Tiffany Campbell has been sharing her story with South Dakotans for a while now, but for those of you who haven’t heard about this amazing woman, it’s time you did. 

f

Tiffany was also featured by the Washington Post.  The opening section gives some background:

Bad things don’t happen to her, Tiffany Campbell used to think. She was a mother of two, enthusiastically pregnant with twins, a churchgoing Republican living a good middle-class life. Why should she care about a political battle over abortion?

Then Campbell discovered that the twins were relying on one beating heart. Doctors told her that neither would survive if she carried them to term, and that the strong one was fading fast. If one were aborted, they said, the other would probably make it.

“I was not going to bury two of my babies,” Campbell remembers thinking. “If I can intervene and save one of my babies, I’m going to do it.”

Campbell had the abortion at 17 weeks. The survivor, whom she named Brady, is now healthy and 19 months old. When she learned that an antiabortion referendum on South Dakota’s Nov. 4 ballot would prevent other women from having the same choice, she threw herself into the fight.

Here’s what she had to say about the “rare” cases which VY always seems to point to in it attempts to push government into personal decisions:

“So what if it’s rare? If it’s happening to you, it’s not rare,” said Campbell, an energetic 32-year-old whose eyes begin to tear when she tells her story. “If it can happen to me, it can happen to you, your sister, your neighbor, your daughter.”

VY has tried to discredit her, but thankfully Campbell has held true to her story and true to herself. 

If you’d be interested in hearing this brave mother of three speak, Campus Women’s Coalition will be hosting a discussion panel entitled “Choice Saved my Son:  Tiffany Campbell speaks” on Thursday, Oct 30 at 7p.m. in Rotunda B on the SDSU Campus.  Plese come and show your support, and share her compelling story with your family and friends.  Women like her are counting on you to make sure IM11 doesn’t pass on Nov 4.

Abortion has been an extremely divisive issue in South Dakota since the attempt to ban all abortions in the state in 2006. People on all sides fought for what they believed in, and in the end that ban was defeated. This year, another abortion ban is on the ballot – Initiated Measure 11. It was written to appeal to people who would have voted for the 2006 ban if it had exceptions instead of being an all-out ban. Despite not being an all-out ban, Initiated Measure 11 still does not appeal to moderates or liberals and it even alienates some conservatives.
Unsurprisingly, pro-choice people don’t like IM 11. Many people are pro-choice  because they know what it was like before Roe v. Wade. These people believe that a ban will not stop abortions; it will just make desperate women turn to extremely dangerous self-induced abortions, like women did before 1973. According to the Guttmacher Institute, between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed per year in the 1950s and 60s. In the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women and one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite women were due to abortion.
Pro-choice people also oppose this ban because they disagree with the claim that it has reasonable exceptions. The exception for the life and health of the mother is  vaguely written. Disagreements over the definition of “significant harm” to the pregnant female could land doctors in prison, so doctors’ best medical judgments would be affected. The rape and incest exceptions require victims report their attackers before getting an abortion, forcing women to relive their traumatic experiences within 20 weeks of the attack. Victims would have to choose between carrying their attacker’s baby to full term or aborting it and being forced to go through the ordeal of an investigation. In addition, the NARAL Pro-Choice website notes that “There is no exception for “fetal anomalies,” meaning that a woman could be told that she has to continue her pregnancy, even though her child has no chance of surviving outside of the womb, and that it will suffer greatly.”
Moderates don’t like IM 11, either. I know this first hand. A few weeks ago, I volunteered with the Campaign for Healthy Families and I surveyed dozens of people in Sioux Falls on how they were voting. Many people told me they are simply sick of the issue. They feel that voting on abortion once was enough. One woman told me she wanted the government to get back to things that actually affect her family. Others who hadn’t heard of the ban were confused as to why this issue was on the ballot again.
Informed moderates also recognize that IM 11 is bound to be challenged in court.  It would be expensive for the state of South Dakota to defend the measure; Jack Billion, a former legislator from Minnehaha County, estimated in 2006 that that year’s ban would cost $2-$3 million to defend. The cost to defend this year’s ban would be similar. Many of the people I talked to felt that that money would be better spent on schools, construction projects, or something else to directly benefit South Dakota residents.
Even some pro-life people don’t like IM 11. According to the Autumn 2008 issue of LifeFacts,  “South Dakota Right to Life opposes Initiative 11, the so-called abortion ban, not only because it fails to protect all life from conception to natural death, but more importantly because it names specific lives expendable – those conceived from rape or incest and those who threaten their mother’s health.  We believe it is the wrong bill at the wrong time and that it is presumptuous to believe it will save over 95% of the babies now aborted in South Dakota.”
Some pro-life people are also upset that if IM 11 passes, it will overturn a ‘trigger law.’ A trigger law is a law that remains unenforced until certain conditions are met. This trigger law – 22-17-5.1 – was enacted in 2005 and it will come into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It would make any person who helps a pregnant woman have an abortion guilty of a class 6 felony, “unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that the performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.” So if IM 11 passes and Roe v. Wade is overturned, the rape and incest exceptions that many pro-life people oppose would still be legal in South Dakota, instead of all abortions being banned except in medical emergencies.
From the exceptions being too strict to the exceptions being too loose to people being just plain sick of the abortion issue, this year’s abortion ban didn’t achieve its goal. Despite not being an all-out ban, Initiated Measure 11 still does not appeal to moderates or liberals and it even alienates some conservatives.

