KARE 11 violates ethical standards to sway SD voters

More lies. More and more lies. Thou shall not lie.

Mr. Goldberg did NOT interview Leslee last summer and you know it. You pulled this Rachel story out of thin air and you know it.

Steve… you are a man of God… do what you want for this cause, but stop lying.

I have an email from Scott Goldberg admitting the interview took place on July 29, 2008.

It is fully unethical for him to develop a story line about Tiffany Campbell, plop in an quote from Leslee Unruh that is dated to a time before she knew of Tiffany Campbell, and then immediately after her quote pick up the Campbell story line again.

Suzie - I'm clearing up deception here, I'm not the source of it. 

If you go to his bio on the Kare 11 website, they ask about his inspiration: "Truth, fairness, the need to hold the powerful accountable." Let's hope for a quick retraction.

Steve…. apparently you haven't noticed that in that piece, Scott had spent the day canvassing with Mrs. Campbell…. hmmm… perhaps she shared her story with him that day, even though the Campaign for Healthy Families didn't release her story to the public until a later date.
After spending a day with her… he asked Leslee about the circumstances.
I know you know how to do our job better than us left-wing journalists… but what he did was perfectly ethical and fair… and balanced.
You're just trying to cover up the fact that VYFL got caught.

Suzie - You are striving. Goldberg curiously sat on his interview with Unruh for 45 days and came back in September to interview Campbell - he could have done his story the first week of August but he waited until 25 days before the election to try and make VoteYes look bad. Even the timing of releasing his interview with Unruh is unethical.

UNHealthy Families was not canvassing neighborhoods back in July. Do I need to look that date up for you? The brochure she is handing out didn't get printed until late August. I've covering up nothing. Rather, I'm uncovering and shining the light on "journalism" that is fully skewed against the plight of the unborn.

The entire conversation with Unruh is on tape and Mr. Goldberg is aware of that fact.

How do you know when CHF printed their brochures. They most certainly were canvassing in July.

I know several people who was canvassing for them/with them.

You are wrong here.

I also know that Mr. Goldberg was not back in South Daktoa in September.

Some things you are just wrong on Steve.

Please stick to what you know.

I'll stick to what I know. Goldberg took a quote from another situation back in late July and plopped it into a more recent scenario.

Suzie,
Time to get a reality check. You will believe anything and defend anything for your cause. The truth of the matter is, IM 11 would not have any bearing on Tiffany Campbell, or anyone else in a situation similar to hers unless they truly desired to end the life of one of their children.

So Suzie, I have some property in the Bahamas I would like to sell you. What Mr. Goldberg did was incredibly unethical and misleading. Why don't you email Mr. Goldberg and ask him yourself? And, if you are a journalist, I would be interested in reading some of your pieces. It appears that Pastor Hickey is doing a better job than you "left wing journalists". At least he knows the importance of putting the right comments with the right situations.

It is incorrect to assert that Tiffany Campbell's story was a secret until this fall. Newsweek reported on it in 2006. You can read the story here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/44408/page/5

Thanks Scott for that link - that certainly is very interesting and in light of this I admit you are correct that the Campbell story was apparently not a secret.

This doesn't change the fact that Tiffany Campbell was not the subject of the July 29 Unruh interview with Scott Goldberg. Tapes show that a different woman's situation was being discussed.

Now it's on KDLT's website exactly as the interview was printed above. Even more interesting…it says "reporter" instead of Scott Goldberg. It doesnt even credit the source of the interview, it almost gives the impression they solicitated the comments themselves.

http://www.kdlt.com/news/1010n5.html

I actually disagree with you that the interview was not about Tiffany Campbell. Where are these tapes of which you speak? Do you have any proof?

Scott, your New Jersey IP is interesting to me. Who are you?

Yes there is proof. Contact Scott Goldberg or Vote Yes. When you contact Goldberg, ask him about the reason for delayed timing of this story? What is KARE 11, an extention of the propaganda wing of Planned Parenthood?

