The Misinformation Continues
May 27, 2008 3:13:00
Web Correspondent
South Dakota Community Organizer
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
I also read a slough of blogs, local and not-so-local, and from time to time, I head over to Vote Yes For Life's site to see what they have to say.
The site has a prayer blog: a way for people to send out their prayers for citizens, politicians, their volunteers, etc. Usually, the posts are just one's private thoughts for who might need a little extra guidance that day. Usually, I don't pay much attention to it.
But, today, I read something that I just couldn't let go.
Exceptions, Exceptions, Exceptions!
Pray Today That South Dakotans Who "Voted No On 6," In 2006 Will Remember That The Exceptions For Abortion, Which Were Asked For In 2006, Have Been Included In Initiative 11. The Exceptions Have Been Added! #1. To Preserve The Life And Health Of The Mother, #2. Rape #3. Incest.
This post is terribly concerning to me. First and foremost, these statements are just not true. The Anti-Choice forces are marketing this ban as one that the voters of South Dakota asked for in 2006. But this is just not the case. It's not the truth. The exceptions are not exceptions at all. This measure is cruel. And, the reality is, the law will do nothing to prevent a single abortion in this state. It will merely drive it underground, making it dangerous and sometimes deadly.
What they're also forgetting is that the people of South Dakota believe this is a personal decision, that women and families can be their own moral agents, and they don't need the government intruding in this very difficult decision.
I think what Vote Yes for Life is actually hoping for here, is that the people of South Dakota will not take the time to educate themselves on this measure. I think they're hoping they can hide behind the word "exceptions." I, however, have a lot more faith in the voters of this state. And, I believe they will see this law for what it really is: a sweeping ban on abortion in South Dakota for nearly all women.
Trackback: http://www.plannedparenthoodadvocate.org/trackback/371/HNJttoSe/
I just want you to know, and I mean this in all sincerity, that I am praying for you. I pray that God will show you who He is, Shannon, and that you will give Him a chance to change your life.
I am also praying that pregnant mothers who are in distress will get the help they need, and that their babies will be born healthy and be in loving homes, whether with their own mothers or with adoptive parents.
By Jeff on 03/06/2008
Here’s a thought…
What if “God” meant for that woman to get an abortion? I mean maybe she needs to go through that to learn something. You could argue that.
The question is, why do you feel the need to force your religion on me and the people of South Dakota? I respect that you don’t believe in abortion and that you think it is wrong, but why can’t you respect my beliefs and the beliefs of other pro choicers? Why must you force your God upon us? Why bring God into it at all? Why don’t you turn your prayers to the thousands of children who need families of their own? To the starving children of the world. Why not help them first? Instead you sit and you blog and you try to force your beliefs on other people, what is this doing to help? You could be out helping children right now, who are here today! Quit being pro-birth and actually be pro-life and help the children who need your help today.
By Johanna on 03/06/2008
And I agree Shannon, there are no exceptions to this ban. What if a woman has a ectopic pregnancy? Her doctor can’t advise her to get an abortion because this ban would make them illegal, so she’s have to wait until her fallopian tube burst and then her life would really be in danger. Is that what we want to happen? To put women through the pain of this? And this is just one instance, what about the other instances out there?
The people of South Dakota already voted on abortion. They made themselves clear, that it should remain legal. Why are we questioning the people and bringing this back to the ballot? Ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is that South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive laws concerning abortion already. And now this?
By Johanna on 03/06/2008
I will not accept that God would want anyone to have an abortion. There are scriptures to back that up, and I will give them to you if you wish. I’m not forcing religion on anyone. I’m just praying for Shannon. I’ll pray for you too, Johanna, if you don’t object.
So abortion is a “belief” of pro-choicers? It is how you make the world better? At the expense of children?
There are many needs in this world. Abortion is one that concerns me. I also pray for and participate in helping people in need.
Show me in the text of the statute where an ectopic pregnancy would be illegal to end. I don’t believe that your example is correct.
And what about all those other vague, unspecified instances? Be specific. In any case, the overwhelming majority of abortions are for birth control - plain and simple. Those are the ones that should be prevented.
