We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Monday, October 20, 2008

Anti-Choice Campaign out of Money?

I read with relish (o.k., raisin bran) the reports from DakotaWomen that contend the Vote Yes on 11 forces can't pay their media bills and thus must resort to legal shenanigans to try silencing the folks fighting for women's rights. Funny, considering that some folks campaigning for Initiated Measure 11 have contended that the Lord will bless the righteous with material wealth if we just vote the right way. Maybe the Lord is just waiting until after the election to bless South Dakota with oil... or maybe righteousness includes respecting constitutional liberties and individual autonomy.


  1. So making the pro-abort people stick to the truth is legal shenanigans? Maybe in the opinion of those who don't consider an unborn baby a living being with a beating heart, functional organ systems, pain sensors, functional senses, etc.

  2. Stop it, Anon. You and John McCain both need to admit that no one is pro-abortion.

  3. And nobody is really anti-choice. Call us illegal-choice, perhaps. But not ANTI-choice. We still believe in free will.

  4. If the anti-choice folks would spend some of their money on educating high school and college students about abortion rather than campaigning every year, they could reduce abortions in South Dakota from 800 to less than 200 in a couple of years. THAT would be an accomplishment, and strictly voluntary.

  5. Anon 9:19: no you don't... or at least many of those supporting IM11 don't. Part of the IM11 rhetoric (and even the bill text itself) carries the idea that woman aren't exercising rational free will, that they are weak, even helpless victims of coercion by doctors, nurses, Planned Parenthood, and whomever else the campaigners care to villainize.

    But you do have a point: labeling either side with a word is overly simplistic. Saying "You don't believe in choice" misses the complexity of the issue as much as saying "You don't believe in life."

  6. Can we define the target of this abortion bill? Of the 800 abortions performed, do we actually know how many of those were performed on high-school age students, college-age students, young adult women and women over 30? There must be stats available that would determine what age group is the highest abortion risk group so anti-choice folks could redirect their money and efforts to educate those most likely to abort. That makes more sense than painting a wide brush over everyone in an effort to thwart 800 abortions in a given year. Targeting an education plan to those most likely to abort would be a better use of resources rather than spending millions in court battles. The result would be long term decreases in abortions that would become generational decisions made by families.

  7. Good practical thoughts, Anon 6:29. Check out DakotaWomen for some relevant demographics from Sunday's Rapid City Journal article on abortion in South Dakota. Do those numbers shed some light on your question?

  8. There is no free will.

    God knows our past, present and future.


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.