"It’s not about the victim." - Pro-Rape candidate Scott Brown

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://airamerica.com/politics/01-12-2010/why-do-scott-brown-and-gop-hate-rape-victims/

brown__display.jpg
Republican senatorial candidate Scott Brown, speaks during a news conference in Marlborough, Mass., Monday, Jan. 11, 2010, where Brown received the endorsement of the State Police Association of Massachusetts and the State Police Commissioned Officers Association. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

By Megan Carpentier

Related Content



megan_thumbnail.jpg
Republican candidate Scott Brown, running to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, has a problem with more than just Martha Coakley. As Coakley's new ad points out, he also has a problem with rape victims.
From Sarah Palin denying funds to reimburse hospitals for performing forensic rape examinations to the 30 Senate Republicans who voted against allowing rape victims their day in court, the new Republican party tough-on-crime platform is, apparently, that rape victims ought to have rights, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of people in Wasilla who prefer lower taxes, businesses or super-devout (and, possibly, Deuteronomy-loving) Christians or .
Scott Brown falls into, at a minimum, the latter camp. In 2005, he sponsored legislation to allow doctors and nurses to turn away rape victims from Massachusetts emergency rooms if they objected to providing rape victims with emergency contraception. He said:
“Through our conversations, I’ve heard, ‘what if somebody has a sincerely held religious conviction about dispensing the emergency contraception medication? What about their rights? How do we address those?’ ’’ Brown said on the Senate floor, according to a State House News Service transcript.
Brown added that a rape victim would be referred to another facility at no additional cost. “It’s not about the victim."
​
Brown, who probably has not been sexually assaulted, let alone driven by ambulance or police car to an emergency room only to be turned away by medical professionals who profess to value their religion over your physical health, thinks that laws governing the provision of government-funded services to victims of sexual assault aren't "about" the victim. It's about what makes the Christian medical professionals most comfortable. I am certain that a victim raped in Lee, Massachusetts who endures the 11 mile drive to the hospital in Great Barrington only to be turned away by a Christian emergency room nurse (who objects to emergency contraception she herself doesn't have to take) wouldn't mind at all then going to a hospital in Pittsfield (21 miles), Hudson, NY (27 miles) or Westfield (47 miles) in order to get the medical care she needs, as long as it's a free ride. There's nothing like a person who morally objects to your presence in her place of employment after you've been sexually assault to assist you in coping with your trauma.
If Brown wins the Senate, he'll be in good company, however. Senators from Mitch McConnell to noted prostitution enthusiast David Vitter all objected to legislation that would have forced U.S. contractors to allow their employees who are sexually assaulted to have their day in court on the grounds that it would inconvenience and possibly cost those companies money. We wouldn't want sexual assault to be inconvenient for other people, after all. As Scott Brown said, "It's not about the victim."
 
Atheistmark said:
http://airamerica.com/politics/01-12-2010/why-do-scott-brown-and-gop-hate-rape-victims/

brown__display.jpg
Republican senatorial candidate Scott Brown, speaks during a news conference in Marlborough, Mass., Monday, Jan. 11, 2010, where Brown received the endorsement of the State Police Association of Massachusetts and the State Police Commissioned Officers Association. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

