Media outlets provide modified, baseless version of oft-repeated falsehood about Casey's denial of speaking slot at the 1992 DNC
SUMMARY: Two AP articles claimed that "the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey ... was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views," an assertion echoed in posts on ABC News' Political Radar blog and Mark Halperin's The Page. Each advanced a modified version of the old falsehood, much repeated, that Casey was denied a speaking role at the convention because he opposed abortion rights.
In separate August 13 Associated Press articles, writers Nedra Pickler and Kimberly Hefling claimed that "the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey ... was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views." Likewise, in an August 13 Political Radar blog post, ABC News' Teddy Davis and Arnab Datta asserted that "the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey D-Pa., was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights." Additionally, in an August 13 entry on The Page, Mark Halperin claimed that Casey "wasn't given a marquee speaking spot at the '92 convention because of" his "abortion views." They were each providing a modified version of the old falsehood, much repeated, that Casey was denied a speaking role at the convention because he opposed abortion rights. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, others who opposed abortion rights were given speaking roles at the convention, so Casey's views on abortion alone could not have been the deciding factor in the Democratic National Committee's decision not to give him a speaking role. By specifying that Casey was denied a "marquee" or a "prime" speaking spot, the AP, ABC News, and Halperin suggest that Casey would have otherwise been given a "prime" or "marquee" spot, if not for his opposition to abortion rights, an assertion that is baseless in its own right -- they provide no evidence that he was being considered or would have been considered for a "prime" speaking spot -- and that is reportedly refuted by DNC organizers. As Media Matters has documented, Michael Crowley of The New Republic reported in 1996: "According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots" -- "prime" or otherwise -- "Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket."
From Hefling's August 13 AP article:
Democratic officials say Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who opposes abortion rights, will be a featured speaker at the party's national convention.
Casey was set to speak during the convention's Tuesday night session.
Casey is the son of the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, who was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supports abortion rights. Casey endorsed Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and campaigned with Obama throughout Pennsylvania.
From Pickler's August 13 AP article:
In an effort to reach out to anti-abortion Democrats, Obama gave Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, long an opponent of abortion, a speaking role the same Tuesday night that [former Virginia Gov. Mark] Warner and Clinton were to address delegates.
Casey is the son of the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, who was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views. Bob Casey endorsed Obama over Clinton in his state's primary.
From the August 13 ABC News Political Radar blog post:
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion rights opponent who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY prior to the Pennsylvania primary, will address the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, Aug. 26.
Casey's father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey D-Pa., was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.
The 1992 snub has become a symbol over the years of the Democratic Party making support for abortion rights a litmus test. In 2004, Republicans contrasted the Casey snub with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY., two Republicans who support abortion rights, speaking to their convention.
The decision to give Sen. Casey a featured speaking spot is part of a broader effort on the part of the Democrats to broaden the party's appeal on abortion.
You know folks, you can really start to feel this election slip away, because the media-- all the MSM corporate entities-- are corrupt, dishonest, and dedicated to a Republican victory.
Every nutcase allegation is being pondered seriously, every derogatory rumor is given exposure, and all to the detriment of the Democrats, and rarely the opposition party. That's no coincidence, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
I'm going to start out right away with my hypothetical scenario from the last time this topic came up. No one had an answer that time.
Let's pretend a prominent republican refused to endorse McCain's ticket when given the chance to do so. Let's say he's been known to be belligerent and antagonistic toward McCain. Would he be given a speaking opportunity at the convention? No, of course not.
That is almost the exact situation the Democrats faced with Casey and Clinton. Casey's views on any particular topic became irrelevant to any decision to give him a slot to address the convention because of Casey's own words and actions.
This is undeniable. He screwed up his chance to address the convention. If you claim that he wouldn't have been allowed to anyway because of his position on choice, you're simply playing a game of "what if?" We don't know, and anyone who claims to know is delusional. We'll never know for sure because Casey didn't give it a chance to become an issue.
Therefore, anyone who claims that Casey's anti-choice position was the main reason he wasn't given a slot is blowing smoke.
