28 March 2006 - 1:40am
God's Little Helpers
from Talk to Action
We all have heard South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli's description of a woman who might qualify for an abortion under the rigid strictures of South Dakota's draconian abortion law – an exemption now immortalized as the Sodomized Virgin Exception.
Bob Nelson, a contributor to the Rapid City Journal's Mount Blogmore, considers the plight of those young women less fortunate.
It was an easy rape, she said
(Though not the way she hoped to wed)
The stones were sharp against her head,
(Not her dream of a bridal bed)
And the dress he tore as he thrust her down
was not her idea of a wedding gown.But really, it was not complex.
Just some simple brutal sex.
And though her young life had other plans
She would bear the child of the gentleman.
And try to love each smile and dimple,
And be thankful that the rape was simple.
And thank the men who made her free.
Simple men like Napoli.
No thanks are necessary, little lady. It was their simple pleasure. As Napoli himself says, "If I, as a legislator, can make life better, really help somebody, that's a wonderful feeling."
How much better are Napoli and his friends making life for women in South Dakota, and potentially for women in at least a dozen other states that have jumped to follow South Dakota's lead?
Earlier this month, Ellen Goodman declared that the pretense is finally over.
Until now the antiabortion right has not only tried to frame itself as moderate, it has dressed up in woman-friendly camouflage. It has touted research that makes one false claim after another linking abortion with depression and breast cancer. It has cast women as the hapless victims of abortion and portrayed its own side as protectors.
Earlier this week, with superb irony, Governor Rounds promised tender care for the women he would force to continue their pregnancies. Representative [Roger] Hunt explained that women themselves would not be prosecuted under the law because any woman choosing abortion was ''not thinking clearly."
:::
This is what it looks like in front of the curtain. South Dakota's law would make felons out of doctors who perform nearly any abortion. The government would replace women as moral decision-makers. And it would trump doctors as medical decision-makers.After all, if abortion is legal only when the woman's survival is at risk, who makes that decision? If, according to the law, a doctor has to "make reasonable medical efforts . . . to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child," who judges those efforts? A cop? A court? One of those activist judges the right so loves to hate?
One man in Rapid City had a little trouble understanding what Napoli meant by "simple rape," and asked him for some clarification.
Excuse me, Bill Napoli, I was wondering if you could describe "simple rape" to me. According to your interview, you don't think "simple rape" is enough to warrant a woman having an abortion.
Now, if it's a "brutal" rape, if she was savaged, if and only if the girl was religious, and of course, that's your religion, not Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or anything other than Christianity, if she planned on saving her virginity until she was married, never mind that maybe the woman was gay and hadn't planned on getting married, if she was sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, whatever that means, then and only then would you consider an abortion to be OK.
:::
Ten years ago, my girlfriend was raped and, thankfully, it didn't result in pregnancy. But was it simple rape? Well, you tell me. You seem to be the authority.
However, a woman in Deadwood flatly objects to rule by fundamentalist fiat, and feels qualified to make her own decisions, thank you very much.
If reason applies (and it's rare these days), it seems obvious that the contentious issues of abortion, stem cell research, creationism and a host of other religious/political opinions expressed in this paper can be separated into one of two camps. Are you more inclined to believe in your own personal religious dogma, or scientific facts?
Science has always been at odds with religion worldwide. The compassionate Christians have put hundreds of thousands of people to death over the last 2,000 years for their scientific and/or heretical beliefs, just in case you were feeling morally superior to Islam, Judaism, or any of the other approximately 10,000 religions worldwide.
:::
Pascal, in the 16th century summed it up: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."Don't bother to write to me about your personal form of self-delusion. It's irrelevant.
But she's just one uppity female, and she's probably in the minority. A lot of people aren't quite so sure of themselves. Many of us lack confidence in our ability to navigate the storms of life, and it can be comforting to know that experts more qualified than we are there for us.
But Bill Napoli isn't the only member of the South Dakota Legislature standing by to assist you with difficult choices. Senator Brock Greenfield, in particular, has shown himself eager to shoulder the burden of decision making for women as the director of South Dakota Right to Life. So if the relentless demands of everyday decision making are wearing you down, now you know that there is one more supremely assured savant available to help you be sure you're making the right choice.