By Megan Carpentier

Related Content



megan_thumbnail.jpg
Republican candidate Scott Brown, running to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, has a problem with more than just Martha Coakley. As Coakley's new ad points out, he also has a problem with rape victims.
From Sarah Palin denying funds to reimburse hospitals for performing forensic rape examinations to the 30 Senate Republicans who voted against allowing rape victims their day in court, the new Republican party tough-on-crime platform is, apparently, that rape victims ought to have rights, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of people in Wasilla who prefer lower taxes, businesses or super-devout (and, possibly, Deuteronomy-loving) Christians or .
Scott Brown falls into, at a minimum, the latter camp. In 2005, he sponsored legislation to allow doctors and nurses to turn away rape victims from Massachusetts emergency rooms if they objected to providing rape victims with emergency contraception. He said:
“Through our conversations, I’ve heard, ‘what if somebody has a sincerely held religious conviction about dispensing the emergency contraception medication? What about their rights? How do we address those?’ ’’ Brown said on the Senate floor, according to a State House News Service transcript.
Brown added that a rape victim would be referred to another facility at no additional cost. “It’s not about the victim."
​
Brown, who probably has not been sexually assaulted, let alone driven by ambulance or police car to an emergency room only to be turned away by medical professionals who profess to value their religion over your physical health, thinks that laws governing the provision of government-funded services to victims of sexual assault aren't "about" the victim. It's about what makes the Christian medical professionals most comfortable. I am certain that a victim raped in Lee, Massachusetts who endures the 11 mile drive to the hospital in Great Barrington only to be turned away by a Christian emergency room nurse (who objects to emergency contraception she herself doesn't have to take) wouldn't mind at all then going to a hospital in Pittsfield (21 miles), Hudson, NY (27 miles) or Westfield (47 miles) in order to get the medical care she needs, as long as it's a free ride. There's nothing like a person who morally objects to your presence in her place of employment after you've been sexually assault to assist you in coping with your trauma.
If Brown wins the Senate, he'll be in good company, however. Senators from Mitch McConnell to noted prostitution enthusiast David Vitter all objected to legislation that would have forced U.S. contractors to allow their employees who are sexually assaulted to have their day in court on the grounds that it would inconvenience and possibly cost those companies money. We wouldn't want sexual assault to be inconvenient for other people, after all. As Scott Brown said, "It's not about the victim."
Click to expand...

That's just wrong.
 
another bullshit dishonest thread by watermark....i take it back about the sheriff thread, you most likely did purposefully make a dishonest title
 
Here is the truth.

Martha Coakley for Senate Ad: "Lockstep Republican"​
Coakley: I’m Martha Coakley and I approve this message.
Narrator: Who is Scott Brown, really?



A Republican. In lockstep with Washington Republicans. He’ll block tougher oversight of Wall Street. Give more tax breaks to the wealthiest. Oppose new prescription coverage for millions of seniors. (On screen: Block Wall Street oversight. More tax breaks for the wealthy. No new prescription drug care).


Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims. (On screen: Deny rape victims care.) He lacks understanding and seriousness. In times like these, we can’t afford a Republican like Scott Brown.
​

Brown has said that he’s not in favor of new regulation of the financial markets, preferring to let "private enterprise try to get us out of this mess." He has also said he supports a 15 percent across the board tax cut, which would certainly include "the wealthiest" but would flow to people at all income levels. As for prescription drug coverage, Brown has introduced a bill in the state Senate that would allow Massachusetts residents to purchase more limited insurance coverage than the state now requires; prescription drug coverage, for example, would not be mandated. The provision doesn’t apply to seniors more than any other group, though the ad implies otherwise.

​
Still, the ad is basically on track, factually, until we come to a claim that "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims." It’s true that in 2005, when the Massachusetts state Legislature was considering a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, Brown introduced an amendment that would have let doctors and nurses opt out based on "a sincerely held religious belief" and refer patients elsewhere. It was similar to "conscience" provisions in state and federal legislation that would avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception against the teachings of the church. Here’s the language:​
Brown amendment, April 2005: Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.​
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.
​
The amendment failed. But what the ad doesn’t mention is that Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway, even after the Republican governor vetoed it.


The most misleading part of the ad, though, is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.



That’s far from the truth. The bill, which became part of the Massachusetts state code’s section on public health, required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.


Voters go to the polls on Tuesday.– by Viveca Novak http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/bay-state-battle


PostmodernProphet said:
this guy must be good if you have to to that extreme to make up something to fault him for.......
Click to expand...
 
I see absolutely no problem with what he proposes. It is a system that respects the rights of women by allowing them access to the morally dubious contraception they desire, and the moral values of those medical professionals who, for religious or spiritual reasons, do not wish to, or are precluded from dispensing these drugs that will be used for a purpose they see as murderous.
 
Epicurus said:
I see absolutely no problem with what he proposes. It is a system that respects the rights of women by allowing them access to the morally dubious contraception they desire,
Click to expand...

Morally dubious?

Epicurus said:
and the moral values of those medical professionals who, for religious or spiritual reasons, do not wish to, or are precluded from dispensing these drugs that will be used for a purpose they see as murderous.
Click to expand...

If you aren't going to do what's expected of a medical practitioner you should find a new job. Are we supposed to let doctors not wash their hands if their religious beliefs conflict with it next? No rape victim deserves any delay at all in getting their morally virtuous contraception, and any douchebag with evil beliefs who interferes with that needs to have their license revoked.
 
