Mary Katharine Ham catches several media distortions about Paul Ryan yesterday, including the misleading claim that Ryan voted to ban abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. In fact, Ryan was one of more than 60 co-sponsors of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which doesn’t technically ban anything. As Ramesh Ponnuru explains, the act simply affirms the right of state legislatures to protect unborn life. The question of how to act on that right is up to the individual legislatures:
The first item: “He supports the Sanctity of Human Life Act” (emphasis in original). Odell wrote that the bill “seeks to ban all abortions, including in instances of rape and incest.” Ryan may, for all I know, believe that abortion should be illegal with exceptions only to save a mother’s life. But has he really co-sponsored a bill to effect this policy? No. The bill declares that fertilization marks the beginning of a human life and then “affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.” In other words, it doesn’t ban anything: It merely affirms that legislatures have the authority to protect unborn life. If Odell wishes to argue that a legislature moved by the convictions of the bill must, to be consistent, ban abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest, she can do so. It’s not in the bill.
Here is the text of the actual bill:
- In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States–
- (1) the Congress declares that–
- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and - (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.
The act is an affirmation of when life begins, but it leaves the enforcement and specifics up to the state legislatures (or, up to subsequent acts by Congress).
But the media coverage wasn’t all bad yesterday. As Guy Benson notes, Wolf Blitzer shredded Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan wouldn’t exempt people over the age of 55:
DWS has no defense on this, short of outright lying, which she valiantly attempts to do before getting swatted down by Blitzer. Democrats know that Ryan’s proposed Medicare reform wouldn’t go into effect for anyone over the age of 55 — but if they acknowledge that, then the Mediscaring in Florida becomes far less effective. That’s why DWS dug in so hard on this. In the end, she finally had to admit the truth; but let’s see how many in the media call her on it if she continues to distort Ryan’s plan.
Lying works very well, alas. This is why the facts don't matter anymore. If lying didn't work, Obama would never have been elected and never had stayed popular. His whole life is a lie, yet it works.
Sorta reminds me of the German National Socialists and I believe it was HImmler's concept of "the big lie" — tell it loud enough and often enough — and prevent anyone from calling you on it — and the people will believe it. n nWould there have been a Holocaust without (a) effective NAZI propaganda which also (b) the only thing the people heard? Never forget that Hitler & Co actually won a democratic and basically fair election…. n nMilton's concept on truth only is effective when truth is able to engage falsehood in a free and open encounter. The LEFTISTS (they are not "liberals") have been stacking the deck for the past two-three *generations* and the problem we have is that the average American has lost logic and reason — we literally are approaching the world where everyone thinks the same and anyone who is different is considered insane.
That is an amazing video. I've never seen anything so brazen. Yet I'd bet that at least half of the seniors who see it or hear her will come away thinking that Ryan's plan does indeed impact people over 55. n nPlus, I'm sure you will see the Dems refine their attack in a few days so that they say that while the plan ostensibly doesn't impact people over 55, the economic effect of the plan will be to destroy medicare for everyone. DWS is a brazen liar, and not a smart one, but the smarter Dems will come up with better rhetoric for her and then she will be off to the races.
I don't know. The Dems can only win this argument if they offer a real solution that the electorate thinks is better. Paul Ryan himself posed that challenge and pledged to listen to legitimate ideas coming from across the aisle.
This is why Romney must attack first. Demagogue the issue (while being truthful), that Obama is stealing $700 Billion from Medicare. Put the sleaze bag Dems on defensive for once. This will be unfamiliar ground for them.
I think conservatives are loosely divided into two camps about the perspicuity of the electorate. I'm with Raphael. BDZ's camp views the People as an inevitably trending downward slope on a graph, with the y-axis representing collective intelligence, seriousness, etc., and the x-axis representing time. The other camp sees the line on the graph going up and down, depending on the situation. In that view, the People can make mistakes when they perceive the stakes are low (1992?) or when they are sick and tired of a particular party or leadership (2008?). But this same People can, when necessary, rise to the occasion when the stakes are higher (2004? 2010? 2012???). nLies do work, in every aspect of life, unfortunately – but only sometimes. In 2008, lies and half-truths (which are really the same thing) worked because the voters wanted to be hoodwinked – were hoping for an easy out, a political savior. Of course it hasn't worked out that way. (Interestingly, though, many conservatives have exhibited the same character flaw this year, looking under every rock for the reincarnation of Reagan – in many ways a mythical Reagan – and condemning Romney because he doesn't appear to be that spirit.) nThis lesson, that there are sometimes no easy outs, is one we all learn numerous times in our personal lives, so it isn't surprising that a republic has to experience the same lessons more than once. Having learned once again the costs of such vacuity, I suspect the People are more interested in substance. DWS and her ilk are in over their heads in such an environment, as is our president.
There is one crucial aspect of this election cycle that will negate the possible acceptance of the lying by democrats- the actual state of the economy. Right now, there is an intense debate about Medicare but ,as we continue in this election cycle, the economy will return to be the most important aspect and , in this ,no lying will be useful. All the democrats can say is, to paraphrase groucho marx, "what do you believe in ? My words or your own eyes?"
and none of this was necessary. Marco Rubio as the VP pick would have changed the narrative. Paul Ryan's plan could still have been an important part of the GOP 'platform' but all this keruffle about granny over the cliff could have been avoided. n nok. now I'm going to take a deep breath and acknowledge Ryan as the running mate. but really…shouldn't Romney have KNOWN they Dems were going to spin Ryan this way?
Ok, this video has nothing to do with the above article's defense of the "Sanctity of Human Life Act." What is the purpose of the legislation? I guess the answer is to "affirm legislatures have the right to protect unborn life" – well what does that mean? What additional rights is this bill trying to confer on legislatures that they don’t already have? I thinks the obvious answer is to throw the door wide open on making illegal or drastically restrict anything that would destroy a fertilized egg i.e. any form of abortion (including cases of rape), IVF, progesterone based birth control and IUD's. Again I would really like an answer to this question: If not for the purpose of making these laws possible what is the point of this legislation?
I am 29 years old, I've been married 6 years and my wife and I have been trying to get pregnant for over a year without success. I don’t know if we would need something like IVF, I don’t even know if I would do it given the expense and all that is involved, but I darn sure like to know I have that right to if that's what we choose. So, is there a good reason in my situation why I shouldn't be worried about legislation like this and legislators like Paul Ryan? I have a good job, I show up to work every day, pay my fair share of taxes to my state and to the United States of America and I don’t ask for any special treatment. All I ask in return from my legislatures is to keep their big government control out of my personal life decisions; simply all I want is freedom.