As a resident of Minnesota, I find it interesting that a Twin cities TV station is trying to influence the IM11 vote in South Dakota. I guess it makes total sense when you consider where the abortion doctors fly in from to make big bucks killing SD babies. The spirit of Mammon and Molech are fighting this Measure from MN and using KARE TV to do their dirty work.

I am a physician in the state of South Dakota and I have delivered hundreds of SD's children.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out in this story is that Mrs. Campbell did have options and would still have options under IM11. So my assumption is, that if Leslie Unruh did say that, then she misspoke or was taken out of context.

You must first understand what twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is. TTTS can happen when identical twins share a common placenta. Normally, each twin will have its own area of the placenta it will use. In TTTS either the placenta is unequally shared or you can have nearly direct communication of blood vessels from the umbilical cords.

At first this does not seem to be a big deal, but what can happen is that one of the twins gets more blood flow than the other. This makes the ones heart work harder as it tries to pump more blood to its sibling. This can cause heart failure. Then the other twin gets less fluid and nutrition. This can lead to the death of both children if not treated.

Mrs. Campbell did not have to choose between one or both children. Current technology allows for the laser ablation of vessels within the placenta. This basically allows for the surgeon to make 2 separate placentas. Thus eliminating the difficulties with TTTS. This makes me wonder if her physicians gave her all of her options.

This would be 100% allowed under IM11. The only option it would eliminate is the direct attempt to take the life of one of the children. The campaign for unhealthy families is constantly trying to confuse the issues with falsehoods. They are using Mrs. Campbell as a pawn in their deception.

Look at unhealthy families latest commercial implying that a physician can not treat a patient with diabetes, primary pulmonary hypertension, cancer or hypertension. This is an absolute falsehood. I would be held legally negligent if I did not aggressively treat these even under IM11. Personally, I would expect to be sued if I did not treat these patients appropriately.

If I knew a physician in SD that would not aggressively treat these medical illnesses, I would want them to stop practicing medicine. IM11 does absolutely nothing to interfere with these illnesses. If you have questions please read the law. It is actually very easy to read. Unhealthy families seems to think that South Dakotans are too stupid to understand the law as implied by their own commercials. Just read it.

Thank you Doc for your reasonable and logical response to all the rhetorical and impassioned illogical hubbub within these comments.

I do not understand why there is so much trouble for people to realize, that even in cases of rape, incest, and even life endangerment - why would it be the woman's 'choice' to terminate the life of a baby. I can understand…and accept that it is certainly her choice what she wants done to her body - but it is not her choice in any case to decide what happens to the baby. If she doesn't want to carry the baby - she doesn't have to. We certainly have the technology (and have since the early 80's) for the baby to be removed while preserving both lives…the baby can develop in a surrogate or even an artificial incubator.

When has it ever been anyone's 'right' to terminate another life?

Chris,

I appreciate your view point but we need to keep things as facts. The campaign for unhealthy families has consistently used emotion and non-factual advertising to try to worry people about this law. They do not care how they do it but all they want to do is create doubt in voters minds.

I would like to correct you on some of your assumptions and please do not take it personally. At this time, the technology is not available as you have stated. We can not remove an egg that has been fertilized and implanted in the uterus as the baby would not survive. You can not transfer the fertilized egg from a woman to a surrogate either.

Although, we can remove an egg from the ovary prior to fertilization and then fertilize it in a "test tube" (hence the term test tube baby). There currently is nothing that can act as a womb. However, a baby after about 23 to 24 weeks can survive outside the womb.

We must stick to facts in our conversations with others. Otherwise, we look no better than those from planned parenthood and the campaign for unhealthy families.

Doc.

I am sorry - I don't want to argue. And I certainly am not taking it personally; but we do have the technology to do so.

According to this WIKI article, John Buster performed the first successful embryo transfer from one human to another, in 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buster

I am fully opposed to the campaign for unhealthy families, their motives, and their agenda. I am fully opposed to abortion and do not believe that it is ever an honest nor viable option. It may just be the easiest and/or cheapest.

