Kate Looby is the South Dakota State Director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS).

Last week I had a painful experience. Casey Murschel, Executive Director for NARAL Pro-Choice SD, and I faced off at a forum against State Representative Roger Hunt, the prime sponsor of the abortion ban legislation, and Alan Unruh, the spouse of Leslee Unruh, long-time anti-abortion activist and manager of the campaign working to pass Referred Law 6, the abortion ban. The forum was held at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion; however, many people in the audience were not students but rather people from off campus sporting Vote Yes for Life (VYFL) shirts.

While it was not an actual "debate," we each gave opening remarks and then took questions from the audience for approximately forty-five minutes.

One of the unbelievable comments from the supporters of the bill was that there is a "provision" in the law for rape and incest victims because they can use EC up until the time they can get a positive pregnancy test through "conventional medical testing" - at least nine to ten days after sex. When we pointed out that EC is approved by the FDA for use up to 72 hours, Roger Hunt noted that he had drafted the bill to apply not only to current medical technology, but future technology as well. Always the forward thinker he is.

He also believes there is a health of the woman exception because any treatment provided to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional death or injury to the fetus is exempt from criminal prosecution. I pointed out that if a physician KNOWS that treatment is LIKELY to produce death or injury to the fetus it could not possibly be considered "accidental or unintentional."

It would be bad enough if Roger limited his deceit to a relatively small campus forum but they have taken this show on the road. They have TV ads saying the ban has a health exception. They have a direct mail piece that actually says "under this law, women have the option of terminating pregnancies that are the result of rape and incest." Unbelievable.

So the virulent debate continues. As I like to point out to the VYFL supporters who talk a lot about how abortion hurts women....what really hurts women is when they are lied to over and over and over again.

Kate Looby is the South Dakota State Director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS).

The one thing we have learned in the South Dakota fight against the ban on nearly all abortions is that our opponents will stop at nothing to keep the ban in place. In recent weeks a 13 year old boy showed up at a press conference dressed up as the Cat in the Hat. His message was the Seuss line that "a person's a person no matter how small." Unfortunately, the press conference he showed up at was one in which a victim of rape was courageously telling her story and instead of showing respect to the victim, the ban supporters tried to turn it into a circus.

Recorded message calls, particularly electronic push-polls, are all the rage from our opponents. They call virtually every phone number in the state and tell the respondent that there is an exception for rape and incest victims in the ban - of course there isn't, but that's a minor detail.

This past weekend I received a message on my voice mail at home that said I should vote "yes on six" if I want to support victims of rape and incest. Again, a yes vote enacts the ban which allows no exception for women who become pregnant due to sexual assault.

They also are sending out sample ballots to people with a large red arrow covering up the most important content of the Attorney General's statement about the ban. The paragraph they intentionally cover is the one in which the AG explains that there is only one exception in the ban and that is to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. It also mentions that South Dakota taxpayers would be required to pay millions of dollars to defend this law in court. That's been hid as well.

Our opponents know where they are vulnerable and they will do everything possible to mislead voters every chance they get.

Editor's note: Watch the opposition's tv ad below.

Kate Looby is the South Dakota State Director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS). With this post she begins a regular series of updates she will provide RH Reality Check about the South Dakota ballot initiative.

The voters of South Dakota are being asked to decide whether or not they support a near total ban on abortion in our state. The only exception in the ban is to save the life of the woman. Section 3 of the bill which passed through the legislature and which Governor Rounds signed last winter does allow for the use of contraception - most of us weren't aware that we needed permission from the legislature to use birth control, but the opponents of legal abortion found it necessary to mention that in the bill.

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families (SDCHF) is the ballot committee which collected enough signatures, in fact more than twice as many as needed, to place the law on the ballot before it took effect. SDCHF was formed by a group of concerned citizens and organizations in SD. We are led by men and women from different political parties, various professions and from all corners of the state.

The position of SDCHF is that this law is too rigid and too restrictive. It has no exceptions for victims of rape and incest or to preserve the health of the woman. SDCHF has a television ad which began running recently. The group organized to support the ban, Vote Yes for Life, has sent a letter from their attorney to all of the television stations and to the state's Attorney General, claiming that the ad is "false and misleading" and requesting that the station "exercise its duty to protect the public and immediately remove the Advertisement from the public airwaves."

They object to the ad because it points out clearly that for victims of rape and incest and women whose health is put at risk by continuing the pregnancy, there are no options. This is in fact the truth, but they contend that because emergency contraception (EC) is "specifically authorized" in the law, that women do have options in South Dakota.

Our opponents in South Dakota have never wanted to get themselves bogged down by the facts before; it's quite surprising to see them employ this strategy against us. These are the same people who have fought us for years over EC in the Emergency Room by making the claim that EC is the same as abortion. Now they are clinging to EC as the tool that they hope will save their abortion ban. My how things change. I believe the voters will see right through them.