Greenfield also maintains the South Dakota Right To Life blog, where he urged the public to contact public officials to support HB 1215, which Greenfield hopes will have "a huge impact on abortion not only in South Dakota, but also on the national front." So wherever you might live, in whatever state, if you're afraid that any decision you might need to make lies beyond your own personal capabilities, Brock's your man.
Deeply religious and profoundly knowledgeable senators like Bill Napoli and Brock Greenfield have plenty of backup from the amen chorus over in the House of Representatives, too.
Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, said he intends to “continue to be a voice for traditional family values� and that he hopes to be “one of many who invoke our state motto, ‘Under God the people rule’� during discussions of issues including abortion.
Two members of the audience challenged Howie’s remarks. “You don’t speak for me,� one woman said.
Well, no, ma'am, but he didn't claim to. What Howie seemed to be saying – albeit in a somewhat roundabout fashion – is that when he speaks in the statehouse in Pierre, he speaks for God.
Which might have been why quite a few folks were taken aback when Howie compared women to breeding stock.
"We place value on life in South Dakota, and even with a mother cow, as soon as you can demonstrate she is pregnant, an even higher value is placed just because she is pregnant," Howie said. "I said that, and it was a clumsy way to make a point. I probably deserve to be beat upon the head and shoulders for it."
Yes, he probably does. But he has the Lord on his side. And if God is with him, who can be against him?
And then there's the primary sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Roger Hunt. Hunt, an attorney retired from the Navy, knows how to make a decision. He's a gifted long-term strategist, a man who knows how to weigh the pros and cons of a given situation and make a rational, calculated judgment.
"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.
:::
"I'm convinced that the timing is right for this," State Representative Roger Hunt . . . said earlier, noting the appointments of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the court."The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable," Mr. Hunt added, a reference to conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire. "I think it will all culminate at the right time."
There, you see? No matter what your particular dilemma might be, Roger Hunt has got the analytical skills to sort out your options for you.
Most of their Solomon-like colleagues -- the omniscient men and women who have just taken the most monumental decision of her life out of a woman's hands -- are available to assist you with your own tough choices, too. In fact, they make it easy for you to reach them day or night by prominently posting both their home and business phone numbers on the South Dakota legislature's website. It stands to reason that they wouldn't have been thoughtful enough to do that if they didn't want the phone to ring.
Here, courtesy of the Rapid City Journal, is the complete list of all 70 of the senators and representatives who voted to make compulsory childbirth and parental rights for rapists the law of the land in South Dakota.
Senate:
Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls; Jerry Apa, R-Lead; Julie Bartling, D-Burke; Eric Bogue, R-Faith; Mike Broderick, R-Canton; Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven; Bill Earley, R-Sioux Falls; Jason Gant, R-Sioux Falls; Bob Gray, R-Fort Pierre; Brock Greenfield, R-Clark; Tom Hansen, R-Huron; Dick Kelly, R-Sioux Falls; Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland; Gil Koetzle, D-Sioux Falls; John Koskan, R-Wood; Jim Lintz, R-Hermosa; Kenneth McNenny, R-Sturgis; Garry Moore, D-Yankton; Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City; Jim Peterson, D-Revillo; Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown; Orv Smidt, R-Brookings; Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau.House of Representatives
Jamie Boomgarden, R-Chancellor; Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland; Michael Buckingham,R-Rapid City; Justin Davis, R-Ipswich; Thomas Deadrick, R-Platte; Joel Dykstra, R-Canton; Bob Faehn, R-Watertown; Larry Frost, R-Aberdeen; Art Fryslie, R-Willow Lake; Cooper Garnos, R-Presho; David Gassman, D-Canova; Margaret Gillespie, D-Hudson; Mary Glenski, D-Sioux Falls; Jeffrey Haverly, R-Rapid City; Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls; Thomas Hills, R-Spearfish; Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City; Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton; Roger Hunt, R-Brandon; Gary Jerke, R-Tripp; Ted Klaudt, R-Walker; Al Koistinen, R-Watertown; Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City; Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls; Michael Kroger, D-Dell Rapids; Gerald Lange, D-Madison; Alice McCoy, R-Rapid City; Matthew Michels, R-Yankton; Kathy Miles, D-Sioux Falls; Paul Nelson, R-Hetland; Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen; Ryan Olson, R-Onida; Gordon Pederson, R-Wall; Deb Peters, R-Hartford; Jim Putnam, R-Armour; Val Rausch, R-Big Stone City; Tim Rave, R-Baltic; Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center; Tim Rounds, R-Pierre; Donna Schafer, R-Vermillion; Lou Sebert, R-Mitchell; Shawn Tornow, R-Sioux Falls; Charles Turbiville, R-Deadwood; Don Van Etten, R-Rapid City; Keri Weems, R-Sioux Falls; Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls; and Mark Willadsen, R-Sioux Falls.