Bill, this topic spawned a really long thread recently. I think it was mostly a back & forth where one side was taking the position that if his intent to give a long Anti-abortion speech was a factor at all, that tramslated as him being excluded for "his views".
Once again, MMFA has not established, nor have they ever established that this story about Casey is false. Even Casey claims that he was denied a speaking role because of his views on abortion. It does not matter how many people spoke who opposed abortion, that still does not mean Casey was not denied because of that reason. The people who spoke also did not mention abortion, which Casey refused to agree to.
He refused to be silenced or censored, so they cut him out totally. MMFA relies only on “administration officials” who claim it did not happen that way, and ignore what Casey and those close to him said about the incident. No matter how they try and hide it, MMFA is not reporting the whole story, and to call it a myth or a falsehood is a gross revision of history.
Pointy, if your childs' school hired a Muslim math teacher who started spending the hour he had your kid in class by reading from the Koran, would you object?
If you objected, would you consider yourself guilty of religious persecution?
So let me get this straight Col. You are comparing a pro-life dem to a math teacher who refuses to teach math!! Only in your world can that make sense. So according to you, only dems who are in favor of abortion, and not protecting life can speak to an audience of dems? Wow…..I thought you guys were the party of diversity. I guess you are, as long as diversity means you all say, speak, and feel exactly the same thing.
So let me get this straight Col
You don't need my permission. Just some better reading comprehension.
You are usually not such a chicken sh!t col. I am surprised you ducked that one so badly.
"So according to you, only dems who are in favor of abortion, and not protecting life can speak to an audience of dems?"
That had nothing to do with the point. The point was that the teacher in the example isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing. A speaker at a Democratic National Convention shouldn't be giving long, impassioned speeches about abortion even though that view is not excluded from the party. It's just not the time or place for it.
Thanks, Brab. Sometimes these wingnuts are so thick, I start to question my own sanity.I'm trying to think of a simpler analogy, but it may be a waste of time if some are just determined to not get it.
How about this( and BillMn, again, I'm handicapping by pretending the speech was the only issue);
I have a little group that gets together once a week to discuss current events.We take turns bringing up a topic from the days headlines, and give our take on it.
Peter O. Vandelay is in my group. He's also a Civil War buff, which is fine with the group.
One night, Peter wants to use his time to re-enact the Battle of Pea Ridge.The group tells him to piss off.
Another case of anti-Civil-War-Buff bigotry and intolerance.
"Sometimes these wingnuts are so thick, I start to question my own sanity"
I know that feeling. Yesterday on one of the usual "abortion" diversions (sorry if I start another one, but this was just too funny), K1dork responded to one of BottleBlonde's posts by assuming that she thought a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion as she's going into the delivery room. I was sitting there thinking "did I really NOT just see her use the term 'non-viable fetus' at least twice in that post?" Sure enough, she used that phrase at least twice, which directly refuted the idea that it would be acceptable to get an abortion minutes before delivery. But for a minute I thought I had been imagining it.
It's almost like some of these people are so attached to their false impressions that their brains can't understand a liberal telling them that they believe something different. If it doesn't fit into the framework, forget it.
I think the church analogy I present later is a pretty good one, because there's no chance of any sympathy for the person from the likes of POV. It's not like he's going to think "Gee, it seems unfair that he's getting kicked out for his views..." Of course, if he's oblivious to any demonstration of the difference between behavior and belief, it doesn't much matter how apt the comparison is.
MM's effort at historical revisionism is sad and is not based at all on what actually happened in 1992.
"The TRUTH About Gov. Bob Casey and The 1992 DNC Convention"
MM is simply wrong.
Once again, Shoes, it must be pointed out that your link has nothing based on objective fact. It rests almost entirely on Casey's claims after the fact. Casey had strong, self-serving reasons to spin the episode the way he did.
If Casey can make people believe that he was blocked only because of his anti-choice position, he looks like he was a victim, rejected for his principles.
