Do you support Measure 1, the right-to-life measure on the North Dakota ballot?

Posted 4 years.


  • Amy B - 4 years ago

    Cindy, you've made me come around to one of your points. I now think you're right that Sanford will not stop IVF. The Dr.s making those statements might quit because they are not willing to put themselves at such financial risk of a lawsuit even if they would win. But I bet Sanford could find Dr. Willing to take the risk, and it doesn't seem like the risk to the hospital would be big, just the Dr. So interesting. The only wild card here is whether Sanford might actually be willing to take the financial hit to make a statement? I only say that because they were willing to grant hospital admitting privileges the abortion clinic, and I doubt they're making much, if any, money off that, certainly not enough money to counter the potential bad publicity.

  • Tanya - 4 years ago

    I can't believe all of the ignorant comments I've read here. This is a very passionate issue for many of us, myself included. My 4 children were conceived through IVF at Sanford, the only IVF services offered in our state. No, your nano BS doesn't repair damage from previous surgeries, that's a lame excuse to vote yes on this bill! Senator Margaret Sitte, the main legislator supporting Measure 1 has said that it is her intention to ban IVF in ND! What? Why? To not allow couples to build families? That doesn't even make sense!
    I can only pray that the people of our state see this measure for what it is...and vote NO!
    Also, as a patient of Reproductive Medicine I know for a fact that they will be forced to discontinue IVF services immediately if this bill passes. They already have been making alternative plans for the patients that are mid-IVF cycles should this bill pass. Those patients will have to travel either to Minneapolis or Sioux Falls to continue their dreams of becoming parents.
    Please, please, please vote NO!!!

  • Cindy - 4 years ago

    Janet -

    The you tube link you provided as evidence that Measure 1 will revoke living wills and cancel Do Not Resuscitate orders is based upon a lay person's opinion. Please view this video prepared by experts in elder care and end of life constitutional law.

  • Cindy - 4 years ago


    Mark my words. Sanford will continue to offer IVF no matter if the measure passes or fails. Why? Because it brings in BIG money. I don't doubt that a reproductive specialist told the press Sanford would stop IVF if measure 1 passed, but this person was NOT speaking for Sanford. Also, the measure has absolutely NO bearing on treating ectopic pregnancies! Ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency and physicians lose their license if they fail to treat them!

  • Janet - 4 years ago

    Measure 1 will revoke living wills and cancel do not resuscitate orders. There is much more to consider regarding this measure. Does anyone really want these choices taken away?

  • Amy B - 4 years ago

    What Marie is referring to is natural family planning. You know, like knowing when you are most fertile.

    "The dilemma in discussing naprotechnology is that it is nothing new, really, but simply an extension of what before we used to call ‘natural procreation’ – or natural family planning (NFP), which can be used both to have babies or to prevent pregnancies. It was ‘invented’ (not really true – other than the name) by an American physician who pioneered it and in fact offered it as a Catholic alternative to IVF; this gave him a direct club class passage to be a permanent member of the Pontifical Academy for Life."

  • Marie - 4 years ago

    For those who are at a place where they believe IVF is the only fertility option for them, I would encourage you to look into NaPro Technologies. I've had several friends who have had success there where traditional fertility treatments have failed. NaPro looks to discover and fix the underlying problem causing the infertility. If that can be achieved then IVF is unnecessary. I realize that isn't what this discussion is about but it is breaking my heart to know people feel like they have so few choices with infertility. This is not a multilevel marketing place or any kind of woo woo treatment and I in no way profit from this. This is a clinic that is working off of cutting edge medical science and they work with local doctors and hospitals to do the testing (which is much more in depth than what Sanford etc offers). I share only because it might bring some people hope.

  • Amy B - 4 years ago

    I just saw in 2011 the Catholic initiative also had a house bill to try to protect the life of an embryo created during IVF. Very specific wording. They're bragging about it online if you want to look it up. So, they've been at it trying to get IVF outlawed a long time (and of course they are the main people creating measure 1 and are very vocally anti-IVF). IVF doesn't work if you have to protect every embryo created through IVF, and the Dr. can't be responsible if there was a lab accident or something.