What? You say that you don't live in South Dakota? Why, these fine Christian men and women don't mind if you're in another state. Since they hope, pray and intend that their sweeping decision for the women of their state will be upheld by the Supreme Court, they've already committed themselves to making personal decisions for millions of women all across the country.
Sure, its a big job, but these folks are all on record. They not only have volunteered to make your choices for you, but they insist on it. Their words of Godly wisdom will be a lamp unto your feet and a light unto your path – so when you have a big decision to make and just aren't sure of what to do, remember that they all want to help you.
[Title image by Mount Blogmore contributor Bob Newland]
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Gordon Howie wasn't the first South Dakota legislator to compare pregnant women to pregnant cows. I listened to floor debate on a bill two years ago where a legislator said that his cows don't mind giving birth to deformed calves, so he didn't understand why women would abort fetuses with deformities.
I also want to point out that before Greenfield was Senator and director of the Right to Life, he was a clerk at his father's convenience store in Clark.
There is a little good news - www.sdhealthyfamilies.com is the website for the people opposed to 1215, and the news reported that 1,500 signatures have been collected by a few local volunteers in a little over five days. I'm just circulating my petitions among friends, and I have about 40 right now.
I hope people will be interested in the Campaign for Healthy Families. It's all well and good to make fun of our insane legislature, but we need help to fix this.
I hope people will be interested in the Campaign for Healthy Families. It's all well and good to make fun of our insane legislature, but we need help to fix this.
Thanks for the info. I've looked at the site and have a question. In the long-term, does sdhealthyfamilies (i.e., the board) plan to oppose all bans, even with exceptions? Or is the opposition based strictly on the lack of exceptions in 1215? As a non-South Dakotan, yet interested in what is happening nationwide, I am more inclined to donate to groups working on general principle. I realize that immediate action is focused on HR1215, but if you could leave a few comments on mission, present and future, I would appreciate it. Thanks again.
I think the mission of the Campaign for Healthy Families is to repeal HB 1215. I have no idea if the organization will continue past November. I hope it does, because as you can see, it consists of a pretty broad, mainstream base of people in South Dakota who are disgusted with what's happening in the state. There are other groups (Common Sense South Dakota, is one) in South Dakota working to recruit and fund legislative candidates who are pro-choice, and they've had at least some luck in Sioux Falls and Rapid City in recruiting strong candidates of both parties. Whether they'll win is up to the candidate, but at least many of the people pushing this crap will have to be answerable for what they do. A couple of the worst anti-choice legislators (Kraus in Rapid City, Schoenbeck in Watertown) have decided not to run again. Others (Greenfield of Clark, Bartling from Burke) are facing primary challengers who think they're too extreme.
Our hope is that we won't have to deal with an abortion ban of any sort in the future because we'll have a more mainstream legislative body and governor.
This remains an uphill battle, though. The state legislature is completely dominated by crazy people of both parties, and the antis have an amazing organization throughout the state. The campaign to repeal HB 1215 and to elect non-insane legislators is going to have to deal with a huge amount of misinformation, much of it coming out of churches that take their lead on political issues from the Family Policy Council and other groups like that.
As much as I wish we South Dakotans could hash this out among ourselves, I'm realistic enough to know that it won't work that way. We need money and time from people who care about this issue.
Isn't it funny (odd) how such a comment can be made considering the reason HB 1215 passed and was signed into law was based on information provided by BOTH sides of the issue. They collected over 3,500 pages of scientific evidence and more than 2,000 affidavits from women who had abortions. Testimonies were taken from ALL sides of the issue.
Here's a thought ... take a look at their official report first hand and study the exhibits that were provided to assist them in making their determination. "Insane legislators" and churches didn't have much to do with any of it.
South Dakota Taskforce on Abortion Report
South Dakota Taskforce on Abortion Exhibits
we're not stupid chicks here.
