SCOTT BROWN BITES THE HEADS OFF LITTLE CHILDREN AND DRINKS THEIR BLOOD
The charge against Scott Brown made above is a follow up to the one the Democrats in Massachusetts are making today in a mailer:
The justification for this outrageously exaggerated, and deliberately falsified charge is that Brown voted for a provision that would allow hospital workers not to inform rape victims of the availability of the “Morning After” pill if their religious convictions prevented them from doing so.
Not exactly - or even remotely similar to - “turning away” rape victims from hospitals but hey! Who’s keeping track, right?
A side note of reality; there has never been a recorded instance of any hospital worker refusing to give the morning after pill to a rape victim if it was requested. In fact, those workers who are uncomfortable informing rape victims of this option invariably bring someone else into the consultation who will. That’s the way the system works and the Democrat’s ad is as much an indictment of hospital workers with religious convictions as it is Brown.
Now, if you’re a Republican, it does absolutely no good to condemn this ad. That’s because some mouth breathing, thumb sucking liberal will come back and throw up the equivalency thing in your face. Never mind that it takes someone with the mind of a 5 year old to essentially say, “Yeah, well yous guys does it too - and worse!” No matter. What counts is that nothing Democrats ever do is worse than any one thing a Republican has done. I will faint dead away if a Democrat were ever to categorically and without reservation or qualification condemn an ad like this.
This is the way of the world as it is perceived in the “reality based community.”
Correction:
Apparently, I was wrong about there not being any instances of health care workers denying morning after pills or contraception to patients out of conscience.
As a pro-choice humanist with great respect for the individual’s exercise of conscience - on both sides of the issue - it was my understanding that states where this “conscience law” was in force had urged medical facilities to develop guidelines for everyone from intake clerks to doctors and pharmacists on what to do when confronted with a case where their religious convictions conflicted with the patient’s right to receive the care they desired. The goal was to satisfy both needs and this was accomplished by, where possible, allowing other medical workers to handle the case or, referring the patient to another provider who would.
Of course, in Coakley’s world, it is sneeringly believed that if you hold those religious beliefs, you shouldn’t work in an emergency room. I personally think that if Coakley believes that, she shouldn’t be a politician.
Oh, wait…that’s right.
Okay, condemned. Don’t hit your head when you fall.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/16/2010 @ 2:33 pm
“That’s because some mouth breathing, thumb sucking liberal will come back and throw up the equivalency thing in your face. Never mind that it takes someone with the mind of a 5 year old to essentially say, ‘Yeah, well yous guys does it too - and worse!’ No matter. What counts is that nothing Democrats ever do is worse than any one thing a Republican has done.”
Cutting that out, and taping it to my quote wall. Something tells me it will come in handy some remote day in the future . . .
on topic — yep. Attack ad is horrendous and repugnant. The sky is blue, politicians lie and lie more outrageously the closer they get to election, and ice is colder than fire.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/16/2010 @ 5:21 pm
The ad’s a lie. I condemn it unreservedly.
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/16/2010 @ 5:31 pm
The inventors of the Southern Strategy, designed to welcome former Democratic party racists into their ranks, have little to ever say about shady practices come election time.
Conservatives have tape that plays in their heads about all the evil things liberals do that no conservative would stoop to were it not for evilll liberals pushing them over the edge.
The GOP is the master of the Push Poll.
They are the inventor of Voter Caging. (That’s blacks thrown off the voting rolls mostly because what looks like junk mail from the registrar of voters is returned or not answered.)
They have perfected the “you will be arrested if you try to vote” ploys.
Their talk show hyenas blast the tale of legions of undocumented workers who are bused in to cast votes, but somehow not one incident ever proves to occur where someone can actually record it happening.
The party that manages to paint a vet who has lost his legs in service to his country as lacking interest in the safety of the American people, as they did with Max Cleland, is intimately acquainted with, Down. And dirty.
So cry me a river over Massachusetts please.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/16/2010 @ 7:36 pm
“A side note of reality; there has never been a recorded instance of any hospital worker refusing to give the morning after pill to a rape victim if it was requested. ”
You might want to plug “Lori Boyer” into teh googletubes. For starters. There are many of recorded instances of hospital workers refusing to give the morning after pill to rape victims after it was requested. But of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Comment by jamie — 1/16/2010 @ 7:38 pm
“So cry me a river over Massachusetts please.”
Rick and I won’t be the ones crying come Wednesday!
(Note: It does my heart good to think of Ted Kennedy’s corpse twisting in his grave!)