Even a fox news station is reporting the legal implications of IM 11 as memoed by Sanford Health Services.  Check it out here —> sanford-memo 

Sanford hasn’t taken an official stance; however, they are sending out a notice about how health providers would undoubtedly be affected by this poorly-written piece of legislation.

Here’s some highlights from the Memo:

>>>THE ABORTION BAN FORCES DOCTORS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES AND PROPER MEDICAL CARE

 

·         The conclusion of the Sanford memo details how unreasonable the abortion ban’s health exception is: “The health-of-the-mother exception imposes a standard that is not clearly defined.  Medical facilities and providers have learned, through the malpractice arena, that whether a physician’s clinical judgment comports with ‘accepted standards of medical practice’ can be a matter of debate.  Initiated Measure 11 borrows the civil litigation standards, which can be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, and attaches criminal penalties for failing to comply with the potentially vague, undefined standards.  As a result, for those instances where a pregnant woman faces uncertain, but potentially very serious health risks, Initiated Measure 11 will require a physician to choose between possibly committing a felony or subjecting a pregnant woman to a higher degree of medical risk that what would otherwise be clinically desired.” (emphasis added)  - Page 10

 

·         The Sanford memo explains the problems with requiring doctors to determine a pregnant woman is facing “substantial and irreversible impairment”, that the risk is “serious” and that the determinations are made in accordance with “accepted standards of medical care.”  The memo concludes that the “lack of clearly defined health-of-the-mother exception could inject tension into the physician-patient relationship and subject physicians to civil liability.” (emphasis added) – Page 8

 

·         To illustrate the difficult conditions IM11 would impose upon doctors treating patients with high-risk or complicated pregnancies, the memo references the condition, preeclampsia.   According to the memo, “The physician may be faced with a dilemma: (i) terminate the pregnancy too early and face possible criminal prosecution, or (ii) wait for the condition to worsen and risk losing the mother’s life.” (emphasis added) – Page 6, 7   

 

>>>THE ABORTION HAS NO EXCEPTION FOR FATAL FETAL ANOMALY

 

·         The Sanford memo concludes that IM11 contains no exception for certain termination procedures in cases of fatal fetal anomaly.  (emphasis added) – Page 6

 

·         Selective termination is performed in some cases of multifetal pregnancy where terminating one fetus improves the chance of survival for the other fetus[es].   The much-debated story of Chris and Tiffany Campbell is one example of selective termination.  According to the Sanford memo, IM11 “does not provide an exception that would allow for selective reductions, unless the pregnant mother is facing ‘substantial and irreversible’ health risks – which is not usually the case.”  (emphasis added) – Page 7

 

>>>INITIATED MEASURE 11 THREATENS DOCTORS, NURSES, PHARMACISTS AND OTHER HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES WITH 10 YEARS IN PRISON, A $20,000 FINE AND LOSS OF LICENSE. 

 

·         The Sanford memo notes that under IM11, criminal liability for an abortion performed in violation of the act extends to any person involved in the procedure, to potentially include doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees. (emphasis added) – Page 2, 3

 

Big news from SDSU! 

CWC is teaming up with the Student Association Senate and other student groups to present SDSU Votes!, an opportunity for students to register and vote the same day.

This is going down this Thursday in the Student Union, 10 a.m.- 4p.m.  We’ll be registering and giving rides to the polls. 

Everyone who votes will get an awesome free t-shirt. 

Here’s the press release:

 

BROOKINGS, S.D.—Since South Dakota State University students couldn’t get the polls to come to them, they’re going to the polls on Thurs, Oct. 16 thanks to several student groups at SDSU. 

