New Facebook Group: Pro-Lifers Against the South Dakota 2008 Abortion Ban Initiative
On the social networking website facebook, there’s a new social networking ‘group’ that has been formed in relation to the proposed 2008 ban on abortion, with exceptions for victims of rape and incest.
This group, formed by Rebecca Kissling who spent time in South Dakota speaking as a child of rape, is expressly opposing the new 2008 measure, calling it a betrayal.
Her message to those who supported the 2006 ban:
In 2006, “Vote Yes for Life” failed in their campaign on legislation which made abortion illegal without exceptions because they took the strategy of spending time and dollars to convince pro-choice voters that life begins at conception instead of using sound political strategy of “appealing to the middle.” They should have placed their efforts and funding toward persuading and educating otherwise pro-life voters to understand that even children conceived in rape are worthy of protection. It’s far easier to convince otherwise pro-life people to become 100% pro-life than it is to convince pro-choice people to support a 100% pro-life measure. It’s common sense and it’s supported by research. Due to “Vote Yes for Life’s” fatal error in strategy, the law was repealed by the voters in the November, 2006 election. While it is true that the voters repealed because of the rape exception, it didn’t have to happen.
Against the advice of South Dakota Right to Life, the “Vote Yes for Life” campaign crafted the current 2008 initiative with specific exceptions for rape and incest, arguing that the 2006 failure demonstrated that it was necessary. This is not accurate. Their strategical error was the cause.
The current measure is particularly offensive to children of rape and incest because the remains of the aborted children will be used to establish paternity for prosecution, so that value is placed on the child’s DNA — which outlines his or her being, but value is not placed on the child’s very life.
Go to www.sdrl.org to see South Dakota Right to Life’s Statement in Opposition to the 2008 Proposed Abortion Ban Initiative.
In 2006, I (Rebecca Kiessling) spoke at South Dakota Right to Life’s Annual Conference. I’m placing a link below to the video of my speech on SDRTL’s website. As you will see, “Vote Yes For Life” had their large placards on the stage in 2006. So much has changed. They have truly betrayed me and the others who also spoke on rape and incest. Having been involved in South Dakota, I know what went on and it’s just a shame that it’s come to this. Their campaign may be offended that I’ve started this group, but how much have they utterly offended me and the multitude of others similarly situated?
Thanx for being 100% pro-life, without exception, without compromise!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
The problem I see is this: In 2006, they went for the ideal (from their perspective anyway) and failed. In 2008, they go for “half-a-loaf” (actually way more than half however).
This seems to be a philosophical question: Is it better to ban 95% of abortions, if it makes it harder to ban the other 5% later, or is it better to insist on all 100% at once, even if it makes the whole thing less likely to pass?
I think they have done it in a way that is hard for any of their people to complain about – they tried for 100% first, and when that failed, they go for the compromise. I don’t think that, at this point, a second try at the absolute ban, even with a change in tactics as this woman suggests, would have much chance of passage.
I would add that these are political and not moral considerations. I don’t think I’d have the guts to make the argument to this woman, who was apparently conceived as a result of rape. You can only admire someone who has the conscience of their convictions.
I find it interesting that she has a say in South Dakota politic’s when she is from Michigan and only six people in the group so far are from South Dakota and actually have a vioce that counts.
we shouldn’t try to penalize abortion until preborn personhood has been established (www.personhood.net). Why? the whole point of passing an abortion penalty is to enforce the legal fact that unborn children are legal persons.. In the eyes of the courts, if they’re not legal persons, then penalizing abortion is the same as penalizing appendectomy .. the courts will use the right to privacy to strike down the penalty every time.. but if we establish that they’re legal persons from conception, and set a penalty, then that trumps the right to privacy
suppose S.D. passed the no exceptions abortion ban in Nov. 2006.. if S.D. then passed a bill or amendment establishing legal preborn personhood, then the courts would’ve upheld both
but suppose this new S.D. abortion ban passes with rape, incest, and health exceptions.. it would get struck down on its own.. even if S.D. then passes a personhood measure to back up the penalty, then the exceptions would have to be removed from the penalty.. the courts would say the penalty must remove the exceptions to meet the standard of equal protection of the laws of legal personhood
Recall what Justice Harry Blackmun told us in Roe v. Wade:
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.