Comment by SShiell — 1/16/2010 @ 8:21 pm
So three of the three liberals condemn the ad.
Meanwhile SShiel exults that Teddy is spinning in his grave. The intellectual leaders of your party squat on the airwaves and denounce donations for children in Haiti.
Look at the people you align yourself with, Rick. Look at your friends and ask yourself why. Have you no sense of decency at long last?
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/16/2010 @ 9:54 pm
@Jamie:
What Rick meant was that there SHOULDN’T be any recorded examples. If medical providers have an ethical problem, they’d have to be utter morons to not remove themsleves for such an incredibly explosive and dangerous situation. Not wanting to be involved in these situations is one thing, but actively fu@king with a sexual assult victim under such horrendus circumstances is at best insanity, at worst unbelievably cruel.
Since there shouldn’t be any examples of monsters like that, then there must not be. So anything that came up when I searched for Boyer must be a librul plot. Worth noting that the first “non-ad” link that came up was for MSNBC. Coincidence? I think NOT!
btwm I’d say “thanks” for the search as I like learning new things . . . but I could have happily gone the rest of my days with not knowing all that. If I just assume people will be jackasses, I can allow for things like that being true, without having to verify the details.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/16/2010 @ 10:08 pm
(Note: It does my heart good to think of Ted Kennedy’s corpse twisting in his grave!)
If there is an equivalent to “some mouth breathing, thumb sucking liberal”, perhaps this guy is it?
I would condemn the ad as untrue. I would also point out you are incorrect when you say “there has never been a recorded instance of any hospital worker refusing to give the morning after pill to a rape victim if it was requested.” Look up the California case of Brownfield vs. Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital.
Comment by Pug — 1/16/2010 @ 10:11 pm
Just own it. You were wrong. That’s OK. I admit it; I’m reflexively partisan. You are, obviously, too. Accept that you made a false assertion. It is easier. I don’t think you’re a Hewitt, and now is the time to demonstrate that you aren’t. Suck it up. While we choicers might be everything you hate, or might be something you fight from affiliation, well, fucked if I know, but I’d like to have ageement on some stuff with you. But game theory applies. Don’t be surprise when “fuck you” is the answer.
Comment by jamie — 1/17/2010 @ 1:10 am
It is awsome to watch libs go to any lengths to win…..I just hope the people are watching and learning who they really are. The dems tend to get so caught up sometimes they forget to cover up ,they forget to fake it , they expose their real idenity. Liberals always have to hide who and what they really are and what they really plan to do to you if they have power. Why do you think every so called left wing utopia has walls and fences to keep people in,lol
Comment by politics101 — 1/17/2010 @ 1:23 am
“It is awsome to watch libs go to any lengths to win”
Did you miss the part where a demonstrable fact that was intended to support the argument was proven incorrect?
I mean, really, I’m game for learning that I’m wrong. But it is hard to come to any conclusion other than Republican partisans are living in a world unrelated to the rest of us.
Really, that would be fun for me, if I didn’t give a damn. “It is always good news for Republians”. Keep running on that, and enjoy the meth bunnies your local policy seems to breed.
Comment by jamie — 1/17/2010 @ 1:36 am
“there has never been a recorded instance of any hospital worker refusing to give the morning after pill to a rape victim if it was requested”
I really don’t understand how you don’t feel utterly embarassed when you say stuff like this, just hoping it’s true, when thirty seconds on Google beforehand would prevent you from looking so utterly foolish.
Comment by August J. Pollak — 1/17/2010 @ 3:10 am
Ummm, do you people ever get tire of being absolutely. wrong. on. everything?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2309736
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/
Apparently not.
Comment by joeyess — 1/17/2010 @ 4:32 am
Oh snap, you just got told.
Comment by LafinJack — 1/17/2010 @ 5:57 am
Let’s leave aside the reported cases of rape victims being denied or not even being told about EC. The problem is widespread in rural areas where no one even bothers to report it. The local rape crisis centers do what they can to help the victims, but don’t dare make a public issue about it because their funding comes through the county governments which are already hostile to EC.
