SD Initiated Measure 11 - To prohibit Abortions with exceptions

Initiated Measure 11

Title: An Initiative to prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk,
and in cases of reported rape and incest.
Attorney General Explanation
Currently a woman may obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be
performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a
pregnancy, except for: abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment
of a major bodily organ or system of the woman; and abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape
or incest reported to law enforcement.
When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from
herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement.
Measure 11 would allow the provision of contraception substances prior to the time pregnancy can be determined by
conventional medical testing, or assistance in obtaining abortions in states where the procedure is legal.
If approved, Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States
Constitution. The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.

A vote “Yes” will adopt the proposed law.

A vote “No” will reject the proposed law.

Pro – Initiated Measure 11

Abortion on demand without any reason, as current law permits, is
wrong for two reasons: it kills an innocent human being, and it harms the
pregnant mother in numerous ways.

Initiative 11 would prohibit the vast majority of abortions.

However, the Law would permit abortions in three situations: where an
abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother; where there is serious
risk that continuation of the pregnancy would cause substantial
permanent injury to the mother; and where the pregnancy is the result of
rape or incest. Initiative 11 contains provisions that would deter
fraudulent claims, and in the case of rape and incest it helps ensure that
those who commit such crimes can be prosecuted and will be prevented
from hurting women in the future.

It is estimated that Initiative 11 would stop over 90% of the abortions
currently being performed in South Dakota.

Every law that South Dakota passes can be challenged in court. If
abortion providers challenge this Initiative in court claiming it is
unconstitutional, legal experts are confident that the United States
Supreme Court will uphold the law as a proper way for the people of
South Dakota to protect women and children, particularly since South
Dakota is well prepared to defend this Initiative. Three years ago, a Task
Force created by the Legislature conducted hearings and then issued a
report describing the ways in which abortion harms the rights, interests
and health of mothers. In June, the United States Court of Appeals held
that South Dakota’s law which requires abortion providers to advise the
pregnant mothers that an abortion “terminates the life of a whole,
separate, unique, living human being” can go into effect.

VOTE YES FOR LIFE! VOTE YES FOR INITIATIVE 11!

Submitted by: Pamela A. Schmagel, M.D., 101 E. Minnesota Street,
Rapid City, South Dakota 57701, a practicing obstetrician and
gynecologist, and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics &
Gynecology, on behalf of VoteYesForLife.com



Con – Initiated Measure 11

Measure 11 is a sweeping ban on abortion in South Dakota. This law
requires Government to interfere in the most difficult, personal decisions
that women and families make.

If Measure 11 passes, a woman would be forced to carry a pregnancy to
term even if the fetus couldn’t survive on its own after delivery.

Measure 11’s vagueness recklessly endangers women’s health. By
threatening doctors with a felony and jail time, the law would have a
chilling effect on a doctor’s ability to exercise proper medical judgment
and protect the health of his or her patients.

The Attorney General said this abortion ban will likely be challenged in
court and South Dakota taxpayers would be required to pay substantial
attorneys fees and costs to defend the law.

Put simply, banning abortion has serious consequences, and Measure 11
is a poorly crafted law.

Nowhere is abortion more heavily restricted or difficult to obtain than in
South Dakota. South Dakota already has one of the lowest abortion rates
of any state. Our current law requires a 24-hour waiting period,
mandatory education about the woman’s options, and review of a
sonogram.

The decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for a woman and
her family. No woman makes this decision without intense soul-
searching and consultation with her family and trusted loved ones. This
complex, personal decision should be between a woman, her family, her
doctor, and God. But this law will put the ultimate decision in the hands
of Government in virtually every instance.

Families need to be making these complex decisions, not the
Government.

Abortion is already rare in South Dakota and only performed after
carefully considering all options. Let families decide. VOTE NO ON
INITIATED MEASURE 11.

Submitted by: Marvin Buehner, MD, Fellow of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1315 Haines Ave, Ste C
Rapid City, SD 57701

I think I'll vote "Yes" on 11.

Most of us have received the flyers in the mail asking people to vote NO on Measure 11.

The flyers featured a family named Campbell who, upon finding out that one of the twins she was carrying was dying, and that endangered the life of the other twin, so she opted to kill the dying child. They then proclaim that this abortion saved the life of her other child.

This brought to mind a story I read years ago in Readers Digest. There was a woman who was pregnant with twins and the doctor informed her that one of the twins was dying and that it endangered the life of the other one. The doctor recommended an abortion for the dying child. The woman went home and thought it over and came to the conclusion that she could not do that and refused the abortion. What happened after that shows how little we really know. The child in her womb that the doctor said was dying lived. The child in her womb that was expected to live took a turn for the worse and died. The woman commented that if she had done as the doctor suggested then she would not have had any child because she would have killed the one and the other one ended up dying anyway.

On a more personal note I talked to a woman who told me that when she was pregnant the doctor informed her that the child she was carrying had spina bifida and recommended killing the child through abortion. She went home and talked to her husband and they decided that if God gave them a child with spina bifida then they would live with that. She carried the baby to term and her doctor was displeased with her. It was was with great joy when the baby was born and found to be perfectly healthy. She told me that she sends a picture of her daughter on her birthday every year to her doctor to remind him of the child he wanted to abort who was healthy.

My point here is that one shouldn't confuse "fact" with "opinion." In the flyer the mother stated that this abortion she had on one twin "saved the life" of the other one. We have no way of knowing that. The most that she could logically say is that she killed one child and still has another. You can only guess at what might have happened, you can't say that it would have happened like it is a fact.

The second flyer has the face of a sad looking doctor emphasizing the Campbells sad story and how "Measure 11 would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term with no chance of the fetus surviving after delivery." The doctors are not "Gods." They don't know who is going to live and who is going to die. They are gamblers playing the odds with statistics and that is all.

I am reminded of another story I read, about a woman whose child was born without a brain. The doctors wanted the baby to be left to die. The mother refused. The mother ended up moving the baby into a nearby motel to be near the hospital and continued to care and love and hold her child. At first everyone expected the child to die but it didn't. Then she was told by the doctors that the child would be a vegetable. She saw her daughter smile and the visiting nurses told her she was imagining things.

After some time she brought her baby in to be examined and to everyones surprise they saw she had a brain. What had happened was that the child was born with fluid in her brain. The doctors removed the fluid and then saw that her brain cavity was empty, and so concluded the child had no brain. What they finally figured out was that the fluid in her brain was pressing down her brain. The brain is like a sponge and so her brain was actually there but had been squished down so much that they didn't see it. As the mother took care of her daughter her brain began taking shape again and the child healed.

There was a woman who had cancer and was found to be pregnant. The doctor recommended killing her baby because her cancer was serious and she would die without treatment. She refused and in the end both of them lived. Even Elizabeth Taylor was urged to have an abortion because they said it would destroy her back and she would be crippled. Liz refused and she went on to be a great star. A friend of mine was told that if she carried her baby to term she would be crippled. She had the abortion and she still ended up in a wheelchair.

In the second flyer by the doctor, he lists numerous fatal fetal anomalies. I noticed that they didn't list the statistics of how often those occurred. It appears to me to be scare tactics. No one is "forcing" a woman to do anything.

All Measure 11 is asking to do is give a child a chance.

I recommend voting "Yes" on Measure 11.

If 11 passes, there will probably be court battles, but that is to be expected, and Pro-Lifers could help the State of South Dakota with court costs like the last time this happened in South Dakota.