Please get your facts straight. SIgning the petition does not put the amendment into our constitution. It puts the issue on the 2024 ballot and lets the voters of SD decide if they want government making choices for women and legislators micromanaging doctors or not.
All this petition does is bring the issue to the 2024 ballot and lets we, the people, decide what we want to do about the issue of abortion. After all, our state slogan is "Under God, the people rule", so signing this petition is allowing the people to make the decision about what to do.
Meanwhile, my question for Ms. Wipf and all who are screaming, "don't sign the petition" - why do you have to lie about (1) what the petition does and (2) what the eventual ballot proposal says? Tell the truth, and I might listen to you.
Joe Sneve is angry about the pushback to this letter.
When I write to my local paper (Brookings Register), they have suggested revisions and softening of language before printing. They didn't like that I included an explanation mark at the end of someone's statement at a city council meeting or characterized him as being upset.
I do not believe they would have printed this letter unedited, which includes a blatant and objective falsehood about the content of the petition. I expect they would have asked the person to rewrite that portion before printing. Perhaps others can weigh in on what is standard practice for other places, like the Argus.
Scott, that's why I said it was 'unethical' to sign the petition twice, not illegal. Also, just as I would not accuse you of being a 'one issue folk' because you are commenting on this subject, it is not fair, nor true, that I am a one-issue person, either.
Please get your facts straight. SIgning the petition does not put the amendment into our constitution. It puts the issue on the 2024 ballot and lets the voters of SD decide if they want government making choices for women and legislators micromanaging doctors or not.
All this petition does is bring the issue to the 2024 ballot and lets we, the people, decide what we want to do about the issue of abortion. After all, our state slogan is "Under God, the people rule", so signing this petition is allowing the people to make the decision about what to do.
Meanwhile, my question for Ms. Wipf and all who are screaming, "don't sign the petition" - why do you have to lie about (1) what the petition does and (2) what the eventual ballot proposal says? Tell the truth, and I might listen to you.
Joe Sneve is angry about the pushback to this letter.
When I write to my local paper (Brookings Register), they have suggested revisions and softening of language before printing. They didn't like that I included an explanation mark at the end of someone's statement at a city council meeting or characterized him as being upset.
I do not believe they would have printed this letter unedited, which includes a blatant and objective falsehood about the content of the petition. I expect they would have asked the person to rewrite that portion before printing. Perhaps others can weigh in on what is standard practice for other places, like the Argus.
Do NOT sign this petition!
How ethical of you.
Scott, that's why I said it was 'unethical' to sign the petition twice, not illegal. Also, just as I would not accuse you of being a 'one issue folk' because you are commenting on this subject, it is not fair, nor true, that I am a one-issue person, either.