“The Student Association resolved to increase students’ civic participation by getting early voting in the Student Union,” said Student Association Vice President Eric Hanson.  “However, Brookings county rejected the opportunity to help get out the young vote.”

Over a dozen student groups from South Dakota State University are banding together to get out the young vote.  They will be providing rides to the polls from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. that day.  Students are being encouraged to wear yellow SDSU t-shirts to show their united voice. “The event has come together quickly so that it can take place before the voter registration closes.  This way students who have not yet registered can register and vote at the same time,” noted Student Association Senator Alisha Kropuenske. “The 18-25 year old demographic is traditionally underrepresented and we’re hoping to change that.”  As an additional incentive, students who vote that day will receive a free t-shirt courtesy of South Dakota Rural Voters. 

The one-day event is being held in addition to several voter registration drives.  One group, Campus Women’s Coalition, has already registered hundreds of students to vote in Brookings.

“We’re inching towards the 800 mark,” said Catherine Grandorff, president of the Women’s Coalition.  “It’s very exciting; we’ve had registration drives before, but this surpasses them all.”

Their goal now is to get those hundreds of registered students to the polls. “This is a completely non-partisan effort,” said Hanson.  “We just want as many young voices heard as possible.”

For more information contact Kropuenske at 605-366-3619 or alishakropuenske@hotmail.com

 

There are several upcoming opportunities in Brookings and Sioux Falls to help defeat the abortion ban.  Please attend one or all!

Thurs, OCT 9: “Visibility + Phonebanking!” – Brookings 
WHEN: 6p.m. – 9p.m.  (Any/all)
Where: 6th and Medary
Rally with posters and energy, followed by a calling voters to inform them about IM 11and early voting.

Mon, OCT 13:  RALLY for FAMILIES! – Sioux Falls
WHERE: FEDERAL COURT HOUSE (Phillips and12th)
WHEN: NOON – 1:00 pm
Join the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families to rally against Initiated Measure 11.   Sign up at www.sdhealthyfamilies.org

Thurs, Oct 16  ”Visibility + Phonebanking!” – Brookings 
WHEN: 6p.m. – 9p.m.  (Any/all)
Where: 6th and Main
Once again, we’ll be gathering with posters and energy, followed by a calling voters to inform them about IM 11 and early voting.

This is a big one:

Saturday, Oct 18 “Better than a Ban”  2:00 p.m.
Proven Practices to Decrease Abortion through Prevention of Unplanned Pregnancy.
Larson Memorial Concert Hall
Performing Arts Center
SDSU; Brookings

…which is probably smart, as it seems to be sinking fast.  While she stirred the base at the Republican Convention, Palin’s series of problematic interviews have given everyone reason to (re)consider her apptitude. 

As a former supporter suggests,

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

Furthermore…

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

 

 

Well said.  But no one seems to be calling her on it, not loudly anyhow.  The Miami Herald suggests

…the same right-wing gasbags who’ve trashed Hillary Clinton for 16 years have morphed into sensitive souls when it comes to their own hockey-mom candidate. Each unsettling news revelation about Palin is automatically decried as a sexist smear.

Tina Fey’s second round as Palin was disturbingly accurate.

I watched Fey first, and I thought she was just being silly, until I watched the actual interview.

Here’s an excerpt:

Katie Couric: Why isn’t it better, Gov. Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

Gov. Sarah Palin: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the — it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

 (One of) the biggest problems I have with Palin and how the media is has been treating her thus far is, ironically enough, sexism!  Indeed, the mainstream media has been treating Palin in a sexist way, though not for the reasons her party has lamely put up. 

 

No, this sexism can be found in her relationship with the media.  By not asking her the hard questions and not condemning her for bad answers, the media is simply feeding into the notion that women, or at least a republican woman vice-presidential candidate, cannot be expected to respond intelligently.  And that does no one any favors.

 

It’s time to hold Gov. Palin responsible.  Allow her the same harsh realities that all politicians must face. 

Last weekend, Sierra Club’s Back to School Bashed let us do two of our favorite things:  Celebrate the environment and register voters!  The music and weather were fantastic, and we had a great time Rocking the Vote!

This weekend, representatives from Campus Women’s Coalition joined Campaign for Healthy Families for Live Action Camp, an intense 36 hour volunteering bonanza!  We talked with hundreds of voters and garnered hundreds of new supporters!!  Thanks everyone for the good times. 

Photos to come soon (my computer is refusing to load them right now. Profuse apologies!)