Further, Blackmun pointed out the contradiction in the Texas law that provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to create Roe v. Wade, thus striking down all state laws that dealt with abortion. “If the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law,” he asked rhetorically, “and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”
In other words, if you mean to end abortion, you cannot provide an exception that enables an abortion to be performed.
Danial W – Right On! I was with Vote Yes on the last effort but not this one. Vote Yes is fighting the wrong battle!
I was in favor of Measure 6. It did not pass. Polls showed it did not pass because of the lack of exceptions. There is only so much one can do to educate the masses. The current effort COULD have gone for the whole works again. It would have been defeated again. Sometimes one has to use a little triage. Bruce, this bill can pass. The other one can not. Are you telling me in order to not save 95% of the babies you will sacrifice 100%? Abortion as we know it came in steps and will leave in steps, if it ever does.
bruce and daniel, rebecca is absolutely correct. this act is offensive to those conceived of rape and incest. no doubt about it.
but there are times when compromise is necessary. the 3/5 compromise, for example, was offensive to africans living in the united states. but it is easily argued that it was necessary to move toward the end goal of recognizing their own citizenship.
i agree with rebecca about the strategy of the last effort, but that’s now water under the bridge, and here we are. our most viable option is the current one.
i understand how you might not want to support this act, but i sure hope you plan on voting for it. if not, you’re turning your back on the 97% of unborn humans who might benefit from its passage.
First, Rebecca slams SD Right to Life’s tactics in the previous attempts to ban all abortions. What is the abortion status in her state of Michigan? I think that she needs to take care of her own backyard before criticizing here.
Second, I was against the tactics of the previous RTL proponents because I didn’t think that they compromised enough. The exceptions were confusing to the voters and didn’t have the exceptions that this new bill has. No, I’m not pro-abortion, I am pro life, but until the US Sup. Court changes Roe, every attempt at having a full ban will fail. This new bill takes a step towards making it harder and also makes the next step towards a total ban that less offensive.
This all or nothing approach doesn’t work and as I’ve stated until the legal circumstances change, attacks via bills will also fail. Ultra RTL’er need to get off the soap box and realize that a compromise will not save all babies from abortion, but isn’t hundreds saved better than none? Reducing this collateral damage should be the goal here.
duh, based on the court’s reasoning in roe and doe, i would argue that a bill with exceptions actually has less of a chance of passing muster than an outright ban.
georgia’s law, which included similar exceptions, was actually overturned because the judges said it was legally flawed to say on one hand that all unborn humans deserved protection while on the other hand saying that abortions in the case of rape/incest were okay.
that’s why the first attempt made sense. unfortunately, it failed, leaving us with this less-than-perfect, yet support-worthy compromise.
What is the anonymous donor putting up this time? How will pay for a court challenge this time?
Can’t we agree to disagree and promote prenatal care, education and adoption instead?
If passing the current measure will help to reduce abortions from the level they would be without it, then I’m in favor of it.
WHEN the personhood of a fetus is recognized, and I feel certain that that time is not to far into the future, then it’s unlikely that the courts will be able to recognize as valid an exception to a ban other than a direct threat to a woman’s life.
William.
You wake up pregnant. You’re honestly not sure how or why. But that’s what the test says. You don’t recall ever having sex or even what it is. You’re 14. Your foster father is an Evangelical minister. What to do?
personally, i’d favor the new abortion ban (with rape/incest/health exceptions) if it could be upheld.. but re-read my post above.. i was saying that legally speaking, the courts will not uphold any abortion penalty on its own.. the courts will uphold an abortion penalty, only if another bill is also passed that recognizes unborn children as legal persons, and only if the penalty itself has no exceptions (well, a balanced-protection “exception” would be fine) .. without such a personhood bill, the courts won’t recognize unborn children as worth much anything, and so the courts will see any abortion penalty the same as penalizing appendectomy
I was optimistic to see the title of the Facebook group, because I thought that maybe “pro-lifers” in South Dakota (or in this case, not in South Dakota) were finally catching on to the fact that *banning* abortion is NOT the same thing as *preventing* abortion, or even *reducing* the number of abortions.
