October 26, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

August 10, 2011


Update on South Dakota Abortion Law

You may recall back in March that South Dakota happily passed a law requiring a wait period and counseling on alternatives, with medical information.

Naturally, Planned Parenthood—the largest provider of abortion in the nation—sprang into action with a lawsuit—gotta keep those sales numbers up.

Since apparently the point is to make the law to costly to defend, South Dakota’s legislature has started a legal fund called the “Life Protection SubFund.”  If you want to donate make checks out to “State of South Dakota,” include “Life Protection Subfund” on the check memo, and mail to Bureau of Administration, 500 E. Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501.

The major life advocacy group in South Dakota is Alpha Center.  Check out their services, and here’s how to donate.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

21 comments

The Alpha Center has an onsite ultrasound tech, and this alone saves many lives by showing the expectant woman the reality of the life she carries.

Although the equipment was donated by area Knights of Columbus, the tech is a paid professional and so funding to keep up covered hours is vital.

[1] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 8-10-2011 at 11:46 AM · [top]

From the link:

Brittany Weston, of Yankton, became pregnant at age 22 and her partner insisted she have an abortion because he did not want to pay child support for raising the baby. 

This is a classic example of someone refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. Not once, but twice. First, she has an abortion not because she wants one, but because someone else ‘insists’ that she have one. So it was his fault. But she still signed the consent forms authorizing the operation.

Then, she regrets the decision, but instead of accepting responsibility by admitting she made a mistake and made the wrong choice, she decides to blame the organization who provided what she asked for - so now it’s their fault.

Before the abortion, Weston only spoke with staff at Planned Parenthood and she said she wanted the abortion clinic to provide her with help on how to deal with the situation

But that’s beyond their remit, surely? She was asking them to provide Assertiveness Training (or possibly legal advice, if the partner was threatening her) in dealing with an oppressive partner in respect of a certain issue. That the issue is about abortion is irrelevant. In that situation PP should have simply advised her where to get such training.

— instead, it did an abortion and took the life of her child.

To which she consented. As a 22-year-old adult.

[2] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 8-10-2011 at 03:07 PM · [top]

Sales Person:  “Welcome to In-and-Out Abortions.  No pun intended.  Could I interest you in one of our Value Plans today?”

Young Woman:  “No, I want some advice on how to deal with my boyfriend.  He wants me to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to pay child support.”

Sales Person:  “Oh, so you want one of our Happy Deals.  The abortion comes with free a legal consult for a restraining order, and a 10% discount if you choose to file.  Plus a cookie.”

Young Woman:  “You don’t understand.  I want him to want to help me.”

Sales Person:  “Not much chance of that, Dearie.  He obviously doesn’t want that, or you wouldn’t be here.  If you don’t have the abortion you will be stuck with this loser forever.  Look, we are offering a two-for-one special today.  Abort the first mass of non-specific tissue and we abort the twin at no cost.  Every child a wanted child.”

Young Woman:  “But I do want this baby ...”

Sales Person:  “Just hold on one second.  You can’t say things like that in here!  This is an abortion clinic, forgodsake!  There is no baby.  It’s a fetus.  That’s Latin for ‘Like an appendix, only different.”

Young Woman: But ...

Sales Person:  “Look, here are your choices.  You can be saddled with some loser’s brat for the rest of your life, and live off welfare, and then die alone, or you can choose to pursue a glamourous career as a TV journalist and Super Model as described here in one of our “Fabulous and Free: Life without Children” brochures.  For the low price of $149.95, we can solve your problems right now.  We have appointments available but you have to act in the next ten minutes to lock in this fabulously low price.”

Young Woman:  “But I ...”

Sales Person:  “Let me make it simple for you.  Welfare mom or Glamorous super model.  Which do you want?  Opportunity or stretch marks?”

Young Woman:  “But ... OK.  I’ll take your Happy Deal.”

Sales Person:  “We take Visa or Master Card.  I am sorry but we don’t take personal checks.”

Young Woman:  “Here.”

[kaCHING! kaCHING!]

Sales Person:  “Thank you.  Your order number is 145, and here is your free coupon for the 10% legal discount, and an organically grown tofu-and-kidney bean cookie.  Your order will be right up.”

