Minnesota Volunteers Coming to South Dakota

Check out this unbelievable ad on democraticunderground.com!

Advertisements

Upcoming Events: VoteYesForLife.com Needs Your Help!

Please call our office for shirts, buttons, and other supplies to walk at these events!

 

EVENTS IN SIOUX FALLS AREA THIS WEEKEND:

 

 

Roosevelt High School Homecoming – Friday, September 26

 

Northern Plains Art Show – Saturday, September 27 10:00a.m. – 6:00p.m. Ramkota

                                              Sunday, September 28 10:00a.m. – 4:p.m. Ramkota

 

Harvest Festival – Downtown Sioux Falls starting at 10:00a.m. Saturday, September 27

 

 

EVENTS OUTSIDE SIOUX FALLS AREA THIS WEEKEND:

 

Homecoming events and games at these high schools October 4:

 

Aberdeen Central

Avon

Beresford

Castlewood – Parade @ 1, Game @ 7

Chester – 7

Colman-Egan – 7

Conde – 7

Dakota Valley – Parade – 1:30, Game – 7

Edmunds Central

Garreston

Groton

Highmore

Mitchell

Northwestern (Mellette)

Parker

Pierre

Plankinton

Redfield

Sioux Valley

Stanley County (Ft. Pierre)

Tea Area

Vermillion

Volga Christian

Watertown

West Central

White Lake

 

 

EVENTS IN SIOUX FALLS NEXT WEEKEND:

 

Washington High School Homecoming – Friday, October 3

 

Festival of Bands – Saturday 9:00p.m. – Bands marching on High School Fields around town.  Finals at Howard Wood Fields 6:10p.m.

 

Augustana Viking Days – Parade downtown starting at 9:00a.m. Downtown

Home Coming Game 1:00p.m. Howard Woods Field

 

 

 

EVENTS IN OTHER TOWNS:

 

Homecoming events and games at these high schools, Friday, October 3 –

 

Baltic

Eureka

Canton – Parade 1:30, Game – 7

Chamberlain

Colome

Deubrook

Hoven

Howard 

Lake Preston

Lennox

Lyman (Presho)

McLaughlin

Montrose

Newell

Sanborn Central

Waubay

Wilmont

 

Quilt Festival in Watertown Saturday, October 4 and Sunday, October 5 10:00a.m. to 4:00p.m., both days

 

Codington County Extension Complex

1910 West Kemp Avenue

Watertown, SD  57201

 

 

 

South Dakota’s 2008 Abortion Measure

Although a proposed measure prohibiting abortion in South Dakota two years ago didn’t muster enough support for passage, pro-life groups say the revised abortion [measure] – which provides exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger – will stand a better chance of becoming law.

This is exactly what the people of South Dakota have been asking for…(read more)

Pro-Abortion Forces Deliberately Misleading South Dakota Voters About Initiated Measure 11

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The ads that the abortion proponents (“Healthy Families”) placed on their website today, in an effort to defeat Initiated Measure 11, is deliberately misleading in an effort to confuse the voting public.  At the same time, the abortion proponents exploited and misrepresented a personal tragedy.

 

            Vote Yes for Life has the following response to that misleading ad:

 

            1.         The law that appears on the ballot as Initiated Measure 11 is an extremely well written and well crafted law.  The law was drafted by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long at the request of leaders of the State Legislature.  Attorney General Long assembled and presided over a panel of eleven legal experts for the purpose of insuring that the law was well crafted.  It was drafted over a period of about eight months.

 

                        Any suggestion that the law is anything other than well drafted and well thought out is false and deliberately misleading.  The voters of South Dakota can trust their Attorney General.

 

 

            2.         The ad claims that South Dakota “already voted on this.”

 

                        This is a false representation.

 

                        In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that prohibited abortion, but it did not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.  That law was referred to the election in November of 2006 and was voted on.

 

                        The 2008 law is totally different and represents what the voting public said they wanted in place of the 2006 law.

 

                        In 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, every poll taken in South Dakota, showed that the vast majority of South Dakota voters (between 58% and 67%) wanted abortion prohibited.  But many thought that there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  Although 44% of the voters voted for the 2006 law with no exception, the 2008 Initiated Measure 11 prohibits abortions but incorporates the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother, and represents what the South Dakota voters wanted as their law.

 

 

            3.         The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has “Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome” is illegal under the law.  That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child.

 

                        Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero.  However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.

 

                        If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11.  The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.

 

                        There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice.  Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions.  An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.

 

                        Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is “with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being.”  Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited.  Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:

 

“Medical treatment … that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act.”

 

                        It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.

 

 

            4.         The ad says that there is no way for a doctor to “give good advice” and that every case should be judged on an “individual case” basis.  The implication is that the law prevents both.

 

                        That implication is deliberately misleading.  Section 4 of the law specifically preserves the right of a doctor to make “a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk “of injury to a major bodily function of the mother.  A doctor is not liable under the law if he performs an abortion to preserve the health of the mother, unless the “physician knowingly disregards accepted standard of medical practice.”

 

                        This means that only if the doctor knows good medicine does not require the abortion, is he prohibited from performing the abortion.

 

 

            5.         The ad makes the false claims that the voters can’t know what they are voting on.

 

                        The abortion proponents make these false claims because they cannot win a debate about this law if they made candid admissions about its content.

 

                        The law simply says that it is illegal to deliberately and intentionally kill an unborn child except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a serious risk to the health of the mother.

 

                        Having actors read Section 15 (chapters 187 and 188 etc.”) is intended to create the false impression that the law is difficult to understand.  Section 15 is a technical section meant for the courts to let them know that one other law is not repealed.

 

###

VoteYesForLife.com Endorsed by National Pro-Life Group

Pierre, SD (LifeNews.com) — A national pro-life group is supporting a South Dakota ballot proposal that would ban most abortions in the state. Operation Rescue is endorsing Measure 11, the second attempt to ban abortions after South Dakota voters rejected a stronger measure in 2006. (read more)

Abortion Hurts

Abortion Hurts, Chicago Tribune Letter to the Editor

“The truth is, abortion is not a great freedom of the women’s movement.  Abortion is a tragedy.  Abortion hurts babies, women, men, families and society…” (read more)

When was the last time you heard about a botched tonsillectomy?!

Pro-abortionists want you to believe that an abortion is as safe and routine as every other medical procedure.  This is simply not true.  Newspapers are full of stories regarding women who suffer from a botched abortion.  When was the last time you heard about a botched tonsillectomy?  Abortion is not a safe and routine procedure!  For one example, read the recent news article below.

Lincoln, NE (LifeNews.com) — A woman was sent to a local hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska after a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility. The unnamed woman suffered unknown complications from the abortion, but the problems were serious enough to transport her to a medical center and shut down Planned Parenthood’s operations. (full story)