Sorry, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what Ben Smith thinks he’s proved by revealing the shocking – shocking! – fact that one of the activists who pushed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is also opposed to the use of condoms (“in Africa”!!). Like any other constituency, pro-lifers have views on quite a lot of issues, but that doesn’t show that even a plainly symbolic fight like this one is “about” anything other than what it claims to be about. (Or does the fact that many progressives favor a single-payer health care system show that any and all of their health care-related efforts are nothing but a stealth attempt to slip in a single payer system while we aren’t paying attention?) Clearly it could be argued that the text of the specific bill in question was designed to have an anti-Roe effect (this may be so; I haven’t really looked into it), but the nature of the billboards that Jill Stanek wants to hang in Africa has really got nothing to do with the issues at stake here.
[ADDENDUM: I have no problem with "pointing out Jill Stanek's extremism"; my only gripe is with the idea that it alone is sufficient to show that the bill was an anti-choice subterfuge that deserved to be opposed. That's just plain silly.]
it shows how much of a lunatic she is. Saying in Aids ravaged Africa, where there are more orphans than parents, that “condom users die” shows that this lady is detached from reality and maybe, just maybe doesn’t have a heart.
Well, come on – ALL people die …
Seriously, though, I’m not a big fan of those billboards. But once again, the fact that one of the bill’s supporters may or may not have been a lunatic doesn’t show that the legislation can be written off as a part of a conspiracy. That sort of approach smacks of the kind of silly game that many pro-lifers play with Margaret Sanger’s alleged connections to Nazi eugenicists.
I’m in agreement with freaktown (although that doesn’t sound right).
It is 100% relevant, and I don’t think it’s fair to beat up Ben Smith for pointing out the people behind this. I know for sure McCain’s camp is going to try to make this into some sort of Radical Obama issue, and quite frankly seeing that abhorrent bilboard points me to believe the exact opposite. It’s this activist who is a radical.
But that’s not what I was doing! I was just taking issue with Smith’s implication, which seems to be a gross leap of illogic, that Stanek’s views on condoms are sufficient to show that the bill is not “about killing live babies”.
I agree 100% that Stanek is a radical, though the fact that Obama has made it pretty clear that he will take absolutely no steps to restrict access to abortion makes me think that he deserves that label as well.
Of course he’s a radical, because he wants to uphold a decision made by that radical group of activist judicial legislators (i.e. the U.S. Supreme Court)
The problem comes from when the media feels obligated to publicize every insane conspiracy theory out there. I think Ben Smith is right to mention, by the way, this criticism seems to be a lot more complicated and, although this person says its black and white – she’s also bat shit crazy. Goes to the reliability of the witness.
Its the same way that Obama fighting against the Corsi book by advertising how insane Corsi is, is much more effective then combating each of the allegations he makes. Or the way Micheal Moore and George Soros have been demonized.
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. This assumes that every issue is hermetically sealed from every other issue, and that one issue, bill, and/or regulation could not possibly affect another issue, bill, and/or regulation.
There is in fact a long history of people and movements engaging in political incrementalism. They do this because they believe their agenda will not pass in its totality, either because of its unpopularity and/or its threat to those in power. However, by proposing a small step to their overall goal, the proponents of an agenda believe that step is more likely to pass and thus be that much close to their goal.
I find your example of progressives and single payer particularly interesting. You argue that suggesting progressives want to achieve single-payer through their health care reforms is absurd. However, in most cases that is exactly what progressives are trying to do.
With one exception: there’s nothing stealthy about it. Just ask Ezra Klein. They’ll tell you. Most progressives would love to have single payer. However, they realize that the political realities (aka the Senate) make single payer highly unlikely. So in lieu of being able to achieve single payer directly, they have adopted a political strategy that will move America closer to single payer without actually achieving it.
Now lets bring this back to the pro-life issue. Politically and ideologically speaking, abortion isn’t just about abortion to the ideologues for and against it. Abortion is connected to and affects sexual ethics, traditionalism, gender roles, modernity, economics, crime, and feminism. And that’s just off the top of my head. If abortion was just about abortion, then the controversy and issues surrounding it would be very different.
@ Joseph:
But there’s nothing “stealthy” about most pro-life incrementalism, either – pretty much any pro-lifer will be happy to tell you that his or her support for any number of measures is part of a broader desire that abortion be less common (or nonexistent). But that doesn’t make the legislation anything other than what it is – and it would, once again, be simply stupid to object to any and all expansion of government-assisted health care by loudly revealing the “extreme” character of its advocates and screaming about the creeping advance of socialism. Laws against allowing born-alive infants to die, or banning partial-birth or late-term abortion, are all middle-of-the-road measures, and the fact that many of the people who advocate for them would like to go even farther clearly doesn’t demonstrate that those particular measures deserve to be opposed. Refusing to allow that any sort of legislative compromise can be reached is the very definition of extremism …
A consistently pro-life position dictates that we do not use contraception and teach abstinence only. Good luck with that. While we’re at it, I’m selling chastity belts for just $49.99 – for a limited time only on ebay.
Well it’s worked okay for me in my own life. I’m not looking to force it on anyone else, though.
http://www.matthew25.org/paf for the truth about Obama’s position on late-term abortion.
Guttmacher Institute found that upwards of 90% of Americans had premarital sex. 13% of adult women have been victims of forcible rape.
