February 19, 2009

SD pro-abort insiders explain how they won in November

Politics Magazine just published a very interesting article called South Dakota's Measure 11: Unusual Messaging and Non-Traditional Coalition Partners Led a Red State to Reject an Abortion Ban  written by Connie Lewis of Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD and Nathan Peterson who was a consultant for the South Dakota Campaign for UNHealthy Families.

Point by point they explain why they won in SD last fall.  Here are the highlights:

"We had to move swiftly and aggressively to reframe the debate in a way that would penetrate voters' personal feelings and the issue of abortion and remind them why they rejected Referred Law 6 in 2006."

1. Focus on the Law's Consequences - "The campaign to defeat IM11 involved two primary messages that were crafted after conducting extensive public opinion research: 1) It is impossible to craft an abortion ban that takes into consideration all circumstances that a woman and her family might face (ie exceptions for fetal anomalies) 2) Banning abortion allows for governmental interference into personal and private medical decisions that are best left to a woman, her family and her doctor…. Equally informative is an examination of the messages that did not resonate with undecided or persuadable voters in South Dakota. We learned early on in 2006, and confirmed in 2008, that messaging around choice, abortion as a constitutional right, or the threat of illegal abortion would motivate our base (about one in three South Dakota voters), but did very little to persuade anyone to change sides.  We would not suggest that other states facing abortion ban campaigns adopt our messages verbatim without conducting the necessary research first…. by avoiding debate over the morality of abortion, our messages resonated in South Dakota… it allowed voters to feel conflicted but discredited a specific attempt to ban abortion… (voters) remarked they were personally opposed to abortion but uncomfortable allowing the government to make that decision for anyone else. Persuading those swing voters to oppose IM11 was crucial to our victory.

2. Exercise Extreme Message Discipline - "Our effort succeeded because everyone involved in the effort bought in to the campaign's message. The strength of our campaign was directly related to the strength of our coalitionWhile some pro-choice activists were initially wary of adopting more moderate messaging, our research show that traditional, aggressive pro-choice messaging would not have resonated with our target audience."

3. Develop a Broad Coalition, Including Non-Traditional Partners - "There is little doubt that our most credible messager during the 2008 campaign was the medical community… "in a turn of good fortune, an internal memo drafted by attorney's for the largest hospital system in South Dakota that outlined the many impacts of IM11 was leaked to the press approximately four weeks before the election."

4. Use Grassroots Communications to Fill the Gaps - "Let's be frank. We could not have overcome our initial deficit in public support without an aggressive paid media strategy."

I have time here to just give my first three thoughts on all this before I get on a plane.  I welcome your two cents as well.

First, that last sentence tells you they admit the centrol role millions of out-of-state dollars played in being able to run a successful deception campaign in a state that believes killing babies is wrong. I hope North Dakota personhood people are taking notes right now.

Second, LOL at the use of the phrase "in a turn of good fortune" referring to the leaked Sanford memo.  Like that was an accident.  But they are correct, they were able to hi-jack the medical community in this state and turn them into— "our most credible messagers." I guess that's an admission that those who sell abortions have no medical credibility. But sad that the docs were manipulated and used to ensure abortion remains a legal form of back up birth control in our state.

Third, they admit the need to separate voters from their morals in order for abortion to continue being legal.  Wow.

Permalink Print Comment

Comments on SD pro-abort insiders explain how they won in November »

[…] here to see the original:  SD pro-abort insiders explain how they won in November Rate this topic: (No Ratings Yet) Tagged with: [ abortion, abortion-national-debate, […]

Bob Ellis @ 1:18 pm

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

I think they could be a little more straightforward and rename the article "South Dakota’s Measure 11: How We Pulled the Wool Over Their Eyes."

Steve @ 1:50 pm

Bob - hah - they are incapable of being straightforward. They walk a crooked path.

I look forward to any ruminations you have on this. There are some interesting things they didn't include in the article and there is a complimentary article that could be written on why we lost… they won't be getting that handed to them on a silver platter from me. All I have to say there is the reasons they think they won are not the same as the reasons we lost. You and I know they are only saying publicly what they can say. But they said enough… it takes MILLIONS to deceive good people and separate them from their morals… it takes sneaking by on the manipulated credibility of the real medical community…

I've been thinking more about the comment "in a turn of good fortune." On our side we would have given credit and praise to God for such a strategic break at a key time. But it doesn't even cross their minds to give God glory. And they are self-deluded enough to not realize who they actually do work for - the DEVIL. So they are left to praise the name of fate on this one. But again, even there, it was hardly accidental or good fortune with regard to the Sanford memo leak. They and key people (and initiatives) at Sanford are joined at the hip.

[…] Here is the original post: SD pro-abort insiders explain how they won in November […]

There's more than meets the eye @ 2:30 pm

That phrase of "turn of good fortune" has more to it than meets the eye. By a study of the phrase we see that this refers to the wheel of Fortuna, a Roman goddess. Interestingly enough the arena where Fortuna had contol was over fate, chance, fertility and the destiny of new born children. No mistake about it, a turn of Fortuna's wheel at Sanford took control of the fate, fertility (due to the adverse effects of future fertility on post abortive women) and the destiny of the infants in South Dakota.

Fate interestingly is inextricably connected to Fortuna. The Fates were three goddesses who also "determined the course of a human life". They were called the "weird" sisters when the word weird meant twisted/turned. One of the sisters was Moira whose name is linked to doom. They are the creepy witches in MacBeth.

Witchcraft, paganism, and the goddesses doomed the fate and destiny of babies and women in South Dakota in November.

February 20, 2009

Haggs @ 10:40 am

So everyone who uses the phrase "in a turn of good fortune" is secretly a pagan? Interesting theory.

February 21, 2009

Amy @ 12:04 pm

No, Haggs, but everyone who relies on "fortune/a; luck; stars aligning; karma, etc." are relying on those things which try to usurp the role of the Creator in human lives. It is only when we rely on Gods goodness manifest through Divine Providence and His Sovereignty, that we are not, in reality, giving worship to someone or something other than Him.

Proverbs 3:
5Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.

6In all your ways know, recognize, and acknowledge Him, and He will direct and make straight and plain your paths.

7Be not wise in your own eyes; reverently fear and worship the Lord and turn [entirely] away from evil.(C)

8It shall be health to your nerves and sinews, and marrow and moistening to your bones.

February 23, 2009

Haggs @ 6:33 pm

So I'm a bad Christian when I say "Good luck" to someone? They're just phrases. They are not usurping anything from God.

Travis @ 10:05 pm

Haggs -

Are you a Christian?

February 28, 2009

Haggs @ 2:10 am

Yes, I'm a Christian.

March 2, 2009

Travis @ 3:06 pm

How would you define being a Christian?

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting