Earlier today VoteYesForLife.com, the group supporting the pro-life Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota, held a press conference to share a letter (see below) received from Sanford Health in Sioux Falls yesterday.
An internal memo at Sanford was recently "leaked," which pro-abortion forces in South Dakota made public.
The memo expressed concerns that the medical requirements of IM 11 were not clearly defined, and that the requirement in the rape exception that the crime of rape be reported to law enforcement authorities so the perpetrator can be pursued may be "detrimental to the woman's emotional well-being and therefore interfere with the physician-patient relationship."
Aberdeen lawyer Rory King and others from the legal team at VoteYesForLife.com met with Sanford officials yesterday to discuss IM 11. The outcome of that meeting was that Sanford now sees that the language of the measure is clear, and that the care Sanford provides is "consistent with the general intent of Initiated Measure 11, except for the provision for fetal anomaly or deformity."
Studies and the testimony of many women has shown that carrying the child to term enables women to cope much better with the loss of their child. Further, doctors can be mistaken about a diagnosis.
The letter from Sanford further states
Simply stated, Sanford does not perform elective abortions, and is only involved in the unfortunate termination of a pregnancy in the extreme case of a life or health threat to the mother, the terminal, or already expired, fetus. Annual numbers of these instances are small and average less than six (6) per year. Since Sanford will soon deliver nearly half of the babies in South Dakota annually, it is clear we are an organization committed to life while we recognize the dignity and frailty of our human mortality.
The letter also admits their internal memo could be potentially misleading as it takes a "worst case scenario" approach, and says they will make the VoteYesForLife.com analysis available to their physicians as a complimentary alternative perspective.
The letter further states
You argued that, for a physician to violate the intended law, he or she would have to:
1. Have demonstrated an understanding and knowledge of a medical standard pertaining to the case or procedure, and
2. Knowingly disregard the medical standard in the performance of a procedure or delivery of care.
Sanford counsel concurs that "intent" would have to be demonstrated as well. This is the standard of care we employ today.
The letter also commends the VoteYesForLife.com campaign for "your thoughtful and genuine approach to manage this difficult issue with the sensitivity of our physicians and the protection of our independence in caring for all who come to us."
I'm sure this has been unpleasant for Sanford Health to have gone through, but in the end it has fostered greater understanding for all South Dakotans of the reasonableness and practicality of Initiated Measure 11.
It has also exposed the fact that pro-abortionists don't want to debate Initiated Measure 11 on it's merits and intent; they know that they have no reasonable argument against it. They can only resort to distortions and deceptions in the hopes they can fool enough South Dakota voters into voting against the measure which polls said in 2006 that 75% of South Dakotans would support.
Confusion and doubt are their allies, and facts are their enemies as this outcome with Sanford has illustrated. It's a terrible place to be when the facts are your enemy.
Let us hope the pro-abortionists will now have the integrity to stop the deception and allow the voters to see the issue clearly.
South Dakotans are ready to end abortion as birth control in our state. The voters are ready to end the killing for convenience in South Dakota.
Kudos to Sanford Health for taking a closer look at Initiated Measure 11, and for having the integrity to admit that it is not the problematic measure they originally perceived it to be.
Would that many doctors in the South Dakota Medical Association--and many average South Dakotans, for that matter--would also take a closer look at the bill and admit that it would be hard to conceive a more effective, yet more reasonable, abortion measure than this one.