And, about that 23-24 week rule…do we remember Amillia Sonja Taylor? Here is a recent update for Amillia…she will be turning 2 soon:

http://growingyourbaby.com/2007/10/25/amillia-taylor-turns-1/

It is commonly said that before 23 weeks a fetus is not a baby and is neither viable nor capable a sustaining life outside of the mother's womb. Amillia was delivered at 22 weeks and 6 days gestation. 4 months after delivery, she was released from the hospital to her home with her mom & dad.

Thanks for posting Doc.

The measure failed. Case closed. The voters spoke. It was a poorly written law that would make sure that no doctor performed even a LEGAL abortion because of the way it was written. No doctor would want to because of the risk of prosecution even with a completly legal case for abortion. I think the elephant in the room here is that the people in full support of this bill do not want ANY abortions to happen. They believe that if the mother dies in childbirth that it was just "gods plan".

Just a side note….I think the pro life campaign should put the real message out there. That no abortions should ever happen and to let gods plan play out. See how many people get behind it then.

It's funny because the exact opposite happened with the case of Terri Schiavo. She would pass on without the intervention of doctors and medical technology. "Gods plan" would have been for her to pass on as her body could no longer stay alive without help. The same kinds of groups that are behind bills like 11 also championed keeping this woman on life support. Could someone explain the disconnect here? I feel like it is all a game that religious groups play with the public.

A.

I agree with you (in part). Pro-Lifers somehow are off track on some fronts. Abortion should never be a responsible or reasonable option. NEVER. There is no case that an alternative means is not available. When the mother's life is in danger - she doesn't have to carry the baby - but the baby's life can be preserved. In the case of rape - the same thing. Somehow, however…the ProLife forces miss this too.

We have the technology today (and have for over 20 years) to safely extract and embryo (at almost any stage in development) and then implant or incubate that embryo in either natural sustainable means or artificially.

Why don't they suggest this - because abortion is the cheapest and easiest….and thanks for government funded and/or regulated health care programs because the cost of these procedures is higher - they won't even recommend it. But they will quickly suggest an abortion (and hope the mother doesn't need years of counseling and mental rehab later)….

The same could be said for the Terri Schiavo case. The family wanted her to stay on life support (and whomever was crying out for her to stay as well)…but - it cost too much to keep her alive. That's really what it boiled down to - they would try to make it seem like it was in her best interest - but it was sincerely in the interest of the health plan investors (IMO).

I would never want to be on life support (personally). And, I ennoble the one who would be faced with the decision to 'turn it off'.

My wife and I also have agreed in advance - that in the even of a pregnancy that would endanger the life of her - we'll take our chances with giving life to the baby.

God's ways are not our ways - our meager human intelligence and "scientific discoveries" (great as they may seem) are pish posh compared to the supreme sovereignty of the God we serve.

I know He can do amazingly more than you or I could ever possibly imagine. I personally know those who were blind, that can now see. I know one man who didn't have a tongue - and now, after a miracle through prayer - he has one (that grew in a moment). I know people who do not have AIDS anymore. I know babies that are now young children who the doctors said they would not survive birth - even suggested aborting to the parents…but we trust in a higher power than the mere tangible.

You are correct - however nearsighted - in your assessment. There are hypocritical views (from both sides) in the life issue.

But what is true remains constant…what is relative does not.

About that - My wife and I also have agreed in advance - that in the event of a pregnancy that would endanger her life - we'll take our chances with giving life to the baby.

In this case - the mother's life might be in danger. So we decide (with abortion) that the baby's life has no chance…it's euthanasia at its "purest"….values clarification at its worst.

I say - mother might die?? OK - that may be, but the baby will live, and I will do everything we have to to preserve that life.

I can not sentence one to save the other - but we must be willing to risk one to save the other.

[…] "right" to kill unborn children for the sake of convenience.As a South Dakota doctor commenting at Voices Carry put it:If I knew a physician in SD that would not aggressively treat these medical […]