Sales Person:  “Welcome to In-and-Out Abortions.  No pun intended.  Could I interest you in one of our Value Plans today?”

carl

[3] Posted by carl on 8-10-2011 at 07:28 PM · [top]

As a 22-year-old adult.

Very interesting.  She’s sold an abortion on the grounds that she is weak.  After the abortion, her decision is the result of a vibrant 22-year-old woman.  Er, what happened to the weak woman who needed to be rescued from the Big Bad Fetus?

Kind of reminds me of the cat in the oven argument.  When the child might not be wanted, it’s a fetus;  when it is, it’s a baby.

[4] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-10-2011 at 08:12 PM · [top]

carl/Moot, I admit I wasn’t thinking about the financial angle.

Being a Brit, I don’t think of abortion as a commercial transaction, as there is no charge for them here.

Also, the advisory clinics are funded centrally, so they have no interest in persuading their individual clients one way or another ie they get paid anyway. And clients don’t have to worry about fees or charges.

I appreciate it’s different in the US.

Gnu.

PS Nice parody though, carl. Your grasp of dialogue is very .. er.. graspful.

[5] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 8-10-2011 at 09:00 PM · [top]

RE: “I appreciate it’s different in the US.”

A first trimester abortion generally costs around $375 to $550 and the physician rakes in around 300 bucks a pop.

So if they schedule right a doc can go suck 20 or more babies out in small pieces in one good solid day.

Not too shabby.

Of course, no reputable physician offers abortions, just as no reputable physician kills old people.  It’s a shameful gross thing over here in the US, so mostly the greedy lazy docs are the ones who do it. 

Mass slaughter just still isn’t too popular amongst physicians here.

[6] Posted by Sarah on 8-10-2011 at 10:09 PM · [top]

RE:  “And clients don’t have to worry about fees or charges.”

What a wonderful government you have there, Gnu.  All that free stuff gives the common man incentive to not tear the country apart.  And during those rare times when the economy struggles, y’all can count on the inate goodness of each and every citizen.  No doubt the UK’s superior morality is a by-product of her being harder on the Christian, while easier on the Muslim. 

But wait - what’s this .. ?

http://news.yahoo.com/britains-rioters-young-poor-disillusioned-192716141.html

The article doesn’t say it, but they’re probably just a bunch of Christians.  Blame the conservative media for leaving out the facts, I say.

[7] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-11-2011 at 05:30 AM · [top]

“… he did not want to pay child support for raising the baby.”

So he insisted she have it killed.  To save money!

It is an “aggravated” crime in many jurisdictions to kill a human being for pay.  Should willfully killing to save money not be as well?

Anyone whose perception is so perverse that he cannot see that going to a medical facility and paying to have a medical procedure performed by a physician is a commercial transaction is to be pitied.  It is none-the-less a commercial transaction if an insurance company or government is the actual payor, nor does it change the “commercial transaction” into something else if the payor pays with a token or script, such as food stamps.  Someone receives a product or service, someone is paid to provide the product or service, which product or service would not have been provided in the absence of reasonable expectation of such payment – clearly a commercial transaction.

I pray that the Lord will remove the film from his eyes, that he may see more clearly the world God created and the evil being perpetrated upon innocent and helpless babies.

[8] Posted by Ol' Bob on 8-12-2011 at 10:18 AM · [top]

Moot/Ol’ Bob, the only reason I mentioned the NHS was to point out that you Americans seem to be cynical about your abortion providers mainly in terms of the economics - that their primary motive is greed and that they therefore sell their product hard.

Now you may be correct, I wouldn’t know. But in Britain, these arguments wouldn’t apply because there is no direct financial transaction between an NHS doctor and her patients; and doctors get paid an annual salary which doesn’t depend on maximizing operations.

So when I offer my NHS patients a course of treatment, they don’t need to consider for a moment whether I might be offering it out of financial self-interest. The question simply doesn’t arise.

So for Britain at least, you would have to find different reasons for why abortion providers (the NHS, in 85-90% of cases) provide their services.

(And Moot, in response to your “moral superiority” dig, I’m not trying to imply that the NHS system as a whole is better than other systems - just that the financial set-up simplifies the relationship between doctor and patient by taking money out of the equation - which is a Good Thing, in my opinion).

