We’ve made no secret of our belief that the Richmond Times-Dispatch version of Politi"Fact” is anything but factual. Over and over again the self-styled purveyors of truth in politics have used linguistic gymnastics or outright misrepresentations to come to their conclusions. But, we are always willing to give them another chance to demonstrate real, honest logic.
And we have just the statement for them to prove themselves:
In an article this weekend in RTD about Republican Gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli, Democrat Delegate and “chairman of the Democrat Party of Virginia” Charniele Herring was quoted as saying the following:
“Ken Cuccinelli’s extreme tea party rhetoric should remind Virginians of the singular focus of his career: outlawing a woman’s right to make her own decisions. From his ‘personhood’ legislation that would have banned the birth control pill to his backdoor abortion ban regulations, Ken Cuccinelli has always put his extreme agenda ahead of what’s best for Virginia families, and that is absolutely what he would do as governor.”
The quote we’d love to see “PolitiFact” review is “From his ‘personhood’ legislation that would have banned the birth control pill….”
One can only assume that by “personhood” legislation Del. Herring means HB 1, legislation that was defeated during last year’s General Assembly session. The first part of Del. Herring’s falsehood is the use of the word “his” when referring to the bill. Perhaps she was too busy stirring up left-wing hysteria to notice that the Attorney General is no longer a member of the General Assembly and can’t introduce legislation? The bill was the work of Delegate Bob Marshall.
But it is the oft repeated line from the secular left and abortion industry, which Del. Herring represents, that the bill would have “banned the birth control pill,” that we would like to see PolitiFact review.
Here are some facts: Del. Herring, an attorney, apparently needs to brush up on her Constitutional law, and maybe actually read the bill. We’ll do some of the research for PolitiFact so they know where to get started: Griswald v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to birth control.
But, you know, that was a long time ago and Del. Herring is young, so maybe that one slipped her mind. So, how about Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490 (1989)), another U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the Constitutionality of a Missouri law that includes nearly identical language to HB 1. Oh, and as far as we know, birth control is still available in Missouri.
But even if you parse those decisions and conclude that, somehow, someway, HB 1 was in direct conflict with two (2) U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that a likely challenge to the law would have resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, overturning Griswald, the bill included the following:
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception.
There is little doubt that PolitiFact will parse nearly every claim made by pro-life groups during this election cycle. There is also no doubt that, as they have for over a year, the abortion industry and its apologists in the Democrat Party will make the same claim made by Del. Herring.
So, our challenge to PolitiFact: review Del. Herring’s words, the bill, and the Supreme Court decisions mentioned above and tell Virginians – do two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the actual words of the bill matter?