Alas, apparently that has not sunk in yet.
A multi-year study released last year (which you can read about here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/12/abortions-study.html) has demonstrated that in countries and areas where abortion is banned, the abortion rate remains the same.
If a ban were to happen in South Dakota, women looking to terminate a pregnancy would do so themselves or find a way across state lines. Please don’t kid yourselves: an abortion ban will not “prevent” one single abortion.
It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again: the best way to reduce the abortion rate is to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, which is best done (in my opinion) by increasing the availability of contraceptives. I’m just SO tired of the right talking about how abortion is so “irresponsible,” and point to the abundance of birth control that’s available, AT THE SAME TIME as they’re trying to limit access to birth control (”pharmacist conscience” bill, anyone?).
DuggerSD – Roe asked a question. When does life begin? The technology is available to answer the question. Roe gave medicine fiat over birth-or-death-decision-making beyond constitutional reproach.
If the Supreme Court reaches down for this effort will it limit medicine’s ability to determine value of procedure according to gestation? Does this effort differentiate between life beginning at conception or by method of conception? This current effort said some life can be destroyed and in some cases up to certain gestation. Just fill out the proper paper work and let ‘er rip, litterly. Is this effort asking the Supreme Court to approve methods of record keeping?
And what happens to SD’s trigger law that bans abortion when Roe is overturned?
I was at the initial meeting for this new effort and heard the data and method for arriving at language. Nobody would answer my wife’s question on three separate times, “How is this effort different from Roe?”
lexrex, don’t try to bully me about the direction my back is facing. Your conviction does not drive my conscience even though we agree about most isssues. This effort does not guarantee any percentages. Another medical fiat loophole is the “health” of the mother.
Duh, this issue is nation wide, meaning Roe and Doe put it in everybody’s back yard.
John, read the record for unPlanned Parenthood’s adoption efforts. It is lacking.
Fleming, know that distinct human life begins at conception then prosecute the perp to the fullest extent of the law. In prison Jerry can change his name to Mary.
Angi, before I read the report let me just say the results could be according to change in reporting requirements. A ban against abortion will not prevent one single abortion is quite the finite statement! Do you really stand by it?
Has anyone heard whether of not Senator Thune will endorse this effort? Remember he needed exceptions too. I wonder if this current Vote Yes group asked Senator Thune to sponsor a bill that defines life as beginning at conception? That’s doing a lot more than voting for a Supreme Court nominee.
I get so sick and tired of the arguments. Morals, politics, science, incest, rape.
It’s about privacy, stupid. It is none of your business what a woman does with her body.
If you don’t believe in abortion, great, don’t have one.
Bruce, I understand that my statement was strong, and yes, I do stand by it.
Go ahead and read through the report, but when you stop to think about it, it makes sense: historically, when we legally ban anything, that doesn’t generally do a whole lot to actually solve the problem; instead, as was the case with prohibition and has been the case with anti-drug laws, they simply increase the amount of *illegal* drinking or drug use (respectively).
That, again, is why I say that people who are against abortion should be doing everything they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, including INCREASING access to contraception and putting COMPREHENSIVE sex ed in place, instead of passing abortion bans that won’t really do anything to stop abortion.
likewise angie, banning burglary is not the same thing as preventing burglary. that’s a hollow argument.
bruce, are you actually saying that the loophole in this abortion ban is big enough that not one baby will saved?
if not, then isn’t it worth trying to save a few hundred? a couple hundred? dozens? or even a handful?
i agree that this act is not perfect, and has less of a chance than the previous ban of being upheld in court. but right now it’s what lies before us. it’s our only chance to hopefully save some lives.
Personhood of a fetus has been determined already by the courts. My Alzheimer’s is kicking in and I can’t come up with the name, but the guy who killed his wife and unborn child in CA was charged with BOTH murders. If the baby was deemed not a person, how could he be charged with the murder? Same thing just happened with the police officer who was convicted of killing his unborn child. His murder conviction was for killing the unborn baby, not the girlfriend. Seems this does mean that unborn babies are alive and are persons.