[9] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 8-12-2011 at 04:20 PM · [top]

Don’t fool yourself - Money is NEVER taken out of the equation.  If you truly believe money is removed from the equation in the UK, I have a really swell bridge in Florida I would like to sell you.

The motivation for abortion advocates has been made quite clear.  Some follow in the footsteps of their idol Margaret Sanger and are looking for a legal way to decrease the minority and lower income population.  Some see it as a means of lowering the cost of entitlements in future years.  Some see it as a vanguard to protect their “right” to live life as foolishly as they wish without consequence - hence boutique pregnancy.  And some poor individuals still don’t realize that it is a living, breathing child inside them and that the time to decide you don’t want a baby is BEFORE you decide to have sex - with or without birth control.

[10] Posted by Jackie on 8-12-2011 at 04:36 PM · [top]

Jackie (#10),

Well said.

Further to your comment, with which I agree: For one to assert that money is not involved, not an influence, in the performance of an abortion within the British healthcare system is an expression of either 1) an extreme level of naiveté, 2) willful misrepresentation in furtherance of some agenda, 3) a lack of ability to comprehend the facts involved or 4) some combination thereof.

If I hire someone and pay him a monthly salary and his job includes, among other things, killing a baby when that is requested by the woman carrying the baby, there is obviously a financial dimension to every required action taken by the employee, including killing babies upon request.  The performance of any medical or other function as part of the fulfillment of one’s specified duties in exchange for a periodic payment of money clearly makes every required function performed a commercial transaction, clearly for compensation.  Failure to understand that raises some interesting questions about mental acuity, unless one is willfully misleading for some base motive.

God bless.

[11] Posted by Ol' Bob on 8-12-2011 at 05:11 PM · [top]

Jackie:

If you truly believe money is removed from the equation in the UK, I have a really swell bridge in Florida I would like to sell you

How am I wrong, Jackie?  Money is a factor at higher levels, sure, but the basic principle that health-care is free at the point of delivery is maintained.

If through no fault of our own we are seriously injured in a car-crash, or get cancer, we get the best treatment the NHS can deliver, free of charge. We all appreciate the security of knowing this, which is why we allow ourselves to be taxed in order to pay for it.

The motivation for abortion advocates has been made quite clear.  Some follow in the footsteps of their idol Margaret Sanger and are looking for a legal way to decrease the minority and lower income population.

Really? That would be ironic, as Sanger was anti-abortion:

“To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”

Whatever - who are these people trying to decrease populations, these supporters of eugenics via abortion? Got a link?

Some see it as a vanguard to protect their “right” to live life as foolishly as they wish without consequence

Again, who says this?

And some poor individuals still don’t realize that it is a living, breathing child inside them

Just being pedantic here, but babies start breathing after they’re born.

[12] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 8-12-2011 at 07:05 PM · [top]

RE:  “..the financial set-up simplifies the relationship between doctor and patient by taking money out of the equation - which is a Good Thing, in my opinion).”

Right, but the Good Thing doesn’t quite mask the fact that money isn’t quite taken out of the equation.  So, when government dunderheads take over an institution, and both the dunderheads and their bosses are busy running everything into the ground, financially .. eventually some things have to be cut.  And the people who put their trust in the Nanny-State are disappointed.  Lacking a moral groundwork, they tend to, um, express their disappointment in ways that elected officials might not appreciate. 

(Nk .. awww!)  :(

Good thing that your society has turned it’s back on Puritan considerations.  Women can still let it all hang out (as long as they breast-feed in private), and y’all can get your abortions for free.  It all makes the zombie-like hordes running amock, trashing family businesses, more palateable. 

But don’t pay attention to little ‘ol me, Gnu.  Enjoy your Brave New World. 

wink

[13] Posted by J Eppinga on 8-12-2011 at 07:10 PM · [top]

Federal Court just overturned the stay and upheld key portion of the law… http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-partially-upholds-south-dakota-abortion-consent-law.php

[14] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-2-2011 at 06:09 PM · [top]

Let me correct that slightly… today’s decision was about the 2005 law, and upheld the provision in which doctors must tell women that a human life will be ended by abortion.  The newer law, requiring a waiting period and counseling, is still being litigated.

[15] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-2-2011 at 06:25 PM · [top]

[16] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-2-2011 at 06:43 PM · [top]

How am I wrong, Jackie?