When we see the facts, that he was petty and belligerent, refusing to endorse the party's ticket when given the chance to do so, he doesn't come off very well in the public perception. That's why he put the spin on it that he did.
So, Shoes, can you answer a question that all of your fellow cons have failed to answer? Let's pretend a prominent republican refused to endorse McCain's ticket when given the chance to do so. Let's say he's been known to be belligerent and antagonistic toward McCain. Would he be given a speaking opportunity at the convention?
This is a rare case where your link doesn't even need to be followed. It's all been covered, as far as I can see. Nobody can address Bill's point, for starters. There's no way to assert that Casey doesn't have a motive to spin the story for his own purposes.
And even if you were to get past that, it doesn't matter for reasons that the Col. and I have stated. The simple fact is that he was not discriminated against for his views no matter how you cut it, and therefore it's still misinformation.
If you have something to specifically counter any of that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Incidentally, I think both of your analogies work very well, especially the Muslim math teacher one. It reminds me of a previous thread where I said that if Mitt Romney endorsed McCain he still wouldn't be allowed on stage if he insisted on giving his speech on his magical underwear and other wonders of Mormonism. There would be no way for Romney to whine about religious discrimination, as if he was denied a spot because of what he thinks.
I would say that your mistake in the Muslim math teacher analogy was that you didn't spell it out for him and gave him room for misunderstanding, but obviously that doesn't make any difference.
A speaker at a Democratic National Convention shouldn't be giving long, impassioned speeches about abortion even though that view is not excluded from the party. It's just not the time or place for it.
EXACTLY!
I am surprised you ducked that one so badly. - pointofview
Pardon me, POV. When you completely avoided my 2 simple questions, I assumed you'd conceded the stoopidity of your point.
A brief timeline:
at 4:13 (my time) I asked you two questions.They could have been seen as rhetorical, but only by somebody who understood the logical problems with your post. If you were still in the game you should have answered.
4:17 - You ignored (ducked) my questions, admitted you were trying to get things straight, and went on to prove you were confused by rambling on about a bunch of assumptions and strawmen.
4:22 - I tried to help you by advising that you didn't need me to "let" you get it straight, you only needed to put on your thinking cap.
I left work about half an hour later, just before 5,but I checked back to see if you'd made any progress. Nope.
5:26 - more than an hour after I tried to help you out, and had assumed you'd figured out you error, you slink back and accuse me of being afraid. Pretty silly when you see it like that, eh?
If you come back, and would like to answer my questions, I'd be pretty impressed. OK, mildly impressed.
As I pointed out above, Casey was definitely not going to be allowed to speak for entirely different reasons. It was a fact that he screwed up his chances for reasons that had nothing to do with choice.
There are just some people who want choice to be the issue for their own political reasons. Casey was one of those. The fact he says that was the reason doesn't make it so. He was an angry and bitter man.
Everyone's a liar if you take the wrong position on abortion OR if you just cross the leadership of the left.
Sounds a bit STALINISTIC doesn't it?
Pretty soon noboby will be able to remember that Bob Casey Sr. was the Governor of Pennsylvania. They'll write him out of the history books and edit the video.
As with all of the others, you ignored my main point. Casey eliminated himself from consideration for reasons that had nothing to do with his anti-choice stance.
I ask again, would the republicans allow a prominent republican to speak who refused to endorse McCain's ticket and was actually antogonistic toward McCain?
If the answer to that is no, as it is, then the rest becomes irrelevant when looking at the Casey situation.
There are just some people who want choice to be the issue for their own political reasons. Casey was one of those. The fact he says that was the reason doesn't make it so.
Choice was NOT the issue with Casey.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.
Tell us Pearl
How many of these people you talk about spoke out against abortion at the convention? While you are at it, tell us exactly why you dismiss the word of Casey himself when he says it WAS the reason.? As usual, your attempt to take the moral high ground is blocked by a little thing I like to call reality.