    So if you don't believe me that the point is to get rid of IVF, look at the 2011 bill the people who created this measure introduced in 2011, SPECIFICALLY wording that the point of the bill was to protect IVF embryos.

    Wake up people, they are lying to you, when the people AGAINST IVF tell you they're not trying to get rid of IVF...

  • Amy B - 4 years ago


    You are misinformed. It is not a rumor or outside groups saying that Sanford will stop offering IVF. I believe these are the only 3 IVF Dr.'s in the state, am I right? speaking here

    Also, it doesn't matter whether or not this measure would legally outlaw IVF or not, it matters whether because of the measure IVF stops being offered, for whatever reason. That's not going to be good for you guys either when the public blames you for that outcome.

    If you don't believe Sanford is going to shut down IVF, you are really underestimating. Kind of like you guys did with the last law, thinking no hospital would give admitting priviledges to the clinic in town, and then SURPRISE Sanford did. Big bunch of farting around passing crap for nothing.

  • Amy b - 4 years ago


    Maybe the links I provided previously can help you. The reason why the Catholic Church and many other pro-life organizations are STRONGLY against IVF is because IVF can terminate embryos. This is the same kind of embryo, the exact same kind, that is terminated when a woman has a very early term abortion with a pill (which is the vast majority of abortions) at an abortion clinic.

    If you are OK terminating an embryo for IVF, but NOT OK with terminating the same embryo if it is instead part of a very early abortion with a pill, then you are definitely NOT in line with the views of the people who brought about this measure. Look at the crafters of the measure, and look at their views on IVF. They are lying to you because they think it will serve the greater good, and they KNOW that the vast vast majority or people will weigh the termination of the embryo with ethical concerns other than just a laser line view of the embryo.

    I am against the measure in case anyone is confused here.

    I would also like to point out to the pro-life people that you are not playing a good political long game. When Sanford shuts down IVF like they promised, whether you law requires them to do that or not doesn't matter, whatever their reasons they have decided to do that. What matters is they shut down IVF. That's going to inflame the public and lead to a pro-choice measure that otherwise would never have passed. So what's going to be your defense to a pro-choice measure to bring back IVF when Sanford says over and over they simply cannot do IVF until that measure is done away with?

  • Jessica - 4 years ago

    Cindy I'm not sure where you get your information, but you are 100% incorrect about Sanford offering ivf. Sanford reproductive specialists held a press conference earlier this week saying ivf will no longer be offered if this measure passes. Also treatment for ectopic pregnancies would also not be able to take place. I was a patient at Sanford so know this for a fact. Thanks to those doctors we are expecting our first child. This life wouldn't be possible if this measure passes. I can only pray that people see all the damage this measure can cause and pray that I will some day be able to return to Sanford to grow my family. This measure doesn't protect the life of all it prevents many lives from ever happening and that's just sad.

  • Ben - 4 years ago


    Also, any law that would be added in the future that would make IVF illegal would be struck down federally. So that is a moot point. We are just trying to protect the laws on our books that would survive federal scrutiny, that are being struck down by activist judges on a state level, using a misinterpretation we are trying to clear up of our state constitution.

  • ben - 4 years ago


    You speak of science. I have taken high school as well as college level biology classes. You leftist do not have science on your side. I never once mentioned religion.

    Also you are disappointed that progressive laws are not passed in North Dakota. What do you expect, this is not New York or California.

    I am generally quite libertarian and just want people to do whatever they want as long as they do not hurt another. My definition of when another begins is what makes me pro-life.

  • Cindy - 4 years ago

    I realize this is a passionate issue for all sides, but I am always dismayed when when disrespectful language, labeling, and name calling is used to get a point across as I see in some of these posts.

    To the point, I have worked in healthcare for over 35 years and I have seen it all. I will tell you unequivocally that if Measure 1 passes, IVF will NOT be outlawed or terminated by health care providers (despite what one "paid" interviewee has said) because it has nothing to do with IVF nor will Sanford discontinue IVF - that is a rumor started by an outside entity, it will not affect the right to get an abortion because it does not repeal Roe vs Wade, and it will not interfere with end of life decisions because there is a law on the books of ND to protect end of life and living wills.

