Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Some of you may know of my affinity for debunking urban legends. One needs only to send me an e-mail about a missing 5-year old, or a string of rapes at Shell Stations, or people urinating on meat at Outback to know that I'm addicted to educating my e-mail list about bent truths, incorrect information, and outright lies.
I do this with the assistance of the great website www.snopes.com.
If you practice this enough, you will become so skilled that as soon as someone says, "A friend of a friend was in a (Major Corporation) a couple of years back, and - ", you can interrupt and say, "Urban legend. Already heard it. Already been debunked. Check it out on Snopes."
Why do people lie and then try to pass the lie as fact to unsuspecting contacts?
Who in their right mind would make up a lie about Outback having unsanitary food, or Shell Stations refusing to serve servicemen? Well, people with an agenda, that's who.
Disgruntled, fired employees. Jilted customers. Ex-girlfriends of Shell Station owners.
Lots of different people have lots of reasons for lying.
And they are passed around from coworkers to friends to gym partners, and they spread like a virus. These lies are bad. They affect the bottom line of legitimate businesses. They encourage boycotts of products for no reason. It's sinful to spread this malicious slander.
But suppose it's the nightly news who's spreading the lie? Suppose it's 'reliable' news sources who are giving the information?
Here's a prime example for you.
A reader of my blog recently expressed concern over supporting the South Dakota abortion ban not because she's pro-abortion (she' s not) , but because of a lie which had been told to her by the mainstream media.
I feel so strongly supportive of South Dakota and its heroic response to the abortion crisis that I feel compelled to blog the truth.
This young woman was told (again, by reliable media outlets) that the South Dakota abortion law had written in it parental rights guaranteed for rapists, including, but not limited to, incestuous rapists.
Keep that thought in mind. Go here and read this piece of legislation (South Dakota House Bill 1215) for yourself.

Back already? Did you find it? The part about rapist-fathers? No?
Me neither. So what gives? Are we looking in the wrong place? Or is someone lying?
The people who are saying that 'parental rights for rapists are written into this legislation' (and there are not just a few proclaiming this) are talking about this:
When an abortion is not allowed to take place, a baby is born.
That baby has two parents, a mother and a father. All babies do. Even Jesus Christ had an earthly father, who had 'paternal rights'.
'Parental Rights' is not just some vague notion in this country. Parental Rights are argued and settled in courts. They are very real.
Soooooooo... 'parental rights', being very real things which can be claimed by all parents (whether or not they will be granted is quite another story) are 'written into this legislation' simply because a baby is allowed to live until birth.
And you thought "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" was complicated.
Nothing in South Dakota's legislation even mentions a father, much less a rapist father.
South Dakota is not about to start granting weekends and every other Christmas to Jack the Ripper.
I don't blame the reader for being confused. Why should we not believe the nightly news?
Why should we have to question their motives?
Is yellow journalism not dead?
I salute this reader for seeing a red flag, and for bringing it to my attention.
The next few years could be permeated by partisan myths and alarmist lies.
Let's stop them in their tracks when they try to spread them, together.
If we're confused, let's be like this young lady and actually have the sanity to get things clarified.
Don't be afraid to ask, because you need to have the answer for when the next person in the chain asks you.

Pro-woman
Pro-man
Pro-child
Pro-LIFE