I think this abortion bill will pass simply because it does address the problems that were the big issue with the first ban. It even addressed the loudest arguments of Planned Parenthood from last time. What ever happened to Kate Looby BTW; did she retire?
This is not a slap in the face to people who were born as a result of rape. This bill is simply an attempt to prevent all the abortions of convenience and make people think a little more seriously about preventing those pregnancies in the first place. With the ease of abortions here in SD, an abortion is simply used as birth control.
Rob/Lexrex, I think you proved part of my point. I just think it’s unfortunate when people who are clearly against abortion equate “banning” abortion with “ending” abortion.
so, angie, are you opposed to laws against burglary or speeding, for instance, on the same grounds?
lexrex, are you saying there is one unborn baby that does not deserve defense and a voice!
At the big meeting I asked, “How many of you here are Christian.” Every hand raised. Then where is the faith? Apparently at the feet of Healthy Families Campaign.
We have truth on our side. Let’s promote it. The best some pro-death advocates can come up with is “It’s about privacy.” Even the court doesn’t agree with that.
When does life begin my friend? Why does medicine proclaim it is not an exact science as a waiver yet the court gives medicine power over life and death as birth control?
Abstinence should be the preconception method of choice. Reality says it it not. Kids are having sex and they should know about contraception.
what i’m saying is bruce is that sometimes compromise is necessary in politics.
i agree that we have truth on our side, but the argument over rape and incest exceptions is moot, at least with this bill.
our choice, in november, is to pass a ban that attempts to legally prevent most abortions or maintain the status quo. what will you decide?
i will take my half a loaf (or 9/10 a loaf), and demand more when i’m done.
Lexrex, are you saying pro-birth advocates should compromise when we both know the abortion industry takes no prisoners?
The truth is never moot.
What I do now is more important than November.
There are no guarantees.
Bruce 8:02.
The reality is that pro-life, under the current legal environment has to unfortunatly compromise in order to save lives. That doesn’t mean giving up, it means chipping away at the abortion block until you achieve your goals. That has always been the problem with Right to Life, butchering their nose way off to spite their faces. This all or nothing war hasn’t ever worked out for RTL and until either they realize that or the Sup Ct. changes, they will continue to be on the short-end of the stick.
Duh, It sounds like you are saying Right to Life are the bad guys. They’ve been around for a long time, since before 2006.
Healthy Families Campaign out manuvered Vote Yes then to save face we must concede by turning against everything we stood for in 2006.
We lost two years, and more, of helping voters understand the issue. The understanding being fed to them now is “This issue was settled so why are we seeing it again”.
We heard that same mantra in 2006 for other ballot initiatives, which was very effective.
Bruce, 11:37
You’ve misinterpreted my opinion. I’m very pro-RTL. I never have thought that RTL were the bad guys. Granted, there probably isn’t a more emotional topic than theirs. However, what I am saying is currently (legal climate), they cannot win the war, so if they pull back and get whatever victories they can in the passing of less than ideal bills which furthers their goals. One step at a time. All or nothing, sounds good, accomplishes nothing. The argument that if RTL backs this current bill with exceptions then RTL is saying that some lives can be forfeited. NO. They should be saying, look at how many more lives we’ve saved, while simultaneously acknowledging the loss of many more lives due to the legal climate. Some of the RTL backers are so whacko in their emotions (i.e. bombing abortion clinics) that they hurt the whole movement. I don’t think I can be clearer than that.
On the other hand Duh, if you are sincere in your beliefs, what you’re basically saying is that you’re ok with just a little murder. It’s like being just a little pregnant, you know?
or, bf, it could be that duh is NOT okay with “a little murder” and will try to prevent as many as possible.
and the question before us in november is do we want to try to prevent 97% of abortions. i think duh would say yes, and that he’ll try to prevent the remaining 2-3% later.
Billy Phlegm: 4:24
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Lexrex has it right, I’m not ok with a little murder, but the chance to save a lot while keep trying to save the rest. I can’t say this any clearer or maybe I need to break out the crayons.
It’s hypothetically really no different than say in Normandy (WWII) where the allies advanced on a beachhead knowing that many would die, but once they got there, they saved multitudes more, or reverse logic on the A Bomb, knowing that to drop it, they would kill a lot to save many, many more (i.e. end the war).