  In ways too numerous to count but for now, I will address your misguided comment above. 

Money is a factor at higher levels, sure, but the basic principle that health-care is free at the point of delivery is maintained.

  That statement is so flawed.  It assumes that because money does not pass from the hand of the mother terminating her child, that money is not a factor.  The abortionist does not care from whence the money comes.  As one of your MP’s states:

By the Tory MP Nadine Dorries’s reckoning, this system is flawed: the counselling is biased, she claims, because providers such as BPAS and Marie Stopes have a financial incentive to pressure women into choosing a termination

You also state:

we get the best treatment the NHS can deliver, free of charge.

Not quite free of charge.  Brits pay approximately 10% of their income for that free of charge health care.  While it may be the best the UK can deliver, it leaves much to be desired.

Really? That would be ironic, as Sanger was anti-abortion:

.  Really?  You really want to go here. 

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

  This is the woman you defend - this racist? While she ay have she favored sterilization (the voluntary part was optional) over abortion, she is no friend of the unborn. 
Sanger is not a hero.

Again, who says this?

Start your research here.

Just being pedantic here,

Quite.

[17] Posted by Jackie on 9-2-2011 at 08:48 PM · [top]

Some see it as a vanguard to protect their “right” to live life as foolishly as they wish without consequence.
Again, who says this?

Sorry forgot to give you an example of someone who advocates abortion as a solution to living foolishly without consequence. 

[18] Posted by Jackie on 9-2-2011 at 09:28 PM · [top]

Jackie:

“By the Tory MP Nadine Dorries’s reckoning, this system is flawed: the counselling is biased, she claims, because providers such as BPAS and Marie Stopes have a financial incentive to pressure women into choosing a termination”

And numerous people have pointed out Dorries is wrong because the BPAS and Marie Stopes are charities. They are non-profit organizations and have no financial incentive to encourage abortions. Which is why Dorries’s attempt to amend the abortion law next week is losing support - here.

“Money is a factor at higher levels, sure, but the basic principle that health-care is free at the point of delivery is maintained.”

That statement is so flawed.  It assumes that because money does not pass from the hand of the mother terminating her child, that money is not a factor.

How on earth can you say that my statement “assumes that money is not a factor”, when the opening four words explicitly state that it is? That makes no sense at all.

“we get the best treatment the NHS can deliver, free of charge.”

Not quite free of charge.  Brits pay approximately 10% of their income for that free of charge health care.

Which I mentioned in the very next sentence of that quote: “We all appreciate the security of knowing this, which is why we allow ourselves to be taxed in order to pay for it.” You’re blatantly misrepresenting me.

While it may be the best the UK can deliver, it leaves much to be desired.

That’s not the point.

Start your research here.

Yes, I know about Maafa 21, a conspiracy theory about “black genocide”. According to this review in Religion Dispatches Magazine, it’s distorted, highly selective, mendacious propaganda. Not a good place to “start research”.

[19] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 9-3-2011 at 01:29 PM · [top]

Jackie: 

Sorry forgot to give you an example of someone who advocates abortion as a solution to living foolishly without consequence.

Except your link (and other conservative media) quoted Obama out of context, and he wasn’t talking about abortion. Context and debunk of the media misrepresentation here and here.

[20] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 9-3-2011 at 04:22 PM · [top]

Gnu
Are you tired of playing the troll or just plain naive?  Do you really think Media Matters is an unbiased organization?  Are you aware of who founded Media Matters and who is helping fund it now?  Do you really think a cyber-mag that calls itself Reglious Dispatches with an article entitled On Women’s Equality Day, Going Back to the Sacred Texts of Feminism is an unbiased source for determining the merits of Maafa21 or any other non-liberal position?  As for the non-profit remarks - are you aware Planned Parenthood is a non-profit?  As is/was Acorn?  As to Obama’s remarks about not wanting to punish his child with a baby - I heard it first hand. Did you? Even if you are hearing it late in the game, there is only way that sentence can be interpreted. 
I misrepresented nothing.  You are the one who brought up free of charge and taxes in the same thought.  I simply pointed out being taxed 10% of your income is not free of charge.
Really, Gnu, you might as well have come in and posted nannynannybooboo.

[21] Posted by Jackie on 9-3-2011 at 10:56 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.