... tell us exactly why you dismiss the word of Casey himself when he says it WAS the reason.? - POV
It served Casey's personal agenda to claim that was the reason. That doesn't make it so. By making that claim Casey made himself out to be a victim, persecuted for his principles. It just didn't reflect as well on him to admit the problem was his refusal to endorse the party's candidates when given the chance.
It was in Casey's interest to revise history. That doesn't mean it was true.
How many of these people you talk about spoke out against abortion at the convention?
LOL
They spoke about as long as Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke about his pro-choice views at the Republican conventions. In case you hadn't heard, James Dobson was sitting on the edge of his seat. <sarcasm>
POV, no matter how many times you try, you have no point! NO ONE will EVER be allowed to speak AGAINST ANY party's platform at their convention.
Republicans DO NOT allow ANYONE to make a pro-choice speech at their convention because the Republican party's platform is pro-life. Bob Casey REFUSED to endorse HIS party's candidate AND wanted to make a speech AGAINST the party's platform. Just use a little common sense, can you imagine anyone speaking at the Republican convention after not only refusing to endorse John McCain but wanting to include their por-choice views as well? It WOULDN'T happen.
Casey didn't speak, but not because of his pro-life position. The Democratic party has several speakers who's personal views are pro-life but they RESPECT THEIR party and don't go against the party platform. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger does with Republicans.
Bill, I hope it didn't sound like I was disputing your point. I realize Casey wasn't allowed to speak for very different reasons, I was just spotting POV a few points. Sometimes it's fun to let them beg the question* and watch them flounder, even with the Mulligan.
* (still fighting for the return of proper use of BTQ.)
No, I didn't think for a moment you were disputing my point. We're both simply choosing different approaches as to why the "Casey was blocked because of his view on abortion" argument is misinformation. I've chosen my case and I'm going to keep pushing it as long as the conservatives continue to find themselves with absolutely no answer to it.
You and others have used other arguments from among the several valid cases to be made demonstrating conservative misinformation. You're arguing it very well, so I'll stick to my own focused argument.
"Even Casey claims that he was denied a speaking role because of his views on abortion. It does not matter how many people spoke who opposed abortion, that still does not mean Casey was not denied because of that reason. The people who spoke also did not mention abortion, which Casey refused to agree to."
If he was going to give a speech about abortion, that's a question of behavior, not "views". You just demonstrated how such a thing would not be "because of that reason", because it's clearly a different reason.
You should be ashamed Col. Running a subtle point like that past POV.
Generic off target response from POV proceeding to the ever wonderful "The Dems Are Intollerant" rant, Thsweet!
And the total and utter failure of either you or the col to refute anything I said is satisfying. You can make all the claims you want, but Casey was denied for not toeing the party line on abortion. Pro Life dems are looked down upon, and your revisionist history does not change that.
You didn't provide anything to refute. You don't have anything to support you other than Casey's biased, self-serving perspective which is itself without evidence. It's impossible to refute a because-I-say-so case like yours because refutation assumes there's some substance in the case.
Have you suffered from these delusions of adequacy for a very long time?
And even worse, even if one takes what he's saying as completely true, that's still reasonable grounds to keep Casey out of the convention. If someone stood up in POV's church and started yelling about how Bush needs to be impeached, POV wouldn't accept "they kicked me out because of my views!" for a second. That goes beyond "views", so it's not as if there's some prejudice at play there.
I'm not sure if it's more funny or sad that he thinks he's got some great "gotcha" angle here, when his argument doesn't help his cause under any circumstances.
Great example, except that talking about impeaching Bush has nothing to do with a church service, the same as the col’s lame example of a math teacher who wont teach math has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is really very simple. Casey was a dem, who was attacked by other dems because he was not pro death for the unborn. Because he did not toe the party line, he was cut out…plain and simple. MMFA, and all those who have posted on this thread have no evidence…..no evidence to refute the view of Casey. All they have are “administration officials” who have a biased reason and an agenda that makes them tell the story they way they did. So you have the views of an administration spokesperson, vs. the view of Casey. That hardly makes it a myth, or baseless as MMFA likes to claim. That makes the case and the real reason disputed. There is a huge difference between disputed, and baseless. It is sad you can not tell the difference.
