With a vote on HB1366 imminent in the Olympia House of Representatives, some Democrat politicians supporting the bill still seem to be trying to get away with outright deceptions with their constituents.
Take Larry Springer for example. Springer represents the 45th district, which covers some parts of Kirkland and Redmond, plus a range of rural King County including Duvall and Carnation. His staffer, Kelly, attempted to defend his support for the legislation on the grounds that "we're just trying to apply the same regulations to pro-life pregnancy centers that already exist for abortion clinics."
Yes, she really said that.
One hardly knows where to begin after someone tries to get away with The Big Lie like that one.
Showing posts with label 1366. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1366. Show all posts
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Friday, March 04, 2011
Speaker Frank Chopp Lets "More Dead Babies Act" Proceed to Floor Vote
Pro-lifers across the state were alarmed today to find out that Democrat House Speaker Frank Chopp decided to go ahead and let the massively controversial legislation to shut down the state's pregnancy centers out of the Rules Committee. HB1366 is now headed for a floor vote in the House. If it passes, it will then go to the Senate.
There had been hope that Mr. Chopp would keep the bill bottled up in the Rules Committee after pregnancy center advocates had met with him and educated him on what the state's 50-60 Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) and Pregnancy Medical Clinics (PMCs) do to help women at no cost facing one of their life's most difficult circumstances, an unplanned pregnancy. Mr. Chopp was reported to have been greatly impressed at the time.
There had been hope that the Democrats who were pushing the bill might reconsider after the massive show of opposition at the Health Committee Hearing. But the ideological extremists in that Party, which has been damned as a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion lobby, were unfazed.
There was further hope after a similar bill was struck down in Maryland as patently unconstitutional that the Democrats would dig deep and find some shame. But no luck with that either.
There was still hope after numerous Democrats were publicly humiliated during meetings with constituents in which it was discovered that they hadn't even read the bill they had co-sponsored. Their reaction to the penalty portion of the bill was so strong, apparently, that the bill sponsor, Judy "The Abortionator" Clibborn was forced to revamp it completely. The new text, which calls for "injunctive relief", has been condemned as just as bad as the first version, but less easy to attack.
The bill could come to a floor vote as early as Saturday morning. For details on the legislation, click here and you will find our many other stories.
There had been hope that Mr. Chopp would keep the bill bottled up in the Rules Committee after pregnancy center advocates had met with him and educated him on what the state's 50-60 Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) and Pregnancy Medical Clinics (PMCs) do to help women at no cost facing one of their life's most difficult circumstances, an unplanned pregnancy. Mr. Chopp was reported to have been greatly impressed at the time.
There had been hope that the Democrats who were pushing the bill might reconsider after the massive show of opposition at the Health Committee Hearing. But the ideological extremists in that Party, which has been damned as a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion lobby, were unfazed.
There was further hope after a similar bill was struck down in Maryland as patently unconstitutional that the Democrats would dig deep and find some shame. But no luck with that either.
There was still hope after numerous Democrats were publicly humiliated during meetings with constituents in which it was discovered that they hadn't even read the bill they had co-sponsored. Their reaction to the penalty portion of the bill was so strong, apparently, that the bill sponsor, Judy "The Abortionator" Clibborn was forced to revamp it completely. The new text, which calls for "injunctive relief", has been condemned as just as bad as the first version, but less easy to attack.
The bill could come to a floor vote as early as Saturday morning. For details on the legislation, click here and you will find our many other stories.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
And The Award for the Most Incompetent Piece of Journalism Goes To ....
Yes, the Abortionssociated Press, in conjunction with the Seattle Times!
Finally the western Washington media cottoned on to the fact that there was a major political battle going on in Olympia and wrote a story about HB1366, the bill to destroy Washington State pregnancy centers on behalf of the abortion industry.
Yet reading the article, you'd be hard pressed to figure any of this out.
First, the article starts off by using the term "limited service pregnancy center" -- without quotation marks. The stigmatizing and biased term was coined by the abortion lobby to serve their political agenda. For the AP, the pejorative language of the extreme left is considered neutral and objective.
Second, it makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the measures in the bill have been found unconstitutional by a federal court, and the Attorney General of Washington has indicated that this bill is even worse.
Third, Robin Hindery, the AP writer -- it would be wrong to use the term 'journalist' -- says nothing about the shocking punitive measures in the original bill that were without precedent and were determined by almost everyone who read them as having been designed for one purpose: to put pregnancy centers out of business by making it impossible for them to afford the flurry of frivolous lawsuits. The language was so bad that the Democrats replaced it with an "injunctive relief" provision. Miss Hindery makes no attempt to explain what the consequences of this would be, or that it would have the same effect.
Fourth, Miss Hindery does not state anywhere that 15 years ago the abortion lobby was arguing the exact opposite of this, when consumers and citizens were trying to get some minimal regulation on the abortion business to force them to tell the truth about abortion to abortion-seeking customers. They fought tooth and nail to avoid such mandates, but now are arguing the opposite.
