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.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.