Liberal lies on ballot issues

Liberals can’t debate the issues on the facts because they will lose. So there resort to lies as evidences by the opposition to two conservative South Dakota ballot issues.

Here is a press release from Vote Yes For Life in regard to the lies issues against IM11:

Pro-Abortion Forces Deliberately Misleading South Dakota Voters About Initiated Measure 11

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The ads that the abortion proponents ("Healthy Families") placed on their website today, in an effort to defeat Initiated Measure 11, is deliberately misleading in an effort to confuse the voting public. At the same time, the abortion proponents exploited and misrepresented a personal tragedy.

Vote Yes for Life has the following response to that misleading ad:

1. The law that appears on the ballot as Initiated Measure 11 is an extremely well written and well crafted law. The law was drafted by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long at the request of leaders of the State Legislature. Attorney General Long assembled and presided over a panel of eleven legal experts for the purpose of insuring that the law was well crafted. It was drafted over a period of about eight months.

Any suggestion that the law is anything other than well drafted and well thought out is false and deliberately misleading. The voters of South Dakota can trust their Attorney General.

2. The ad claims that South Dakota "already voted on this."

This is a false representation.

In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that prohibited abortion, but it did not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. That law was referred to the election in November of 2006 and was voted on.

The 2008 law is totally different and represents what the voting public said they wanted in place of the 2006 law.

In 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, every poll taken in South Dakota, showed that the vast majority of South Dakota voters (between 58% and 67%) wanted abortion prohibited. But many thought that there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Although 44% of the voters voted for the 2006 law with no exception, the 2008 Initiated Measure 11 prohibits abortions but incorporates the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother, and represents what the South Dakota voters wanted as their law.

3. The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has "Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome" is illegal under the law. That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child.

Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.

If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.

There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.

Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is "with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:

"Medical treatment ... that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act."

It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.

4. The ad says that there is no way for a doctor to "give good advice" and that every case should be judged on an "individual case" basis. The implication is that the law prevents both.

That implication is deliberately misleading. Section 4 of the law specifically preserves the right of a doctor to make "a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk "of injury to a major bodily function of the mother. A doctor is not liable under the law if he performs an abortion to preserve the health of the mother, unless the "physician knowingly disregards accepted standard of medical practice."

This means that only if the doctor knows good medicine does not require the abortion, is he prohibited from performing the abortion.

5. The ad makes the false claims that the voters can’t know what they are voting on.

The abortion proponents make these false claims because they cannot win a debate about this law if they made candid admissions about its content.

The law simply says that it is illegal to deliberately and intentionally kill an unborn child except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a serious risk to the health of the mother.

Having actors read Section 15 (chapters 187 and 188 etc.") is intended to create the false impression that the law is difficult to understand. Section 15 is a technical section meant for the courts to let them know that one other law is not repealed.

Here is a press release from Vote Yes ON 10 in regard to those who oppose IM10:

Measure 10 supporters say opponents' "Big Lie" TV ad campaign approaching $750,000

YES on 10 campaign demands TV stations stop airing "demonstrably false and misleading" ads

RAPID CITY -- An attorney for South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government, the group backing a YES vote this November on Initiated Measure 10, is demanding that television stations in the state no longer air nearly $750,000 in TV commercials opposing the measure which the group says are "demonstrably false and intentionally misleading."

The official ballot description of Initiated Measure 10 authored by the Secretary of State reads as follows: "An initiative to prohibit tax revenues from being used for lobbying or campaigning, to prohibit governmental bodies from lobbying, to prohibit government contractors from making campaign contributions, to prohibit government contracts when the contractor employs a legislator or legislative staff member, and to require contracts with government contractors to be published."

Sam Kephart, YES on 10 state co-chair and earlier this year a Republican primary candidate for the U.S. Senate, accused opponents of the proposal -- which include numerous tax-funded lobbying organizations -- of unethically spending tax dollars to intentionally mislead voters. A survey of the television stations indicates opponents of Measure 10 have bought nearly $750,000 in television advertising between now and the November 4th general election, he said.

"The politicians, tax-funded lobbyists, and government contractors financially threatened by Measure 10 are spending nearly three quarters of a million dollars -- some of it money-laundered tax dollars -- on a 'big lie' scare tactics campaign obviously intended to deceive South Dakota voters," Kephart said.

"But just like when Sarah Palin took on the political establishment in Alaska, including her own party bosses, we aren't backing down," he said. "We're demanding that TV stations obey the law and once they're made aware, stop running ads against Measure 10 that are demonstrably false and misleading."

Kephart pointed to a letter by Stephen Wesolick of Rapid City, the YES on 10 campaign's attorney, who Tuesday by fax wrote the station managers of eight television stations in Sioux Falls and Rapid City citing case law and a Federal Communications Commission policy which requires stations not to broadcast ads that are false or misleading.

"Unless you immediately stop the broadcast of this false and misleading information, we will be compelled to take further and more formal steps...including consideration of filing a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against your station...and seeking civil remedies for any damages resulting from such publications," Wesolick wrote each station.

Wesolick's letter cited the FCC's web site, which states: "Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading." http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/advertising.html

Wesolick directly challenged the truthfulness of an ad paid for by the NO on 10 Committee that began airing Monday, featuring Miller public school teacher Ellen Iverson, wife of Hand County Commissioner Jim Iverson.

In the ad, Ellen Iverson falsely claims -- presumably because she's a public school employee and member of the local teachers union -- that if Measure 10 is enacted, "I won't be able to visit with our school board members, our legislators. I won't even be able to visit with my husband about county issues." (See full text of NO on 10 ad below)

"Under the clear and express language of Measure 10, it is totally, completely, and demonstrably false," Wesolick wrote, "that the measure would in any way restrict Mrs. Iverson's or any government employee's constitutionally-guaranteed right as an individual American citizen to discuss anything she wants with her school board members, her legislators, and of course, her own husband."

As proof that Iverson's claims are false, Wesolick pointed station managers to the express language of Initiated Measure 10:

* "The restrictions and prohibitions against taxpayer funded lobbying..."do not apply to...a public employee acting in an uncompensated personal capacity, undirected in any manner by, and who does not purport to represent the interests of, a public employer." (Section 3) http://www.cleanupsd.com/content.asp?pl=2&sl=11&contentid=11

The proposal's restrictions on government contractors apply to government employee union contracts "but not employment contracts with individual employees" such as Mrs. Iverson. (Section 10)

Wesolick wrote station managers that under federal case law, "broadcasters may be held liable for non-candidate issue advertisements that contain false and unsubstantiated statements" which could result in court-ordered civil penalties and damages for defamation plus licensure action by the FCC.

"On that basis," Wesolick wrote, "we respectfully suggest that your responsibility to the community -- as observed by the Federal Communications Commission -- obligates you to no longer broadcast such false and intentionally misleading advertisements from those who want to continue using tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns and continue letting government contractors financially reward politicians who award their contracts. We cannot allow your station...to continue the broadcast of false and deceptive statements with impunity."

Wesolick asked stations to provide written confirmation by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday that they would no longer broadcast the ad, in order to avoid legal and FCC action.

These liberal reactions are even worse than Tom Daschle’s hunting ad saying he is pro-Second amendment.