Last edited:
That's your one-sided opinion that unfairly exaggerates the rights of one party involved to an extreme length and denies the existence of the rights of the other party.

My opinion attempts to balance the legitimate objections of women to being forced to carry their rapists child with the legitimate right of medical personnel to abstain from particular treatments that conflict with their religious belief.

Lots of people on the other side also do what you do. They elevate and exaggerate the right of one party to such an extreme that it utterly disregards the right of the other party. For you, it's exaggerating the woman's rights to such an extreme that the doctor or nurse's rights are completely ignored. For them, it's exaggerating the rights of those opposed to such treatment to such an extreme that they completely ignore the woman's rights to receive treatment if she desires it.

You both think you're different, and you both think you're better than the other. But you're not. You're just two sides of the same coin. First and foremost, you and those who would deny the rights of the woman are ultimately on the same side. You both believe that one person's rights should be respected to the detriment of another's rights. You are both at best ignorant of the proper means by which a society should attempt to harmonize interactions between its members while respecting their rights, and at worst you are both the selfish and immoral for consciously disregarding those rights.
 
Epicurus said:
That's your one-sided opinion that unfairly exaggerates the rights of one party involved to an extreme length and denies the existence of the rights of the other party.

My opinion attempts to balance the legitimate objections of women to being forced to carry their rapists child with the legitimate right of medical personnel to abstain from particular treatments that conflict with their religious belief.

Lots of people on the other side also do what you do. They elevate and exaggerate the right of one party to such an extreme that it utterly disregards the right of the other party. For you, it's exaggerating the woman's rights to such an extreme that the doctor or nurse's rights are completely ignored. For them, it's exaggerating the rights of those opposed to such treatment to such an extreme that they completely ignore the woman's rights to receive treatment if she desires it.

You both think you're different, and you both think you're better than the other. But you're not. You're just two sides of the same coin. First and foremost, you and those who would deny the rights of the woman are ultimately on the same side. You both believe that one person's rights should be respected to the detriment of another's rights. You are both at best ignorant of the proper means by which a society should attempt to harmonize interactions between its members while respecting their rights, and at worst you are both the selfish and immoral for consciously disregarding those rights.
Click to expand...

well said
 
Epicurus said:
That's your one-sided opinion that unfairly exaggerates the rights of one party involved to an extreme length and denies the existence of the rights of the other party.
Click to expand...

The other party does not have rights here. They are a proffessional. They took the hippocratic oath. If they did not intend to uphold it, there are plenty of other proffessions for them. Others should not suffer for their luxury.

Epicurus said:
My opinion attempts to balance the legitimate objections of women to being forced to carry their rapists child with the legitimate right of medical personnel to abstain from particular treatments that conflict with their religious belief.
Click to expand...

You are creating a false balance. One has been violated; the other believes in some hocus pocus. Then the rape victim is violated a second time by someone because of their hocus pocus. Its outrageous.

Epicurus said:
Lots of people on the other side also do what you do. They elevate and exaggerate the right of one party to such an extreme that it utterly disregards the right of the other party. For you, it's exaggerating the woman's rights to such an extreme that the doctor or nurse's rights are completely ignored. For them, it's exaggerating the rights of those opposed to such treatment to such an extreme that they completely ignore the woman's rights to receive treatment if she desires it.
Click to expand...

Relativist false balance hogwash. The doctor does not have a right to deny medical treatments. If he denies medical treatments that his proffession binds him to perform, there is a remedy for that. The revocation of his license.
 
Atheistmark said:
Only a lawyer would agree with such intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

say, speaking of lawyers and intellectual dishonesty and Massachusetts senator elections, here's another slice of Coakley's history that should be remembered.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html

In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the "extraordinary if not bizarre allegations" on which they had been convicted.

Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.

On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.
Click to expand...
 
In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.

Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.

It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
say, speaking of lawyers and intellectual dishonesty and Massachusetts senator elections, here's another slice of Coakley's history that should be remembered.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html
Click to expand...

one of the children in that trial, who's testimony was presented following therepy in which "repressed" memories were released, testified that he had been raped anally with a two foot long butcher knife.....though the child had no physical injuries, Coakley urged the parole board to consider the testimony as credible....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top