  • Ryan - 4 years ago


    Do you believe that the current crop of legislators won't introduce and pass a law stating when they think life begins? Examine the laws they passed during the previous legislative session. Those folks are attempting to turn North Dakota into a state where laws are based on religious ideology instead of science.

    For my analogy to have any truth?
    You've just admitted that with the passing of a law defining the beginning of life my scenario becomes very real.

  • ben - 4 years ago


    the mistake you are making is that measure 1 does not even define when life begins. So for you analogy to have any truth to it, another law would have to be passed that directly defines when life begins.

  • bob - 4 years ago


    You put it much more civil than I did. People are either delusional or ignorant of the true meaning of this measure.

  • Sara - 4 years ago

    Amy B.,
    Do you consider the embryos generated via IVF to be alive? I'm not meaning to assume, but your comments below seem to indicate that you do, using terms like "survive" and suggesting that those embryos would be protected under the human life amendment. If this is the case, and your personal viewpoint is that these embryos are alive and just underdeveloped, then aren't you appalled that "the embryos don't all survive"? I mean, if they are human and alive, then it's a tragedy that human life is lost, isn't it? And doesn't all human life have the same right to keep on continuing if we can help it?

    I will look into it a bit further, but my understanding is that the state legislature of North Dakota DOES NOT view these embryos as being living human beings. In which case, these embryos would not be protected by the human life amendment put for in Measure 1.

  • Ryan - 4 years ago


    This amendment was passed?
    No. This is why we are voting on it in November

    State funded abortions on demand?
    No chance. No federal dollars either.

    Current pro-life laws?
    You must be confused. Sitte and Grande are the pro-birth crusaders.

    By inventing a right to abortion in our state?
    You clearly don't understand how rights work. As for the right to chose an abortion, that is protected by the United States Constitution thanks to the court case you mentioned.

    The ignorance you have just displayed is shocking and very dangerous. I really hope you don't have influence over other humans.

  • bob - 4 years ago


    I love your comment "we'll get state-funded abortion on demand"

    Last I heard they were planning to build an "Abortion-O-Plex" in Fargo if this bill doesn't pass.

    My God, the stupid must hurt...

  • Ryan - 4 years ago


    The whole reason I took the time to comment here is this: The current group of North Dakota legislators has let me down immensely. They passed anti-choice/anti-women/anti-progressive laws. They did so without advertising their intentions. There was no talk about ignoring the problems our state is facing here in the 21st century. The laws that you concerned with protecting do, in fact, attempt for force other people to conform to (presumably your, since you have taken the time to defend this position) theological interpretation of what life is. It is important to note that this interpretation flies in the face of actual scientific knowledge.

    The point about being criminally charged: If life is to be protected at every stage of development and a pregnancy is terminated (purposefully or accidentally) , what happens to those people responsible for said termination? If indeed a life has been ended (according to some people), surely charges of manslaughter or murder would be forthcoming. This is quite significant, right? If a pregnant woman slips on ice and perinatal death occurs, what happens to the woman? The definition of inalienable is this: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. The possessor would be the fetus, and since he/she cannot give away their right to life, the mother has no right to take it.

    Or in my example about contraception: Is it not a required part of the creating of life process for a man to ejaculate? Is it not a required part of the creating of life process for a woman's ovaries to release an egg? "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected." What part of "any stage of development" don't you understand? Do you think sex should only be had in order to conceive a child?

    From what you have written, I am concerned that you remain blind to the real life consequences for people in this state.

    Unfortunately, folks like me still have to remind folks like you: If you don't want an abortion don't get one.

  • Amber - 4 years ago

    This amendment was passed so that the state courts wouldn't be able to strike down all the current pro-life laws (by inventing a right to abortion in our state constitution stronger than Roe v. Wade). This is an all-or-nothing moment for our state. We either pass this amendment or we'll get state-funded abortion on demand.

  • Amy B - 4 years ago


    When Sanford responds by terminating IVF totally in the state, what will you do when the public is upset about that and more amenable than they would have been otherwise to some kind of pro-choice measure?

    Just like the last law you guys wasted time on about how the abortion clinic should need admitting privileges, you didn't count on Sanford willing to get involved, and they did (by admitting the privileges, even though we of course know the court was stopping that for the time being anyway).