HB1215 is a human rights violation under treaties signed by the United States government. It's completely uncontituational too, and won't stand as law even with the present extremely conservative surpreme court.
the "facts" of the matter are that the conclusions of the South Dakota Taskforce were rigged from the inside from day one. the task force testimony was merely an american show-trial. The insiders even had to revise the report after it was adopted because it seemed to contain statements made about a researcher at Guttmacher that some considered to be libelous. Even many of the republicans who sat on the committee walked out in protest at the blatant propagandaization of the conclusions reached and the agenda of many on the taskforce.
For a more balanced opinion on the report, please go to The Well Timed Period where that blog has taken a close look the report.
Thats a republican talking by the way. Here's the original report, before the afterhours cuts were made, is available here:
The report is available online, courtesy feministing: South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortions. Please note that while this is the report adopted by the task force it is not the one presented to the legislature. This one contains all the info concerning Dr. Stanley K. Henshaw that has since been removed.
Abortion Task Force chair disappointed with final report, process
Several of the task force members, including those who support abortion rights, walked out of Friday's meeting before the final vote. They said the majority rejected proposals that could reduce abortions by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in South Dakota.
It seems that the task force was dominated by such extremist elements that even anti-choice members walked out of the report approval meeting. The anti-choice chairwoman, Dr. Marty Allison, who remained in the meeting in order to vote against the report adoption, had this to say:
Well Tammy, where's your lofty scientific standards? Turns out real scientific standards were conveniently not adopted and not adhered to. According to the head of the task force the "facts" you attempt to fluff in this thread might not be accepted as "fact" using the standards and methods of fact gathering which American professional health-care organizations have adopted as their guides in fact determination.
Evidently the report contains enough bogus faith-based "scientific" evidence to offend even the anti-choice chairperson!!!!!! Of course there was some outstanding testimony given. One example is that of Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). It goes without saying it was completely ignored by those on the committee with the moralistic agenda.
Lynn M. Paltrow's testimony in its entirety may be found here: Testimony To The South Dakota Task Force To Study Abortion. I urge all of you to read it.
now "here's a thought" for you tammy. go sling your monkeyshit up against the cage walls on someone else's blog. your propaganda won't fly here. i told you once already. we're not stupid chicks.
How convenient of you to leave out or ::snip:: certain portions of her statement to suit your purpose here. For example, you ?forgot? to include this part:
In fact, her argument/upset wasn't at all about the ban on abortion itself, as she supported it - but rather the task force not addressing other issues, such as
And of course she would be upset -- the task force found that "an examination of the facts supported by virtually all of the credible evidence, compels the opposite conclusion" to she and Kate Looby's claims that abortions in South Dakota are "voluntary" and "informed". When in fact, through OVERWHELMING testimony by real women who have actually 'been there, done that' - the decisions to abort are done so uninformed and that there are many pressures and coercive forces and elements that render most abortions truly voluntary. Simply put - she didn't offer anything that was truly believable or anything solid to substantiate her claims. As a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood was pretty well exposed to the bare bones with their failure to properly inform women who come to them for "help" on anything that was about to happen to them and they flat out admitted that they would "refuse to answer" any woman who asked them straight up if there was a human life growing inside of them.
Furthermore, based upon admissions by Dr. Ball, Ms. Looby and the agents of Planned Parenthood, the abortion providers make misrepresentations of fact to women. For criminy's sake - they even try scare tactics to convince women to have abortions! They cite statistics from the CDC such as: "The risk of dying from a full-term pregnancy and childbirth is at least seven times greater than that from early abortion." These statistics were found to be FALSE and very dangerous for women to rely upon. The CDC statistics are NOT a reliable basis for determining death rates due to women and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has expressly stated that their statistics should NOT be used for that purpose. Yet Planned Parenthood does it anyway.
Go figure. Whatever it takes to make another buck.
tammy, don't you see? you're simply further reinforcing my point. the very fact that the head of the task force holds anti-choice views, but isn't unethical, doesn't negate the illicit fact cookery. it proves how unethical the "facts" used in the report truly were. even anti-choicers, who're otherwise believers in fairness and factuality and are professionals, couldnt stand the outrageousness of the fact-fudging...they must stink to bog's high heaven! that's how bad your task force was tammy. it wasn't a task force...
