Reporters are starting to call out South Dakota anti-choicers on their lying advertisements. The Rapid City Journal confronted them about the patently false statement that the ban has an exception for the health of the mother:

In responding Wednesday for VoteYesForLife.com, Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician who appears in the advertisement, said the law would protect women’s health by preventing the physical and long-term emotional damage caused by abortion.

Yet another perfect example of anti-choicers co-opting pro-woman language and using junk science and biased research to pervert it.

Oliver also said that any medical treatment currently allowed for pregnant women with health problems could continue under the provisions of Referred Law 6. The law wouldn’t apply to a miscarriage that inadvertently occurred during medical treatment for a pregnant woman’s health problems, he said.

“The law regulates intent, not procedures, so what it outlaws is the intentional aborting of a child,� Oliver said.

In countries with total abortion bans, it's this line of thinking that causes women to "accidentally" fall down stairs and do other things to injure themselves, hoping to induce miscarriage. Yep, this definitely sounds like a win for women's health in South Dakota.

But when asked if Referred Law 6 would allow a pregnant woman with serious health problems who wasn’t in immediate danger of dying to obtain an intentional abortion, Oliver wouldn’t answer directly.

“I’m not an obstetrician,� he said. “I can’t address specific medical conditions, other than to say they’re extremely rare … exceedingly rare.�

And apparently, in those exceedingly rare circumstances, women deserve to have their health seriously jeopardized. Sounds like a "pro-woman" argument to me!

Conveniently, the article reprints the exact language that will appear on the ballot:

[Referred Law 6 would] “prohibit any person, at any time, from using any instrument or procedure on a pregnant woman for the specific purpose of terminating her pregnancy, unless the person is a licensed physician performing a medical procedure to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.�

Yeah. No health exception. No rape/incest exception. Nothing about access to emergency contraception.

Local TV stations are currently considering whether to keep running the misleading ads. You can email KELO-TV and KEVN-TV to request they not air them. This is not jut "a fight between political parties." It's false advertising.

4 Comments

October 19, 2006 5:09 PM

[0+]  tankerton said:

I would like to send an email to the S.D TV stations with a request to stop airing the ads. However, I'm not sure about how to refer to the ads. Would I signify Votes for Life or Refered Law 6 or some other name completely?

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

October 19, 2006 5:14 PM

[0+]  Ann said:

Maybe just request they not air ads purchased by VoteYesForLife.com asserting that Referred Law 6 provides an exception for the health of the woman.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

October 19, 2006 5:21 PM

[0+]  Teague said:

Where did these people get the idea that they have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body? Why do they want to force rape survivors to become mothers to their attacker's child? I wish I knew.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

October 20, 2006 3:59 AM

[0+]  FuriousFemale said:

I was pretty shocked when I saw the anti choice ad about EC for rape victims. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what they go after next once the election is over

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)