Comment by Mithras — 1/17/2010 @ 6:09 am
As Rick is shocked at transparently misleading campaign ads (btw Rick . . . . there’s no tooth fairy either), I can’t wait to read his post decrying the misquoted GOP attack ad against Coakley — made by the same crew that produced the Willie Horton ads.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/bay-state-battle/
I will say Rick, it is inspiring to see somebody look past their partisan beliefs, to not simply single out their “opponents” while turning a blind eye upon their own house. Truly inspirational. I’d tell you I’m holding my breath to read it, but I’m sure you want to get it juuuuust right . . . and the playoffs are tomorrow . . . so I don’t want you to feel any pressure.
p.s.: You might consider “updating” the OP with that little nugget that med providers denying access to patients isn’t as untrue as your in-depth research initially led you to believe. Since you’re so grounded in that “reality-based community”, I’m sure you’re a little embarassed about it. Just a suggestion.
The only reason I wrote anything about this ad was its egregious and blatant lying about Brown voting for a measure that turned rape victims away from hospitals. That is beyond lying and the fact that you can’t see that only proves my initial point. I have done the same plenty of times, highlighting the lies of Rush, Beck, et al. The difference between you and me is that I call out my side for their sins while you ignore the ones - or try to excuse them - on your side
As for the rest - be patient little donkey. I work for a living and just now got back to my site.
ed.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/17/2010 @ 7:25 am
The most amusing thing about this post is how the comments prove your argument.
“What counts is that nothing Democrats ever do is worse than any one thing a Republican has done.”
Comment by John — 1/17/2010 @ 8:37 am
“The most amusing thing about this post is how the comments prove your argument.”
Pointing out errors of fact is “worse than any one thing a Republican has done”?
Hey, far be it from me to pick on people for their voting preferences, but it seesm like at a certain point, intersecting with reality has to happen, lest one die from lack of oxygen, or wearing too many wetsuits.
Comment by jamie — 1/17/2010 @ 9:54 am
I am continually fascinated by the rights claim that they don’t want government coming between a patient and a doctor, unless, of course the patient has been raped, is pregnant, or is terminally ill. Way to be consistent! Dee
Comment by Dee — 1/17/2010 @ 11:37 am
@John:
No. You are wrong. Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified, or that in comparison to the GOP its a good thing?
Saying that GOP attack ads are equally offensive is not even remotely the same thing as saying that they are worse, or that Blue attack ads are somehow justified/authorized/appropriate because of them.
This is going to suprise you apparently, but thinking lying and attack ads are bad for some people means that you can’t ignore lying (”nobody has ever interfered with a patients EC options”) and attack ads (”Coakley insists on raising your taxes”) just because you like the team doing it. There’s a word for that — hypocrite.
Rick’s referring to the “yeabut” defense: “yeah I did it but I’m justified cuz you’re a poopy head”. That’s a stupid argument, and one that nobody here is making. But he (and you) are using an equally stupid argument — “nobacksies”. If I complain that you punched me, and you point out that I punched you too, I can’t claim “well I accused you first so no backsies” without sounding like a 5 year old (thumb sucking optional).
In fact, Rick took it to another level with his “pre-emptive no backsies” clause:
“Bob punched me in the face! Disgusting! Now watch him try and weasel out of it like a morally bankrupt pedophile by saying I hit him too . . . just like Hitler would do!”
“Well, you DID hit me. Not defending what I did, but you did hit me.”
“You see? Just like Hitler!”.
Haven’t seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad. Why haven’t I seen a conservative man up and do the same?
@Rick:
Kudos on being quick with the correction to the OP. I’m suprised you got from “I assumed people would follow rules they morally disagreed with” to “choke on this fact you idiots”. Heck, I’m suprised you started at “why wouldn’t people follow rules the disagreed with” in the first place. Respectfully, that’s shockingly naive for someone who has little trouble spotting the failings of others.
Regardless, it was a mature thing to do to correct it at all. Well done.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/17/2010 @ 2:59 pm
I just want to say, thank you, Rick, for the correction. I may disagree with you much of the time, but you’re behaving like a mensch. Rock on.
Comment by jamie — 1/17/2010 @ 6:51 pm
A-hem:
The California Court of Appeals discussed in Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital, 256 Cal. Rptr. (1989), whether a health-care giver must inform a patient of medical options that the care-giver morally opposes. In this case, workers in a Catholic hospital refused to inform a rape victim about the “morning-after pill” (diethylstilbestrol) despite the victim’s mother requesting the information, the possibility of a pregnancy, and the need for treatment within 72 hours, because such information conflicted with the institutions’ religious beliefs. The plaintiff did not become pregnant, and the court dismissed the case because there was no compensable injury; the plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.
Also, Lori Boyer.
Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she’d had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.
“I’ll need the morning-after pill,” she told him.
Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. “No,” Boyer says he replied abruptly. “I can’t do that.” He turned back to his writing.
Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn’t willing to write an EC prescription she’d be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. “It’s against my religion,” he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)
Boyer left the emergency room empty-handed.
30 seconds in teh Google can be so, what’s the word? Oh, yes: enlightening.
You are a plagiarizer. You just cut and pasted Tbogg’s post on my blog. Are you a robotic nincompoop with no original thoughts of your own? Evidently yes because you missed my correction above.
Holy shit what a dunce.
ed.
Comment by Toyboat — 1/18/2010 @ 5:21 pm
“That is beyond lying and the fact that you can’t see that only proves my initial point.” (ed. comment to #17)
As your latest favorite phrase goes, reading comprehension isn’t your strongest suit. Not too sure what “beyond” lying is (aside from emotional claptrap), but the ad is false. It is wrong. It is bad. I’ve said nothing else about the ad. I CAN in fact see that. Demonstrably. Know how you can tell? Read the comments.
“The difference between you and me is that I call out my side for their sins while you ignore the ones - or try to excuse them - on your side”
Try to excuse them?
–”Attack ad is horrendous and repugnant.” (#2)
–”. . . politicians lie and lie more outrageously the closer they get to election . . .” (#2)
–”transparently misleading campaign ads” (#17)
–”Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified” (#21, which was up before you decided to post these comments)
–”offensive” (#21)
–”lying and attack ads are bad” (#21)
–”Haven’t seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad” (#21)
. . . so that ads up to “ignoring or excusing sins”? Wow. You really have gone 100% into the revisionist history camp. All the more impressive since these comments are on the SAME PAGE you wrote the exact opposite. That’s a special kind of ignorant right there.
The whipped topping on this nutty sundae is explaining that you call out your side and accusing me of not doing so — in response to me calling out my side and asking you to do so yourself. “I did before” is truly impressive. I guess I don’t have to condemn this ad either — I criticized the Dems 3 months ago, so I’m good, right?
Its your page, its your god-complex . . . rant away. But this is either blatant ignorance, insanity, a tantrum (my guess) or lying (perhaps even the awesome “beyond” lying). If you don’t care what that looks like, don’t worry. If you do, this isn’t a feather in your intellectual cap.
Since my critical comments seem to be mysteriously disappearing from your page again, I’m assuming this won’t be up for anybody to see except you. If you DO bother to read this — get your head back on straight. This is unbecoming of you.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/19/2010 @ 1:00 pm
It was the Tea Party Movement that just won Mass…and…and…I was going to put something in that was nasty. But victories by the Real Roots of Conservatism, that part which doesn’t require big names and big money to be successful, make me giggle about some of the sanctimonious posts you have made, Rick.
LOL! :giggle:
Do you really think you have a part in the future of conservatism? And if you do…why?
QM
And you’re the one who’s going to tell me I don’t? Kinda impressed with yourself, no? And you might note that 12 year old little girls giggle. Adults don’t giggle.
In 6 months you will be trashing Scott Brown for being a filty RINO, Love to hear you “giggle” then.
Besides, I am smarter, prettier, richer, and have a bigger dick than you. That alone, gives me a better perspective on conservatism than you will ever have.
ed.
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 1/19/2010 @ 9:02 pm
BTW: being a curmudgeon doesn’t make you right. It’s either a shield that allows you to go out front when you see clear victory and be grumpy about doing so or covering your backside as an Eeyore.
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 1/19/2010 @ 9:07 pm
“Apparently, I was wrong”? You relied upon a made-up fact which was trivially-disprovable, then grasped at straws to cover for it, mocking a commenter for pasting TBogg’s post in here then posting some incoherent babble about the nature of conscience rules as they exist inside your own head.
Shouldn’t you be capable of at least some degree of embarrassment?
You’re right. I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed for you - someone who actually believes that such could actually be communicated to yours or any liberal’s satisfaction.
And yes, I take plagiarism very seriously. The boob was trying to pass off someone else’s words and thoughts as his own - something that apparently doesn’t upset you probably because you do it yourself.
And the rules regarding ethics exist - tis unfortunate you are too ignorant to know it.
ed.
Comment by grendelkhan — 1/21/2010 @ 10:36 am
Your supposed concern over some anonymous commenter’s insufficient respect for citing the original source acts as a smokescreen to draw attention away from your incompetence. Your claim that I’m “ignorant” of conscience rules is irrelevant–I’m not the one who based an argument around an incompetent mistake you made, and are apparently incapable of owning up to.
And this doesn’t even parse.
Comment by grendelkhan — 1/29/2010 @ 10:57 am