...it was a task farce.
quit trying to sell it as being otherwise. nobody's buying.
as far as my :::snippage::: i cut that piece "to fit" several months ago for this post:
Reproductive Rights, Week in Review, Dec. 11-17
because its unethical for a blogger to run entire news stories from other sources. guess you don't blog much though, do you? or perhaps your simpy ill-informed or accusatory. i hope you don't flatter yourself in thinking i'm somehow shading the truth just for an argument with you. you're worth little of my precious time and IMHO are probably beyond all logic ensconced in a world of magical belief.
put up or shut up time.
you say:
thats an inoperative statement tammy. 7 times is actually low too. some organizations rate the risks of live birth as opposed to surgical abortion as being 11 times greater, overall. From Induced Abortion in the United States (note: I have intentionally used the respected guttmacher institute for my cite, an institute all sides in the culture war use, both pro-choice and anti-choice. I do so in a comical sense, that i hope people realize is linked to the way the task farce of south dakota dismissed guttmacher's rather inconvienent facts and then had to rewrite the references to guttmacher on the sly after adoption for reasons that are only known to them!!!!)
go sling your innaccurate monkeyshit elsewhere, tammy. i told you twice already. we're not stupid chicks. nobody is buying your arguments. you want to play logic with us you have to bring a few real facts with you, not peter pan, invisible-friend beliefs masquerading as fact.
you really think that the dedicated women and men who work at Planned Parenthood and other medical offices and organizations that provide abortions are in it for the bucks? they put up with the harrassment, death threats, and abuse because it makes them rich? believe me, it doesn't. there are much easier ways to get rich. and do you think any one of those doctors, nurses, support staff, and security guards have a vested interest in whether a woman has an abortion or not, such a vested interest that they would lie to or mislead a woman into having one? get serious. the only women who get abortions are women who want them. period.
and if you are going to rely on that south dakota task force report for any argument to the contrary, you will have no credibility whatsoever. Bayprairie and others have done a lot of research into that so-called "report". it was nothing but a radical anti-choice manifesto written with complete disregard of the facts. it was so full of distortions and lies that even anti-choice activists had to disassociate themselves from it.
and if you want to talk about distortions and lies, go to a CPC some time. Or check this out
Downthread you mention "the reality of abortion." I've forgotten more about the reality of abortion since I got up this morning than most people ever know, and if you thought that this warmed-over tripe was worth typing, then all that's left to say is that the quality of troll posts around here has fallen off to a lamentable degree.
And even that is a more considered response than such silliness deserves.
campaign to repeal HB 1215 and to elect non-insane legislators is going to have to deal with a huge amount of misinformation, much of it coming out of churches that take their lead on political issues from the Family Policy Council and other groups like that.
As much as I wish we South Dakotans could hash this out among ourselves, I'm realistic enough to know that it won't work that way. We need money and time from people who care about this issue.
I am also against interfering w/ out-of-state issues, but you and others make compelling arguments about a well-funded opposition spreading misinformation. Hope this helps to air all sides so that South Dakotans can make an informed decision come ballot time. As it stands now, although I'm far away, I hear more from Leslee Unruh than anyone else from your state on this issue.
It is really starting to get frustrating to see how the facts on this issue continue to be so distorted.
This is NOT an attack against women's rights! It is about protecting human life - period!
The killing of any human being has been outlawed in this state/nation for years - right down to people being held responsible for “accidentally� killing someone! For that matter - anyone who ends the life of an unborn child by way of automobile accident (such as in drunk driving cases) or any other indirect way such as by killing the pregnant mother is held accountable and is typically charged with at minimum - manslaughter. In cases such as this, the unborn child all the sudden is considered a “human being� and is “allowed� a “right� to life, yet it’s acceptable for a woman to deny that right if it interferes in her own life and she should be allowed to end it? Hell of a contradiction, pro-choicers!
My guess is that the majority of people who support abortion are hung up in the “right to choose� issue more than the reality of abortion.
I agree that it's frustrating to see the facts on this issue being distorted. It's frustrating to me to see legislators telling newspapers throughout the state that there really IS an exception for rape and incest in HB 1215 when there isn't. It's frustrating for me to see Elizabeth Kraus and people of her ilk talk about emergency contraception like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, when two months ago in Pierre they were bemoaning how awful it is that rape victims who know about the drug might kill their babies by taking a dose of EC, and how EC promotes promiscuity and any number of other social ills.
That's pretty frustrating to me. It's pretty frustrating to see you people backtrack now that you see the effect of what you've done. It's frustrating that you have to lie and run away from the bill you supported.
Read Section 3 of HB 1215
It is not illegal, nor is it "not" available when/if a woman and/or her doctor "choose" to use it.