Similarly, the fact that the ACLU just one year ago was on the opposite side of this issue was somehow omitted by the report.
Even the very title of the article, "Bill seeks to clarify Washington pregnancy-center services" takes the Democrat-Abortion spin at face value. The death of the bill in the Senate is reported as "a relatively common practice" without challenge, when it was actually a significant lobbying victory.
It's additionally pathetic that the massive turnouts from pregnancy care center supporters at committee hearings in opposition to the bill even made it into a piece by the self-proclaimed left-wing "The Stranger", but not into the AP/Seattle Times account.
Some have speculated that with the bill possibly dead in the House Rules Committee, NARAL & Planned Parenthood put in a call to their buddies at the Associated Press and ordered up a press release disguised as a news report to try to breathe new life into the legislation.
Either way, it's high time that the Seattle Times and Associated Press put large disclaimers in "30 point font or larger", "prominently, clearly, and conspicuously" on all their communications that they are a "limited truth news service".
Finally the western Washington media cottoned on to the fact that there was a major political battle going on in Olympia and wrote a story about HB1366, the bill to destroy Washington State pregnancy centers on behalf of the abortion industry.
Yet reading the article, you'd be hard pressed to figure any of this out.
First, the article starts off by using the term "limited service pregnancy center" -- without quotation marks. The stigmatizing and biased term was coined by the abortion lobby to serve their political agenda. For the AP, the pejorative language of the extreme left is considered neutral and objective.
Second, it makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the measures in the bill have been found unconstitutional by a federal court, and the Attorney General of Washington has indicated that this bill is even worse.
Third, Robin Hindery, the AP writer -- it would be wrong to use the term 'journalist' -- says nothing about the shocking punitive measures in the original bill that were without precedent and were determined by almost everyone who read them as having been designed for one purpose: to put pregnancy centers out of business by making it impossible for them to afford the flurry of frivolous lawsuits. The language was so bad that the Democrats replaced it with an "injunctive relief" provision. Miss Hindery makes no attempt to explain what the consequences of this would be, or that it would have the same effect.
Fourth, Miss Hindery does not state anywhere that 15 years ago the abortion lobby was arguing the exact opposite of this, when consumers and citizens were trying to get some minimal regulation on the abortion business to force them to tell the truth about abortion to abortion-seeking customers. They fought tooth and nail to avoid such mandates, but now are arguing the opposite.
Similarly, the fact that the ACLU just one year ago was on the opposite side of this issue was somehow omitted by the report.
Even the very title of the article, "Bill seeks to clarify Washington pregnancy-center services" takes the Democrat-Abortion spin at face value. The death of the bill in the Senate is reported as "a relatively common practice" without challenge, when it was actually a significant lobbying victory.
It's additionally pathetic that the massive turnouts from pregnancy care center supporters at committee hearings in opposition to the bill even made it into a piece by the self-proclaimed left-wing "The Stranger", but not into the AP/Seattle Times account.
Some have speculated that with the bill possibly dead in the House Rules Committee, NARAL & Planned Parenthood put in a call to their buddies at the Associated Press and ordered up a press release disguised as a news report to try to breathe new life into the legislation.
Either way, it's high time that the Seattle Times and Associated Press put large disclaimers in "30 point font or larger", "prominently, clearly, and conspicuously" on all their communications that they are a "limited truth news service".
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Democrats Modify "Pregnancy Center Elimination" Bill, New Text Almost as Bad
Word on the street lately has been that the House Health Committee Chair Eileen "Waist Up" Cody was planning to replace the text of the massively controversial legislation to destroy the state's 57 pregnancy centers just prior to the committee vote. That vote is expected today, Thursday, in the committee's executive session.
We contacted Rep. Cody's office yesterday to ask if this plan was public. We spoke with her Legislative Assistant, Holly Mortlock. Ms. Mortlock admitted to us that there were changes to the bill that had been drafted but not made public, but claimed that this was standard process because of the short legislative sessions. She said the committee was responding to the public's input.
The only changes she was willing to disclose was the fact that the penalty section of the bill was to be reworked. She admitted that there had been vociferous public outrage over the punishments outlined in the original bill, so devastatingly outlined in testimony before the committee by attorney John Panesko.
We contacted Rep. Cody's office yesterday to ask if this plan was public. We spoke with her Legislative Assistant, Holly Mortlock. Ms. Mortlock admitted to us that there were changes to the bill that had been drafted but not made public, but claimed that this was standard process because of the short legislative sessions. She said the committee was responding to the public's input.
The only changes she was willing to disclose was the fact that the penalty section of the bill was to be reworked. She admitted that there had been vociferous public outrage over the punishments outlined in the original bill, so devastatingly outlined in testimony before the committee by attorney John Panesko.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
