control methods. Since those were never included in any proposed legislation, the Catholic church could not really use the (can't remember the terminology now) view that all attempts to meet the REAL IDEAL goal had been tried so now it was ok for concessions to be made with a clear conscience. With this out there, the Bishop just made a decision to not decide and allow everyone to choose for themselves. Had he chosen one way or the other, it would definitely have influences the vote.

[Coleus]

Abortion-rights group says anti-abortion lawmakers are out of touch with state (South Dakota)

The Great Myth: A Biblical Case Against Gay 'Marriage'

Attorney Who Aided Terri Schiavo’s Husband Now Advising Barack Obama

[Tabi Katz]

Good that abortion numbers are dropping, but very sad about the measures being defeated. I would have expected better of SD voters. Cross that off my list of states to relocate to in the future!