In sum, taking a concrete stance, I say again, concrete stance on absolutely NO abortions costs the lives of thousands of babies every year when just chipping at the law saves hundreds and makes further attacks on the existing laws that less offensive to the populous.
By supporting further restrictions on abortions as this bill does, does not say that you approve of the rest being killed.
Some other ignoramous posted earlier that many RTL’ers are hypocrites because they are pro-life and pro-death penalty. That is insane. A innocent baby deserves life, a piece of shit like Anderson and the others on death row and the snot that have been executed forfeited their lives when they took other lives. I know, I know DNA stuff in other states exonerating prisoners, I’m not talking about that. A non-abusive confession by the slime ball is enough and our judicial system checks, checks, recheck and rechecks this ad nauseum. Pro-abortionist have the harder position, kill the baby but spare the moron who hacked apart a family because he “had it rough growing up” or is “misunderstood”. Give me a friggin break.
RTL’ers who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty are a special breed that I can’t seem to ascend to.
Then again, I think Billy knows what I mean but attempts to keep the blog going and get ants in my shorts. This issue is very simple to me and if everyone would listen, we would have no problems (maybe).
Lexrex, is 97 percent a guaranteed benchmark? I suppose it’s not an all or nothing attitude to attain 97 percent?
Exceptions = choice, does that sound about right?
The question in November should be about establishing the point at which life begins. Roe wants to know. I say at conception.
Medicine forces us to sign a liability waiver in attempt to remain beyond reproach as it is not an “exact science”. But Roe gave medicine the green light to perfect ending life for profit. That practice would end if the beginning of life were established.
Duh, I didn’t hear that RTL condoned bombing abortion facilities. What are you insinuating?
Bruce 6:26
I didn’t say that RTL condoned the bombings. Read this again:
“Some of the “RTL backers” are so whacko in their emotions (i.e. bombing abortion clinics) that they hurt the whole movement.”
If it “hurt” their movement, then obviously they didn’t condone it.
no, bruce. 97% is not guaranteed. but do you really think if this law were to go into effect that we would still have 850 abortions a year? do you think every woman who went to get an abortion would actually claim rape or incest, just to skirt the law?
you know and i know that this law, were it to go into effect, would save hundreds of lives.
brother bruce, you keep talking about what the question in november SHOULD be. i agree with you about what it SHOULD be.
but, we had our chance to introduce a pure ban. it didn’t happen. let’s concentrate on the task at hand, please.
would we refuse to go into a burning building to save the inhabitants on the first floor because we weren’t able to rescue the ones on the second?
Lexrex 8:40
“would we refuse to go into a burning building to save the inhabitants on the first floor because we weren’t able to rescue the ones on the second?”
Good example.
nah. bruce is an intelligent guy. he gets it.
i wouldn’t dare pour water on his fire. we need his passion. we also need his vote in november to save the people on the first floor.
The problem with the first floor analysis is there are no ballot initiatives banning fires exclusively for first floors. Its apples to oranges.
Lexrex, I am in SF the entire week of April 20th. If you are who I think you are then you should have my cell number, maybe we can talk about this offline. If you don’t have my number contact Lee B.
BTW, my mentioning Lee does not mean he endorses my view on this issue so readers don’t need to go there.
It will be interesting to hear the secular side spin this issue if voters give it passage. I suppose many will say that God did not hear the prayers for the first effort but he heard us on the second effort. God must be pro-exceptions too! Does that mean Jesus died for merely a percentage of sinners? What a burden for seekers to bear.
Ok, If it’s murder, call it murder and write the laws and charge the perpetrators accordingly.
Every draft I’ve ever seen holds the woman involved harmless. And the sperm provider is not even mentioned.
You might just as well say she doesn’t exist and has no legal standing.
And that boys will be boys.
If a fertilized egg is indeed a “person,” amend the constitution and give it rights. Also not to make the sex change from female to male (if necessary) at about 14 weeks, providing everything works out.
Oh, and you are getting your 97% number from state stats, surely you have got to be kidding! Other data shows that over 70% of all unwanted pregnancies are the result of statutory rape.