    I think you're not seeing the long game here the other side is playing, to your own peril. Doubt you'll listen to me otherwise I wouldn't even be saying this :p

  • Sara - 4 years ago

    Ryan, my comment was primarily in answer to Krystle who was concerned about the effects Measure 1 would have on her legal right to use IVF in conceiving a child. Hence, the mention of "baby you are hoping to conceive".
    Is there a law stating that someone who considers conceiving a child and then chooses to not conceive a child is to be charged with, well, anything? I am unaware of such a law; since the use of contraception is legal in ND, it, along with every other legal practice in this state would remain unchanged. These laws cannot be overturned or in any way changed with the passing of Measure 1. To do anything of the kind would require a brand new law or at least the modification of an existing law. That is the point that many people are misunderstanding. Measure 1 does none of these things. Please, look into it for yourself.
    It is one thing to not support Measure 1 because you do not support the existing laws that it would protect; it is quite another to not support Measure 1 because of an misunderstanding of what the amendment means for North Dakota citizens.

    I don't see how anything that I wrote can be interpreted as requiring anyone to think anything. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding this Measure. My intention here is to answer and perhaps help in clarifying some of the information being posted about Measure 1. An understanding of the actual facts is obviously essential to making any kind of informed voting decision. What does Measure 1 actually do and do I agree with that action? This is what each of us should ask ourselves, and then vote accordingly.

    P.S. Your very adequate example of misinterpreting my seemingly straightforward statement is a perfect illustration of the reason this amendment is even being suggested for our state constitution, i.e. to protect our ND laws regarding human life from intentional misinterpretation.

  • Amy B - 4 years ago

    One more note...

    To prove to you that they are lying to you when they say they don't want to get rid of IVF:

    The ND Choose Life coalition is who is behind Measure 1. A big part of that coalition is the North Dakota Catholic Conference. The Catholic Church is staunchly opposed to IVF. So the Catholics are a huge part of this measure, and despite the fact that they think IVF is wrong, they are saying they don't want to get rid of it? Hm sounds kidna SUSPICIOUS if you ask me. But I guess lying is OK for people when they think it serves the greater good.

    Some other gems:

  • Amy B - 4 years ago

    The pro-life crowd didn't count on a hospital willing to get politically involved, and they assumed wrong on that. Pro-lifers behind the last law assumed if a hospital admitting agreement were required, no hospital would agree to that, and the clinic may have to shut down. They didn't count on Sanford's willingness to get politically involved and make an agreement w/ the abortion clinic, so it turned out to be a moot point here and waste of time.

    Now the pro-life crowd wants to get rid of IVF, because they know that with IVF they are terminating embryos. That is no different than terminating an early stage pregnancy with a pill from the abortion clinic. Pro-life crowd realizes the public has a hard time equating IVF and abortion because the public tends to put weight on other ethical concerns instead of taking a total laser view on whether an embryo was terminated or not, regardless of any other ethical concern.

    The fact is, most people do not take a laser view on caring whether an embryo is terminated or not. Most people believe other ethical concerns tip the balance in favor of terminating embryos, and public support for IVF is proof of this. Most people can see the gray areas here.

    The crowd that is supporting this amendment realizes the public won't support this amendment if the public realizes they have a laser focus on the survival of the embryo without any regard to other ethical concerns. So they have to mislead us, but that's OK to them because, in their view, they are doing a good deed.

    The pro life crowd also hasn't 'learned their lesson from the last law, which is that Sanford is willing to get politically involved. If Sanford follows through on their absolute promise to rid this state of IVF upon passage of this law, then the public might be amenable to a future measure that is more pro-choice than would have ever been passed otherwise. The pro-life crowd is hurting their long game here by not taking into consideration the will of Sanford to get involved.

    Longer rant than I meant to.

  • Jessica Krog - 4 years ago

    Everyone who is for Measure 1 is saying that this law wouldn't prevent IVF from happening. It indeed would!!! Reproductive Specialists in ND stated that they could be held accountable and could even be charged in court if something went wrong during the IVF process and not every embryo survived. In all reality the embryos don't all survive or make it to transfer. This measure states "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected". AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT!!!! So the embryos that don't make it our protected under this measure and it would be a liability for specialists to perform IVF. What about the pregnancies that are ectopic? Doctors wouldn't be able to intervene and potentially save the mothers life because the embryo outside the uterus is to be protected. These pregnancies would never result in a baby, but yet put the mother at risk of losing her tube and possibly her life. The language for this measure is too vague. While it aims to protect unborn children, it's doing a lot more then just that. Hopefully before people sit down and before they vote look at the entire measure and not just one part of it.