@ benintn:
I’ll buy that first statistic, but the second one seems clearly bogus, and is the sort of claim that I take it has been roundly debunked. Rape is awful, of course, and far too common, but it’s not that common.
Why do republicans ahve so many crazies?why do they hate america?
@ John:
Actually according to the Centers for Disease Control and prevention, 1 out of 6 adult women has been a victim of rape. So, that is actually more like 17% of women. While it might seem “clearly bogus” to you, mt guess is the CDC has done some actual research on the topic.
Also, as for the anti-abortion legislation in Illinois. Every year, anti-abortion advocates in the state legislature put forth a number of outrageously named bills (the content which may or may not be outrageous). Part of their motivation is to trap pro-choice candidates. Lets say they put together a bill that is called the “We love babies” bill. That bill might contain some pretty strong anti-abortion content that no pro-choice politician would ever vote for. Now they have the pro-choice politician on the record for opposing the love of babies. They then use this in future campaigns. So, the barrage of anti-choice bills in the state legislature are designed to try to weaken Roe but also to make politicians look like monsters by taking the bills out of context.
There you go.
If Stanek’s extreme stance on abortion and contraception is no indication that this bill is a stalking horse for extreme anti-abortion views, then certainly Obama’s vote against the bill can’t be seen either as an endorsement of the purpose or quality of this bill or his stance with regard to the law on abortion.
You can’t reject one as inappropriate over-reading without also rejecting the other one.
So…Obama voted against the bill because Stanek’s a kook? Please.
Obama’s comments on this have been all over the map. First he said the language was more restrictive than in the federal version. Then he admitted they were identical. And for all the talk about how existing law already covered this topic, let’s not forget that the state’s Attorney General had spoken out on the issue and basically said otherwise. Hence the bill, superfluous or not.
I’ve read Obama’s statement on his vote; it doesn’t say most of the things his supporters are saying after-the-fact. He basically just says that it’s a tough choice, and that he can’t allow anything to come within a million miles of Roe. That’s why he’s a radical: he’ll oppose even the slightest restrictions or caveats related to abortion simply because they could maybe, sort of, possibly be the first step in a thousand steps towards challenging Roe.
“let’s not forget that the state’s Attorney General had spoken out on the issue and basically said otherwise”
And what party was the Attorney General in? If GOP, the AG would have a political stake in helping to support a bogus stunt bill.
Oh, also, if Stanek lies about condoms in Africa, why should she be believed about anything else? It’s not like her religion is guiding her morals.
@ Punditish
Per the NYT article about this bill, it looks like this bill was tied to another bill that greatly increased a hospital’s and a doctor’s civil and criminal liability if a fetus (viable or pre-viable) were to die after coming out of the womb (through labor or abortion). The idea of such a bill would be to increase fear of legal action to the extent that health care providers would be too afraid to provide abortions. I don’t think this case is as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Also, the Illinois state legistlature is a nutty place – nothing that happens there is straight forward.
@ jackson93:
Thanks for all your comments.
If those statistics are accurate, then of course I stand corrected. But – if I can be forgiven the GooglePunditry – there are questions that have been raised about the data collection methods.
(While we’re at it, how did rape come up? Does the legality of abortion make it less common? (No.) Is it the cause of a significant number of the pregnancies for which abortions are sought? (No.) Did the bill in question propose to ban abortions in the case of rape? (No.) So why is it an issue in the present discussion?)
If this is going on – as I’m sure it is – then I’m not a fan of it. (Though note that this sort of thing is done by all sorts of interest groups.) And it could be argued – as I know it has been, though this is controversial – that the bill at issue here had very much the nature you describe here. But the mere fact that one of the supporters of the bill is opposed to contraception (as am I!) and puts up crazy billboards saying that (as I do not) does not show that the measure was, as you put it, an “anti-choice” measure “designed to try to weaken Roe but also to make politicians look like monsters by taking the bills out of context”.
@ John
I am not sure why rape was initially brought into the conversation. I would argue that almost any statics could have their data collection methods questioned. Rape is a tricky statistic to compile because of the nature of the crime and the shame felt by the victims. I would note that my data came not from a rape advocacy group but from the CDC and the Department of Justice. I beleive this specific statistic groups together “attempted” and “completed” rapes – attempted meaning sexual assault not resulting in anal, oral, or vaginal penetration. To me, 1 in 6 women experiencing any of this is unacceptable and important not to reject based on a gut instinct. While there may be questions surrounding data collection, these are the statics the government has at this time. Until someone presents other researched statistics on the subject, I have to go with them.
I am not dismissing a bill based on Ms. Stanek’s personal extremism. As a resident of Illinois, I am just trying to put this type of legislation into context. The Clinton campaign used Obama’s “present” votes on a number of these measures as a way to show that he was not pro-choice enough. While other interest groups may use the legislature this way, I would prefer that they not use my state legislature this way – it is too messed up as it is.
Thanks, Jackson. Rape is of course unacceptable in any numbers. And I appreciate the efforts to put this bill in context – I just didn’t think much of the way that Ben Smith was doing it.
Jill Stanek- “Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal”- ’nuff said.
Yes, just like Jeremiah Wright’s support for batshit conspiracy theories about the origin of AIDS discredits any cause he’s ever believed in, right? Or have I somehow misunderstood the rules of the game?