I am not talking about contraception, I am talking about abortion. Abortion for victims of rape and incest is illegal under this law. You have a hard time admitting that because you know most people in South Dakota don't want a law like that.
Abortions that slaughter a human life after it is known to be in existence are illegal, yes - taking precautionary measures after rape or incest and before it is known to have resulted in pregnancy is not illegal. That being said, it's rather ridiculous to even consider such a thing since only 0.1% of all abortions are performed due to pregnancy resulting from rape or incest and in doing so, it would only open the door to every woman wanting an abortion to all the sudden become temporary rape victims. Understand that I am the mother of a child who at the age of 16 was raped - luckily I was informed enough to make sure she got appropriate help and the support she needed - she was given excellent medical care, she was given EC (her choice), her victimization was reported to the proper authorities and her violator was held accountable for his actions. That being said, I would never, EVER deny a woman who has been raped that right to having an option, but let's be honest here, there would be a real potential for [some] women who clearly for social reasons do not want to be pregnant to abuse this outlet and it would be a HUGE violation - a real slap in the face to those women who truly are raped and are victims to incest. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Most people in South Dakota want laws that are based on reality and that are necessary to protect themselves and their families. Because of money-grubbing agencies like Planned Parenthood whose main objective is to make $$ rather than actually "help" women in distress over pregnancy by presenting false and misleading information to South Dakotans, they [South Dakotans] are being victimized and don't even realize it.
If you admit that women who've been raped should be able to abort any resulting pregnancy, then you're admitting that there are good reasons for abortion.
So why do you decide what those good reasons are? Who are you to decide? If you don't want to abort a pregnancy, then don't. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.
But you want to force women to bear pregnancies to term. That is slavery, plain and simple.
So you oppose HB 1215. Would you like to sign my referendum petition?
Absolutely. After all, it's the woman's life, not yours. It's her body, not yours. It's her decision, not yours.
If you're really against abortion, then why not push for universal access to birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancy, universal access to prenatal healthcare to help reduce risks and complications during pregnancy that might force a choice of aborting that pregnancy, and universal access to sex education to teach teens that there are alternatives to just hoping it never happens?
Laws such as this one accomplish nothing. Countries with outright bans on abortions have thriving black-market healthcare industries providing pregnancy abortion services. AND they have the highest rates for women dying during pregnancy and childbirth.
Really, you spit out the word "life" an awful lot, but it doesn't seem like you really mean it.
This is EXACTLY what I mean by facts being distorted. Apparently, you haven't checked your facts:
Service Availability
In South Dakota, 69 publicly funded family planning clinics provide contraceptive care to 22,950 women—including 6,990 sexually active teenagers.
Family planning clinics in South Dakota serve 48% of all women in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and 51% of teenagers in need.
70% of counties in South Dakota have at least one family planning clinic.
Funding for Publicly Supported Services
In 2001, the federal and state governments together spent $1,723,000 in South Dakota on contraceptive services and supplies. Of this amount, 24% was allocated to contraceptive services at the state’s discretion. (The funds came from either state revenues or federal dollars under the state’s control.) The remainder came from the federal government.
In South Dakota, $37 was spent on contraceptive services and supplies per woman in need (adjusted for the cost of health care in the state).
Impact of Publicly Supported Services
Publicly funded family planning clinics in South Dakota help women prevent 5,300 unintended pregnancies each year.
Every public dollar spent on family planning services saves the federal and state governments three dollars in Medicaid costs for prenatal and newborn care.
The Key Role of Title X
Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program devoted solely to the provision of publicly supported family planning services, supports 45 family planning clinics in South Dakota. These clinics serve 15,970 women, including 5,060 teenagers.
Title X–supported clinics in South Dakota help women avert 3,700 unintended pregnancies each year.
Source: "Contraception Counts"
You're not supposed to support contraception. Don't you know that?
I wouldn't exactly be proud of a less-than-50% coverage rate. Seems like there's a problem there.
How was all that money spent? How much of it went into sex education? How much of it went into realistic and effective programs?
I'm delighted to claim to support contraception, but your movement as a whole is stridently opposed to contraception -- as well as effective cancer vaccines. The right wing is really pretty damn fucked up in its dogma, and that is why I don't believe a thing you say. You've made your bed. Now YOU can lie in it, and leave everyone else alone, because whatever you're selling, we're not buying.