Letter to the Editor

Get in on the action!  Read this letter to the editor and post your comment! 

Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome

More Lies–South Dakotans Need to Hear the TRUTH!

The pro-abortionists are using every last effort to side step the real issue of Measure 11: to end abortion as birth control.  They are resorting to false advertising, voter fraud and exploitation of medical groups. 

They will never argue that abortion SHOULD

continue as birth control,

because they know they will lose that argument. 

Instead, they choose highly rare and technical issues,

misrepresent the facts about those issue, and hope to confuse voters.


Lie:  A TV ad from a pro-abortion activist group, depicts a woman telling her story about her pregnancy with twins. It implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has “Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome” is illegal under Measure 11.


Truth: The normal standard of Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome is covered under Measure 11 (Sec. 2, Measure 11).  A complaint was filed and those ads have since been removed from the airwaves.


Lie:  Measure 11 forces South Dakota doctors to turn over patients’ private medical records to the government.


Truth: This is completely false. HIPPA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act laws prevent any doctor or medical personnel from disclosing any medical information to anyone other than their patient. Those laws do not change under Measure 11.


Lie:  The Government will interfere with private, medical decisions. 


Truth: Measure 11 is designed to end abortion as birth control. Abortions done for medical reasons are left up to the physician’s own judgment.


Lie:  South Dakota Medical Association and Sanford Health do not support Measure 11. 


Truth: Sanford and the South Dakota Medical Association (SDMA) have verified that they are NEURTRAL on this issue, and are encouraging people to vote according to their own morals.  These groups have been exploited by the pro-abortionists without permission. Both Sanford and the SDMA have asked “Healthy Families” to cease and desist associating their names with their political agenda.


Sanford has since written a letter to Yes on 11, stating they now better understand the measure and they will make Vote Yes’ clarification available to their doctors. Measure 11 does have support from hundreds of South Dakota doctors, and many medical groups from across the nation. Visit VoteYesForLife.com website to see a list of groups representing more than 150 million supporters. Avera Hospital does support Measure 11, along with both Catholic Bishops in the state.


Lie:  “All you need is an address and you can vote, even if you go back home the next day.” 


Truth: Campaign for “Healthy Families” caught their spokesman in another lie, as they admitted (on tape) that their campaign spokesman will be voting here and returning to California right after the election. The spokesman lied when he signed the voter registration stating: “I actually live at and have no present intention of leaving the above address.”  Campaign staff encouraged another non-resident to do the same. This evidence has been submitted to States Attorney General Larry Long, for investigation.


Lie:  Campaign for “Healthy Families” represents and cares about South Dakotans.  


Truth: An astounding 94% of campaign funds were received from out-of-state pro-abortion industries, such as Planned Parenthood.  Groups such as Planned Parenthood, and not South Dakotans, are financing campaigns here in our state, hiding behind the notion that they are protecting the interests of South Dakotans.

A Leopard Cannot Change Its Spots

Within one week after burying our 15 year old daughter Ashleigh, my husband was outside washing the car. A person from the group called South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families walked up to my husband and asked him to sign his petition. My husband, in a deep fog of grief, simply asked “Are you for life? Or not?” This person assured him he was, so my husband signed the petition. Later, we saw on the news who he was and what they were doing. My husband was so distraught over this that he call the people and told them they needed to take his name off of their petition. THEY TRICKED HIM INTO SIGNING! I hope they removed his name, but I wonder how many people were tricked into signing…

Lisa Mauseth


This story is a personal, South Dakota testimony of the deceitful tactics employed by our opponents when they circulated petitions regarding Referred Law 6.  Unfortunately, they have not remedied their ways.  They are still misleading South Dakota voters–sometimes outright lying about the facts of Initiated Measure 11.  Please take the time to acquaint yourself with the facts:

  • The normal standard of care for the medical procedure in treating Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome is covered under Measure 11. (Sec. 2)
  • Measure 11 was written by a panel of 11 legal experts under the direction of South Dakota State Attorney General Larry Long.  It is clear, simple, and well-written.
  • Doctors providing normal and high-risk pregnancy care are protected under Measure 11.  They can only be held accountable if they intentionally cause the death of a baby for the sole purpose of ending a pregnancy with no medical reason. (Sec. 3)
  • Measure 11 stops abortion from being used as birth control.  97% of abortions in South Dakota are done early in pregnancy when there is no medical reason at all. 

Check out voteyesforlife.com for more information and to read the full initiative! 

Before you vote, get the facts.  Do not be tricked into voting against Measure 11!



Dr. Writes to Paper About Misleading Ad

I recently received a mailing from the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families. It featured Dr. Marv Buehner. Buehner correctly lists a number of fetal conditions that are incompatible with life. He claims that because these conditions exist, South Dakotans should vote against Initiated Measure 11. This is misleading…(read more)

Libertarians for Life

*The following excerpt was taken from this blog.

“Libertarians are highly susceptible to the pro-abortion arguement that any law is a gross government intrusion into individual freedom.  Please speak up for life:

  • Roe v. Wade was one of the greatest government intrusions ever. Elitist, activist judges closed the exercise of informed individual thought by shutting down the democratic process. A one-size-fits-all rule was imposed from Washington, DC, with no debate.
  • There is no greater assault on the dignity of the individual than to “define down” humanity. Abortion requires arbitrary and unscientific definitions of “life,” such as Roe v. Wade’s absurd “trimesters” standard.
  • Despite some pro-abortion claims, most elective abortion is not a lofty exercise in moral decision making. It usually involves panic, secrecy and duress. There are many cases in which a woman is coerced by a partner, circle of friends or even family to have an abortion. Her dignity and values are not respected.

If you have Libertarian friends, please discuss this with them. Like all of us, they are prone to go “automatic” and vote based on superficial appeals. They are being told that Measure 11 is “government intrusion in private matters.” In fact, it is a grass roots initiative to defend the dignity of human life that Libertarians value.”

Last Living Founder of Pro-Abortion Group Admits He Lied

SIOUX FALLS, SD – A new television ad carries a riveting twist about abortion history.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson is the last living founder of NARAL, the pro-abortion organization founded in New York in the late 1960s. At one time, he was the nation’s leading abortionist, responsible for more than 75,000 abortions. He explains, “This was the greatest mistake of my life…and the greatest mistake in our nation’s history.”


“Dr. Nathanson’s story is a shocking example of one of the nation’s leading abortionists coming out against the tragedy of abortion,” said Brandi Gruis of the Voteyesforlife campaign. The campaign Treasurer, Dr. Patti Giebink, admits she was the last South Dakota doctor to perform abortions at SD Planned Parenthood. Now she is working tirelessly to end abortion on demand. “It speaks volumes when doctors who have personally seen the horror of abortion come out against it,” Gruis said


 In the ad, Dr. Nathanson states, “We founded NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) with the goal to export our pro-abortion mentality across the land.”  One of the strategies they used to mislead the American public was to deny what they knew to be true, “that an abortion kills an existing human being.”  In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the South Dakota law requiring abortion providers to tell the pregnant mother that abortion “terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”. 


Measure 11 clearly seeks to protect these lives, yet unborn.  Measure 11 was written by a panel of 11 legal experts, under the direction of State Attorney General Larry Long with the purpose of ending unnecessary abortions in South Dakota. Gruis says, “The issue is not confusing, neither are the exemptions for life and health of the mother, rape or incest.  The people of South Dakota can end the use of abortion as birth control by voting yes on Measure 11 on November 4th.” For more information or to see the new ads, visit http://www.voteyesforlife.com.

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.