RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in South Dakota

By Tyler LePard

October 20, 2006 - 8:00am

Published under: | | |
Tyler LePard's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Tyler LePard's picture

Supporters of anti-choice legislation have sunk to new lows this week. The anti-choice campaign in South Dakota used to rely on distorting the facts, but now they are getting desperate and resorting to bald-faced lies.

First, the proponents of the abortion ban mocked a rape survivor by appearing at a press conference dressed in a Cat in the Hat costume. Then they hid information and launched a TV ad that says referred law 6 has an exception for rape and incest (it does not). Now, their latest TV ad shows doctors supporting the ban, reiterating an exception for "the life and the health of the mother." As Kate Looby and Rep. Murschel previously explained, there are no exceptions to protect women's health in referred law 6.

Additionally, the opposition's new ad tries to manipulate viewers by making it seem that doctors support the abortion ban. The crowd of doctors in the ad may support Referred Law 6, but the South Dakota Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (SDACOG) do not - they oppose the ban.

The ad continues by telling viewers that "the morning after pill may be taken in any event...Including sexual assault or incest." However, having access to emergency contraception (EC) "does not minimize or lessen this ban's impact on rape and incest victims," according to the SDACOG. And let's not forget that EC may not be available in many areas of South Dakota and pharmacists are legally allowed to refuse to give EC to customers.

In addition to the false ad, Vote Yes campaign operatives and volunteers have destroyed opposition literature and replaced it with their own, put up signs on private property without permission, blocked traffic in church parking lots and refused to leave, and misdirected voters to a bogus website to confuse people into thinking that SDCHF supports the abortion ban.

Lindsay Roitman, campaign manager of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families (SDCHF), issued this statement:

“The Campaign for Healthy Families deplores these kinds of dirty campaign tactics,” said Lindsay Roitman, campaign manager. “They are running away from the issues and employing misdirection and lies because they cannot defend their position on this restrictive, rigid abortion ban. Even other abortion ban supporters around the state and country say there are no rape, incest or health exceptions. This law is dangerous for women.”

 

See SDCHF's TV Ad below, which addresses the opposition's deceptive ad campaign.


Tyler LePard's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
2 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
Unbelievable!

Wow. I am amazed at the level to which such campaigns are willing to stoop. Aren't there laws that prevent such untruthful advertising? Or are such ads put out with the hope that before they are forced off the air, they will mislead enough people to make a difference?

Submitted by mernlar on October 20, 2006 - 3:01pm.
The Truth of Campaign Ads ... an inside look

Mernlar:

Campaigns stand at the ready, with legal teams, ready to challenge any ad and force it off the air if they can prove that it is false. The case is usually made on a station by station basis to the news outlet's lawyers. This has an additionally troubling component because, how do TV stations make their money? Ad revenue, so the Fox (pun intended) watching the Hen House analogy comes to mind. As you might imagine, it takes time, and unless it is something that is so blatant, the ads usually run several days before coming down. In most well funded efforts you'd want to change ads every week anyway, so often, the damage is done. Some ads are so controversial the campaign doesn't even make a heavy buy, just relies on the controversay to get the message it wants out to voters. The risk a campaign takes by making a challenge is calling more "earned media" attention to it by seeing newscasters talk about the opponent's lies morning, noon and night, thus increasing its reach. Of course, that could also, if successful, undermine the ad buy, but often news presenters, in an attempt to be "fair and balanced" well say, "here's a lie, but here's an an itsy bitsy iota of truth" leaving the viewer with no clear sense. That's why Annenberg's Fact Check.org and other similar efforts are important, but in a seaon like this -- its overwhelming. Typically that's why you see ads like the one here because ultimately the calculation is that you have to fight within the medium the attack was made so opponents use the other side's ad to make their points and call the other side liars -- great way to run a democracy, huh? Fighting paid media with earned media seldom, if ever, works, though with the internet and the ability for people to debunk these ads and pass them around electronically, that equation may change. Bottom line, in a campaign with lots of moving parts, the truth, as social conservatives have shown us time and again, is relative. They have and will say anything to get elected, using fear, lies and manipulations. But at least they are consistent, that's how they govern too ;-)


Scott@rhrealitycheck.org

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on October 21, 2006 - 8:01am.
  • flagged