So stand by to send your sons to prison for a few years, and your daughters to death row for being real, living, breathing, human beings even as you fantasize about how many human souls and hypothetical human beings can fit on the head of a pin.
Ridiculous.
bruce, you’re sorta right. there are no ballot initiatives saving people on the 2nd floor. if there were, i’d be for it. but for now, i’ll try to save the people on the 1st floor.
bf, don’t test me, broski. we’ve been over how i believe it’s all murder but at some point you have to compromise, much like the 3/5 compromise.
as for 70% of all unwanted pregnancies being the result of rape, where the heck did you dig up that number? besides, we’re talking about abortions, not unwanted pregnancies. not necessarily the same thing.
Not unless your position is to force young girls (16 or under) who got seduced by their boyfriends to get drunk, or stoned, have sex, and become pregnant to have to send their lover boys to jail or have a baby, lr. I’m just sayin’.
Let’s face it, that’s life, and we all know it.
What to do? I don’t know, but this new bill isn’t the answer.
Oh the irony of unequivocal statements, “that’s life”.
Nearly 50 million unborn babies in the U.S. alone will never hear those words or face opportunites this free country offers that the living have.
M. Sanger also thought it best to extinguish life because she hypothesized that what she promoted, death in the womb, was best for mankind.
Way to prove the point, Fleming.
For lexrex.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2903097.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Age_discrepancy_in_relationships.2Fstatutory_rape
“Age discrepancy in relationships/statutory rape
Studies indicate that an important contributing factor is an age discrepancy between the teenage girl and the man who impregnates her. Teenage girls in relationships with older boys and in particular adult men, are more likely to become pregnant than when involved with someone their own age. They are also more likely to carry the baby to term rather than receive an abortion. A review of California’s 1990 vital statistics found that men older than high school age sired 77 percent of all births to high school-aged girls (ages 16-18) and 51 percent of births to junior high school-aged girls (15 and younger). Men over age 25 fathered twice as many teenage births as did boys under age 18, and men over age 20 fathered five times more births to junior high school-aged girls than did junior high school-aged boys. A 1992 Washington state study of 535 adolescent mothers found that 62 percent of the teenage mothers had had a history of rape or sexual molestation by men whose ages averaged 27 years. This study found that, compared with nonabused mothers, abused adolescent mothers initiated sex earlier, had sex with much older partners, and engaged in riskier, more frequent, and promiscuous sex. Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of births to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older.[24]“
lexrex. I answered you, but my post contains 2 links, and so it is “awaiting” moderation.” You can find the info yourself it you want it. It takes about 3 minutes for a smart guy like you (it took me about 5.)
Fleming, Yes I have a daughter.
I am ready for the hypothetical question that you will pitch next too.
Bruce 7:15
The question posed by Billy is “Not unless your position is to force young girls (16 or under) who got seduced by their boyfriends to get drunk, or stoned, have sex, and become pregnant to have to send their lover boys to jail or have a baby”
Quite the question, albeit asked a million times before.
Answer, have the baby. It’s not the baby’s fault.
However, Billy’s question also asks if you interpret his scenario as rape. If it wasn’t consensual sex, then it’s rape, the boy pays for it. The girl will eventually get over it and have the baby as a bonus.
However, the alternative is to terminate the baby, the boy still goes to jail and the girl and the baby will never get over it.
I don’t disagree with any of that in principle. I’m just begging the question as to whose decision that should be. Yours? Mine? The State’s? The Fed’s, or the woman’s? And my answer continues to be the latter.
Others have already expressed my opinions re: abortion better than I could (I’m pro-choice) but I do think one statement that’s cropped up a few times ought to be addressed:
Lexrex, the 3/5 compromise did *nothing* towards helping African-Americans gain citizenship. In fact, it allowed Southern states to gain representation in Congress disproportionate to the population that was actually enfranchised. The compromise was that though African-Americans could not vote, 3/5 of their population would be counted when awarding delegates in the House of Representatives. So th eSouth benefited by denying people rights.
I guess in politics there are always trade-offs. Last time they went with an absolute ban and lost. This time, they are betting that putting some exceptions in there gains them more in the center than it loses on the right. I think that is probably correct.