  • Ryan - 4 years ago


    Why do you want everyone to think and behave like you do? Would it be OK for me to require you to think and behave like I do? I could easily claim that most North Dakotans agree with me on a lot of topics, but I find it reprehensible to force people to think in a particular way.

    The laws that were introduced and passed during the previous legislative session are the most reckless in the history of our state. They are fundamentally unconstitutional according the federal government. When my door was knocked on by candidates during the previous campaign I enjoyed having a chance to talk to them. They asked me about issues that were important to myself and my family. In turn, I asked what issues they would be addressing if they were to be elected. Not one of them mentioned the subsequent attack on human rights that occurred in the North Dakota House of Representatives and Senate. As a citizen of this state I am embarrassed by the actions of the Republican super-majority, the Governor, the Attorney General, and the zealots of this state who unashamedly continue their attempts at forcing their theology upon the unwilling.

    You say: "This means that the baby you are hoping to conceive is guaranteed to be recognized, respected and protected, according to the laws ALREADY existing in our state."

    Language is important. Are you saying that just thinking about having kids constitutes as life that would be protected under this constitutional amendment? So, if my wife and I think about having kids but don't have we terminated life and subsequently vulnerable to criminal prosecution? Is it I who wore a condom or she who took oral contraceptive who would be charged? See how simple that was to misinterpret ambiguously worded statements?

    Your ignorance, arrogance, and lack of compassion is appalling.

  • Sara - 4 years ago

    This measure does not enact any law at all, be it regarding abortion, IFV, end of life decisions or otherwise. It merely protects the laws that have already been voted into effect by our ND citizens and representative legislature. Every practice that is sanctioned by ND law will remain legal after Measure 1 is added to the state constitution. DO read the entire measure, and understand what it is intended to do. It reads "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected". Our constitution doesn't currently say this explicitly, though it is implied and most North Dakotans would agree that it's a good thing to recognize and protect human life. This means that the baby you are hoping to conceive is guaranteed to be recognized, respected and protected, according to the laws ALREADY existing in our state. Is this not a good thing? This seems self-evident and common sense, since it's already in the law. The purpose of Measure 1 is to state explicitly in our constitution that, yes, we North Dakotans respect the lives and rights of our fellow citizens and want our CURRENT laws to be obeyed as they are written. Nothing more. Look into it.

  • Steve - 4 years ago

    Talk about a law with unintended consequences.

  • Nancy Bina - 4 years ago

    I am steadfastly against this measure on so many levels, it's difficult to assess the damage it would do. The proponents of this measure are doing a good job of hiding facts from the people of North Dakota, thus insulting their intelligence. They say it will not affect the IVF procedure. Who are they kidding?? Of course it will. No clinic in ND would ever risk doing these procedures for fear of potential lawsuits. This is absolutely heartbreaking! What happens if you have an eptopic pregnancy, with no chance of this baby surviving? This measure would not allow dr's to terminate the pregnancy, thus putting the mother's life at substantial risk. This measure is not about choosing abortion or not choosing abortion, but that's what they would have you believe. So if you think by voting for this measure, you are voting to stop all abortions, you are missing the point of the entire measure. You will also be subjected to this unethical measure later in life. If you choose to live in ND, your rights for a dignified passing will be denied, thus putting your very life in the hands of the state government. This is all very sad for North Dakota and it's hard to believe it has a good chance of passing.

  • Krystle - 4 years ago

    As a women that is trying to start a family of her own and her only opition left is IVF I am so againist this measure. To take that right of having a baby away from any women is a againist the law. I know that there are somethings in this measure that we need to have. I don't belive that abortion is right on every level but I do feel it is needed in some cases. For example to save the life of a women, rape and incest. People need to look at the whole measure and not just bits and pieces of it. Please don't vote yes on measure 1.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment