Hey, petitioners for codifying Roe v. Wade! Dale Bartscher says you’re a bunch of liars:
One anti-abortion group is already organizing against the petition drive. Dale Bartscher is the president of South Dakota Right To Life.
“We’ve seen these circulations firsthand. Many of them lie. They mislead. They don’t tell the truth to the public about the measure that they’re circulating,” Bartscher said. “That’s where South Dakotans can take our stand.”
Bartscher said the amendment would legalize late term abortions. The amendment allows lawmakers to prohibit third trimester abortions [Lee Strubinger, “Abortion Rights Backers Optimistic About Petition Drive Following Mid-Term Elections,” SDPB, 2022.11.18].
Dale Bartscher is a perfectly personable dude. I’ve had pleasant conversations with Dale at various fairs. It’s just a shame that he’ll turn around and say such mean and false things about decent people. Naturally, Bartscher doesn’t give any specific examples of lying circulators and lies told. Come on, Dale, name some names, give some details!
The folks circulating Dakotans for Health’s initiative petition to restore abortion rights in South Dakota have one simple pitch: codify Roe v. Wade. That’s no lie: that’s exactly the policy option petitioners want to put before the voters.
Bartscher and his fellow theocrats raise the scarecrow of “late-term abortions!”, but for the five decades when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, third-term abortions were stunningly rare, constituting less than 1% of all abortions and usually taking place in extreme medical situations that are none of Dale’s or my or government’s business.
But if theocrat Dale thinks there are pregnant women getting to their 36th week and larkishly deciding to terminate their pregnancies and that such imagined decisions are any of the state’s business, codifying Roe v. Wade allows the state to make such imagined decisions its business. The third and final line of the proposed constitutional amendment reads, “After the end of the second trimester, the State may regulate or prohibit abortion, except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’ physician, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
That language is plainly printed on the petition. Signers can read it; circulators can point it out and read it for them. Dale, if you have examples of circulators telling voters anything to the contrary, why not have a conversation with those circulators? Why not correct them on the spot? I suspect that the petitioners are more interested in telling the truth about abortion rights than you and Jon Hansen are.