There's plenty of evidence.
Others who were anti-abortion got to speak.
So being anti-abortion wasn't a determining factor.
No one who wouldn't speak up in favor of the nominee got to speak. Casey didn't support Clinton until after the convention.
Evidence.
A self-serving statement from Casey about why he thinks others denied him the right to speak is not evidence of why others denied him the right to speak. Casey doesn't know their motivation, and the people who made that decision have denied his opinion and stated their reasons.
There's no evidence to support your allegation. There is evidence to support our statements.
Of course Bush has nothing to do with a church service, that's the whole point. It's not the time or place for it, just like a fiery speech about abortion doesn't belong at a high-profile Democratic event.
It doesn't matter if he was excluded because he planned to give a speech about abortion, because that is about behavior, not views. That's the point about the church service, that person wouldn't be kicked out because of his views, because any number of people there might agree with his views and be allowed to stay. That crosses over into behavior, where even if you agree with him, you understand that the action is still inappropriate.
When you say that he was not allowed to speak because of his views, that means prejudice. It means he was discriminated against because of what he thinks. Once you make it about behavior, then it isn't prejudice anymore by definition. So again, even if we take what you're saying as pure gospel, you still have no argument.
Do you understand now?
Pro Life dems are looked down upon, and your revisionist history does not change that.
Yeah, what was the color of that welcome mat for pro-choice Republicans? <sarcasm>
Your five minutes early declaring victory POV. Control man, Control!
Failing to endorse the party ticket had nothing to do with his situation, check.
The person with an ax to grind is the believable source, check.
Everyone and everything else is to be ignored. Maybe that is worth five minutes, but I fear appathly lurks.
Maybe if we just tell him he won, he'll go to sleep.
I know it's a little sadistic, but I never get tired of that grisly collision; the abstract nature of an analogy hitting the concrete thinking of a wingnut. It's like watching a hooved animal trying to send a text message.
Guys and gals please pardon me for cutting and pasting a comment I made about this issue in the previous thread. The comment came at the very end of the thread so it may have been missed. So again pardon my cut and paste here.
Bill do you honestly believe "...it's hard to say either way" whether the DNC would have allowed Casey to speak support/non-support for the ticket not withstanding ?. Also, you base your argument on a point which is still very much in dispute, i.e. did Casey support the Clinton-Gore ticket prior to the Democratic Convention ?. Now I'm not going to be disingenuous here by denying Gov. Casey may been disinclined to endorse the Clinton Gore ticket but whether he did or did not is still in dispute. However, I find nothing in my research that indicates Casey was lying.
But, Gov. Casey's support or lack thereof for the ticket is a canard, a red herring. I respectfully submit you could not sit in front of me with a straight face and say Gov. Casey would have been allowed to speak had his support for the Clinton-Gore ticket been proclaimed from sea to shining sea prior to the convention. This is the important question Bill. In my mind it is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Whether Gov. Casey supported the Clinton-Gore ticket or not he was not going to be allowed to talk about his views (and the views of many other Democrats I might add) on abortion. Remember, prior to the convention Clinton was trailing Perot and Bush in the polls, and I seriously doubt that Begala, Carville, or Brown were of a mind to allow anything or anyone to detract from their plans for a successful convention. And, I'm sure their vision of a successful convention did not include TV and newspaper headlines screaming the likes of "Knockdown Dragout over Abortion issue at the Democratic National Convention...Popcorn optional".
I'm thinking Gov. Casey's vision of the purpose of the Democratic Convenion differed significantly from the collective vision of Begala, Carville, and Brown. I'm thinking Gov. Casey believed those within the party whose ideology may differ from the "chosen" platform might have a chance to voice their ideologies in the public forum that is the convention and thus have some influence on the platform.
Gov. Casey was denied his forum. Dissent was not tolerated.
P.S. With regard to your hypothetical Republican...were the shoe reversed, i.e. if we were talking about the Republican party instead of the Democratic Party my argument would be the same. And, I do agree with you...the Republicans would have done the same thing. In no way do they hold the moral or historical high ground here.
