Another try in South Dakota

Just a few of the reasons to vote NO on Measure 11: No exceptions if baby wont survive outside the womb; Women can be forced to carry their pregnancies to term; Exceptions for "health" are dangerously vague.

If you'd like more information, please visit the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families site.

If you're wondering how this ban will affect women, here is just one excerpt from a Doctor in SD (one of very few) who perform abortions for seriously ill women...

Dr. Buehner is an obstetrician and gynecologist from Rapid City, SD who opposes the abortion ban. Buehner has previously stated that he would no longer perform abortions for seriously ill patients if the abortion ban passes, at the risk of spending 10 years in prison. He said that the phrase “accepted standards of medical practice is so vague and nebulous that no physicians I know, myself included, would take that chance.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/12/08] Such a situation would have chilling effect on a doctor’s ability to properly care for his or her patients.
In the video, Dr. Buehner says, “It’s a very difficult decision for any woman to make, but especially for women with health complications in pregnancy. […] [Under Measure 11] the decision would probably be made by attorneys, rather than the physicians or the patients themselves.”

I don't know how these anti-abortion fruitballoons would feel about having non-medical personnel make their private medical decisions (perhaps they'd be just A-okay with it) but I would prefer that every single one of my medical decisions were made by myself after proper counsel with those whose lives have been dedicated to medicine. I'll keep the legal decisions for those who have dedicated themselves to the law.

If I were the king of the world, I tell ya what I'd do...

Mr. Jasper: Pro-lifers are not against measures taken to save (or that risk) the life of the mother. Induce labor or have a C-section.

Mellankelly: How lovely that you would risk a woman's life and her reproductive future by "allowing" her to have a Cesarean Section. Only (and correct me if I'm wrong here) there is not an instance where some third party with no stake whatsoever in the outcome is allowed to make private medical decisions for another person... that's too bad, since it sounded like such a win-win scenario and all. Perhaps you should be fighting laws which restrict you (and any other like-minded person) from being able to decide which medical procedures are in a woman's best interest... Lord knows that Doctors just don't know what the heck they're doing, right?

Mr. Jasper: If I had a born child with either of those 2 conditions, could I terminate his life?

Mellankelly: If it was your child, you would be the one to decide which procedures, if any, your child would have. I suppose, for many parents, the treatment (if any) would depend upon the severity of the brain damage and paralysis, how developed the problem was prior to and at birth would also factor into the treatment options. The bottom line is... each parent would decide for themselves whether or not to start any treatment at all, and if so, which treatments they would be willing to inflict upon their child. See, their child = their decision. Your child = your decision. Are you getting it yet?

Mr. Jasper: Btw: that mother referred to unborn baby as her 'child'.

Mellankelly: Of course she did... this was a very wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. I forgot to add this bit to my original posting:

"I wrote my doctor a long thank-you note on my good, wedding stationery. I thanked him for his compassion and his kindness. I wrote that it must be hard, what he does, but that I hoped he found consolation in the fact that he was helping vulnerable women in their most vulnerable of times. He keeps my note, along with all the others he's received, in a large bundle. And he keeps that
bundle right next to his stack of hate mail. They are about the same size"

And this really got to me because the people who invented the "PB" phrase (no such medical procedure... SURPRISE!) and the President who helped outlaw certain procedures have caused many good Doctors who have helped countless women to deny future women these options.
This is so very sad...

"The doctor who performed my termination talks about the women he has helped through the years -- the pregnant woman who was diagnosed with metastic melanoma and needed immediate chemotherapy, the woman who was carrying conjoined twins that had only one set of lungs and one heart, the woman whose baby had a three-chambered heart and would never live. Now, he is turning these women away. 'Now, today, I can say no, but what is she going to do?' he says sadly. 'What is she going to do?'"

And a chilling quote from that Doctor:

"Now, it's like the Stone Age, it's like a Muslim country here," says the doctor who performed my procedure. "This is the most backward law, it is not for a civilized country. If this was Iran, Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised. But to pass this law in the United States, what is this government doing?"

You said it, Doctor! And how!

Dr. Mildred Hanson

On pre-roe abortions:

On her "what if":

God Bless You!

BAIPA and Mr. Anonymous

Mr. Anonymous: That's why Clinton, Boxer and Kennedy all supported the bill. It passed 98-0. Even Naral was not against it.

Mellankelly: You sneaky devil... it certainly isn't surprising that you've used misinformation in an attempt to get your point across. Perhaps this was an honest mistake but methinks it quite doubtful. The bill that passed was not the same as the original bill presented. Obama had this to say about the original bill:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants."
And in case your issue is with reading comprehension (which is not optional), that was precisely my point... there was already a bill in place regarding the standard of care for infants. When BAIPA passed the Illinois legislature in 2005 it had added a clause that specifically stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.

Mr. Anonymous: What kind of a monster are you?

Mellankelly: The kind that cares about women (including their mental and physical health) and the children/families they have, the kind that believes that the decision of whether or not to continue with any pregnancy is between the pregnant woman, her doctor and her loved ones... how positively evil of me. Hey, but kudos on the ad hominem attack... it's good to know that you dare not deviate from this anti-abortion tactic, no matter how unsuccessful it ends up being.

Physicians speak out against SD abortion ban!

Please, help get the word out about this... pass this on to your friends and/or add it to your youtube account!