TDPS: Are Republican abortion proposals domestic terrorism? TRANSCRIPT

[celtics23]

Run time: 05:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUai1q2ONuA   Posted on YouTube: March 01, 2011 By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics Views on YouTube: 528   Posted on DU: March 03, 2011 By DU Member: celtics23 Views on DU: 319

 
From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics

Louis: And I don't know about our audience, but this probably applies to you, too. When I hear about lawmakers trying to pass stuff like this, I think of them sitting around in like the Legion of Doom.

David: Right.

Louis: Like around a table that's like dimly lit. One of them proposes something like this, and they all give like a sinister laugh or something.

David: You know, I don't really believe that...

Louis: But that's what it sounds like.

David: These suggestions are so sinister that how else could they be conceived? But you know what? I think they're conceived in a different way. I think they are conceived during fundraising from the PAC groups that are funding the candidates, who then are participating in the corrupt quid pro quo of saying well, you know what? Even though, in the case of U.S. congressmen, each one represents about 703,000 individuals, I don't care if two-thirds of them believe the government should provide health care. I don't believe if two-thirds of them or more believe that abortion should be legal and safe. I'm going to act based on the hundred donors through a PAC instead of representing my 703,000 constituents.

Is this terrorism? Are these proposals terrorism, Louis? What if we define terrorism, as many do, as the deliberate murder of civilians or destruction of property in order to achieve a political objective? These proposals are terrorism.

Louis: By that definition, yes.

David: And by the definition of causing unrest, concern, and fear, because when I hear these and when women hear the relentless attacks on them that are being brought forth, if they're not afraid, they are not paying attention.

And you know what? I don't think this stuff will pass, I really don't, but I think it is a brilliant move by Republicans in this sense: the left has limited resources, we know that. And this type of proposal makes some of the effort and resources have to go towards denouncing these bills, which won't pass, but the left has no choice but to defend these. The left, even though the bills won't pass, progressives have to come out and denounce these and talk about them.

We have to talk about it on our show, Louis, right? We could spend the five minutes talking about something else, we have a limited amount of time on each show, but people need to know, even if it won't pass, that people are having these ideas. Somewhere, as you said, Louis, people are sitting around a table or on a conference call, and they think that this makes sense.

Louis: We don't really even need to denounce it, we just need to talk about it.

David: We need to make sure people know about it.

Louis: Because if we didn't talk about it, no major media outlet will, to the extent that we're talking about it.

David: No. You'll hear 30 seconds, maybe, maybe a couple of stories here and there. And by the way...

Louis: What you'll hear is a description that the lawmakers themselves would give for that bill.

David: We'll hear that, and the other thing you'll hear is the on the one hand, and on the other side. Here's someone representing one side of the issue, and here's someone representing the other side of the issue, and both are equal, and both are valid. And you know what? It's just not the case. If after the Superbowl you were allowed to have the people who discuss that Green Bay won, and then people who come on and say well, we're from the side that believes that the Pittsburgh Steelers actually won, right? You don't have to give both, and not every position is equally valid.

And by the way, just to wrap up here, the Virginia legislature also announced that they have approved a bill that will regulate abortion clinics as hospitals, OK? What does this mean? This means something that we should be afraid of. It will significantly limit access to the first-trimester procedures that should be legal, safe, and accessible.

Currently, clinics that provide first-trimester abortions are regulated like other physicians' offices that provide outpatient services, not like hospitals, so for example, vasectomy or a breast augmentation. The new law, clinics would be subject to the stringent rules that apply to inpatient hospital services, and it is going to significantly limit access to not the late-term abortions that are the subject of much controversy, that nobody wants to see, but first-trimester procedures. We need to be aware of this, ladies and gentlemen.

Louis: And on top of being irresponsible, people will just go out-of-state if they want... if they need to, so I don't get it.

David: Of course. Of course. You know what? I hate even getting into that, because my point is why are congressmen and senators, if Republicans don't want government involvement and government meddling, why are they deciding exactly what hospitals should and shouldn't be doing? But if we want to get into it, people will find abortions. If they are determined to get one, they will go out-of-state, and you know what? Even worse, they will have unsafe abortions.

Let's take a break. On the bonus show today, plenty of discussion: 80 mile-an-hour speed limits, Anonymous is at it again. www.DavidPakman.com/membership.

Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.



Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham and www.Subscriptorium.com. For transcripts, translations, captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or contact Alex at [e-mail].

[aliciaabs19]

1. By any reasonable definition: YES