The following was added for this thread...
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that dissent was stifled. And, yes both parties do it. Moreover, if we were talking about the Republican party here I would be saying the same thing. I'm not picking on the Dems here I'm just saying that for Begala, Carville and the rest to say Casey was refused a speaking slot because he didn't support the Clinton-Gore ticket is a lie of omission. Had Casey proclaimed his support prior to the convention the results would still have been the same...Gov. Casey would not have been giving a speech at the 1992 Democratic convention.
In my opinion neither party has the right to stifle dissent. And, with all due respect I don't think any of us here believe for one minute that dissent was not stifled in this case. That should be the story. The dispute of why is just a canard, and deflects attention away from the real issue.
Sky
Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!!
I just created a fairly lengthy reply to you that got lost because MMFA logged me off. I hope to recreate it soon.
The lengthy one was probably good, Bill, but entirely unnecessary.This is getting repetitive, so I'll just go with the short version;
Casey was not prohibited from speaking simply because he held anti-abortion views. That's it.
I did miss your last post from the other discussion thread, so thank you for repeating it here.
I'm not aware of any dispute on either side as to whether Casey refused to endorse the ticket. In his autobiography, he wrote a fair amount about that convention and I don't think he challenged that part of the party officials' case. Don't you think he would have mentioned that since he was trying to make the case he was blocked for his anti-choice views? Do you have any source that challenges that part of our discussion?
I don't believe the question of ticket endorsement is a red herring at all. I think it's a very significant point relative to the issue discussed by MMFA. If Casey was not going to be allowed to address the convention for reasons of his own creation, that had nothing directly to do with his views on any issue, then that means the other issues lose relevance. It means that MMFA is absolutely correct in that Casey was not blocked because of his anti-choice position. Whether he would have been anyway becomes nothing other than a "what if" game.
If Casey had approached the party officials in charge of scheduling speakers and asked for time with an absolute promise that he would not mention abortion, the issue of ticket endorsement would still have prevented him from reaching the podium. That means that choice was not the primary reason for blocking him.
Do I honestly believe that he might have been allowed to speak if he had endorsed the ticket? Yes, I think it might have been possible, though not likely. And I agree with your reasons, in large part, why that would have been so. The platform had been debated and finalized; it was established as the party's position. The time for debating it had passed. That convention, like most for many decades, was to be more of a coronation and a pep rally. It was to get the party faithful excited and stir up public enthusiasm for the candidate and the party. They didn't want controversy from the podium because they saw that as being in opposition to the purpose of the convention.
However, I don't believe that treating it that way is an act of censorship or crushing dissent. Casey would still have been allowed to make any statements on the topic in any forum he could get put together. The party was under no obligation to provide that forum for him. He had made it clear to all who would listen what his topic would be. It just happened that he made it easy by creating a situation in which he wouldn't have been allowed to speak regardless of the topic.
I disagree that the why deflects from the "real issue." The debate over abortion rights has been there for a long time in the Democratic Party and isn't going anywhere. It will be discussed many more times in many ways. The fact is that a very large majority of Democrats favor a woman's right to choose, so that will remain the party position. The debate isn't suppressed, it's simply steered to the proper time and place. Which is an entirely different issue for debate.
No Col. Gov. Casey was not denied the opportunity to speak because of his "views". He was denied the opportunity to speak because he wanted to speak about his "views". Big big difference. And, I'll go you one better. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that the "pro-life" speakers that did speak at the convention would indeed have spoken had they let it be known they were going to speak about their "pro-life" views ?. Of course none of them did...speak about their "pro-life" views...wonder why ?
Sky
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding you, Sky. It looks like you concede my point, then "go me one better" by asking me several unrelated hypotheticals.
My short reply was only to remind anybody who'd lost sight of the topic what it actually was. You're in agreement with me there, apparently, and the rest is navel-gazing. Carry on with it if you want to, I'm bored by it.