By Jeff on 03/06/2008
There you go bringing religion back into it. There are also scriptures that talk about taking your babies and smashing them on the rocks. So you could find scripture that back both sides, but where does that get us?
I think everyone is in agreement that abortions that are used for birth control need to prevented. Meaning women who have no knowledge of contraceptives and just use abortion as a means to an end need to be prevented. That’s why many people try to educate others about Birth Control,or other options, so that that won’t happen.
By Johanna on 03/06/2008
Find me that scripture.
I don’t believe Planned Parenthood has any desire to prevent abortions for birth control or for any other reason. According to surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (see http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html ) less than 5% of abortions were done for reasons of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The numbers for 1987 and 2004 are virtually identical. So 95% of abortions were elective, i.e. birth control. If Planned Parenthood wants to prevent abortions for birth control, they aren’t being very effective.
How about adoption referrals? According to http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7083 , in 2004, Planned Parenthood reported performing 138 abortions for every adoption referral, in the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the number rose to 180 abortions per adoption referral. In 2005-2006, Planned Parenthood released NO INFORMATION about adoption referrals. Why was that? Were there not enough adoption referrals to bother reporting?
Planned Parenthood is all about abortion, period.
By Jeff on 04/06/2008
Something to think about: what defines the health or the life of the mother? Where does that line get drawn? What if she’s going to be permanently disabled after birth? What if she gets preeclampsia and she and her baby might die? What if she dies in childbirth after being not allowed to have an abortion? Even if there is an exception for the health and life of the mother, who gets to decide what “health” means? Doctors, in danger of being prosecuted for performing an illegal abortion in a case where it wasn’t imminent death, will probably choose to perform less abortions, and women might end up dead because of it. Besides, being pregnant affects a woman’s body and health, now. Who gets to decide? Doctors? The woman herself? Prosecutors after the fact?
Pregnant women should not have to curtail their right to bodily autonomy (same as any man or woman) for the rights of someone who is not born yet. US laws do not require people to donate their organs after death. We do not require that people give kidneys to those who need them if they are a match. We do not require that people donate blood, or bone marrow, or whatever, even to continue someone’s life because people’s bodies are their own and no one can force you to sustain another human’s life with your kidney, blood, or bone marrow, or even undergo a procedure to determine if you are a match. Why should I be forced to carry a baby for someone else to adopt? It’s a human life either way, right? Someone will die if I don’t donate my kidney.
Women aren’t stupid. Many women know that adoption is an option, but understand that continuing the pregnancy would still cause them great physical and financial distress and possibly even death. If a woman wanted to continue the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption, she is probably not going to go to Planned Parenthood, so that skews statistics right there. If she is conflicted, Planned Parenthood cannot make the decision for her nor force her to do anything. But there are compelling reasons to end a pregnancy rather than give the child up for adoption, just as many would argue there are compelling reasons to not end the pregnancy. It’s a complicated issue. Let’s not pretend that women are mindless drones who do whatever Planned Parenthood tells them to do.
By Allison on 04/06/2008
You opened up a lot of topics, so I’ll try to briefly address each one.
1. The question about the definition of health does not address the fact that 95% of abortions are elective.
2. A baby is not a kidney. It is a person with its own circulatory system, blood type and genetic code. He or she resides inside their mother, but they are not a part of the mother. In 2007, Amillia Taylor survived being born after only 23 weeks of gestation, yet pro-abortionists will fight any effort to prevent abortion up to the moment of birth.
3. I agree that women are not stupid. But if Planned Parenthood believes that, why do they object to offering, not forcing, a woman to see an ultrasound image of her baby?
4. There is nothing skewed about the adoption referral statistics. They only address women who visit Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood does not advertise itself as an abortion provider, but as a women’s health provider, supposedly offering a full range of services.
5. Of course women are not mindless drones, and I have never implied that they are. However, my point is that all the evidence indicates that Planned Parenthood makes little, if any effort to educate women about all of their options.
By Jeff on 06/06/2008
