Dickitude was on display at the House Oversight Committee hearing into Planned Parenthood (PP). Committee Chair, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) repeatedly interrupted PP President Cecile Richards as she tried to answer his questions Tuesday. Richards’ testimony was part of an investigation into PPâs business practices after sting videos were released that allegedly showed company executives discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Chaffetz took the time to note Richards’ salary.
Your compensation in 2009 was $353,000. Is that correct? he asked. âI don’t have the figures with me, but ââRichards said. âIt was,â Chaffetz replied, âCongratulations.â
That had to be the first time in the recorded history that a Republican has criticized a CEO for making money. But, Richards provided the best moment of the day when Chaffetz was caught in a Fiorina-like lie after he pontificated on a projected slide:
CHAFFETZ: Youâre going to deny thatâŚ
RICHARDS: Iâm going to deny this slide that you just showed me that no one has ever provided us before! Weâve provided you all the information about everything â all the services that Planned Parenthood provides. And it doesnât feel like weâre trying to get to the truth here. You just showed me this.
CHAFFETZ: I pulled those numbers directly out of your corporate reports!
RICHARDS: [legal team tells her something] Excuse me. My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life, which is an anti-abortion group. So I would check your source.
CHAFFETZ: [looking caught off-guard, stammering] then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.
Shouldn’t they call the anti-abortion groups that created the fake chart (and the fake videos) to testify?
But, Dickitude doesnât require a dick. We know that Carly Fiorina did not start the PP fire, but fanned the flames by her vivid comments during the 2nd Republican debate on Sept. 16th. Then, no one could find the section of the video that Carly said she saw.
Things seemed to go from bad to worse when a new video entitled âCarly Fiorina was rightâ, issued by The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, and purporting to show a PP abortion showed up this week. It quickly got traction in the media, but then things went from bad to worse: Dr. Jennifer Gunter, a board-certified OB/GYN took to her blog after viewing it. Dr. Gunterâs conclusion is that it was a premature delivery. She disputed Greg Cunningham, curator of the video, and the founder of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reformâs finding, who told Time Magazine that it had to be an abortion:
Owing to the lack of medical treatment offered to the fetus.
Dr. Gunter says that Cunningham was wrong, since the fetus is 17-18 weeks and thus, previable, and that no doctor would render care in that circumstance. She goes on to say:
A neonatologist who attempts to resuscitate a 17 week delivery would be considered unethical.
Her final point was that there is no proof this video is in a PP clinic much less in the US. And hours after the publication of the video, several medical experts contacted by Time Magazine raised questions about whether the video showed an abortion.
These attempts to defund PP are a form of pandering to the anti-abortion wing of the Republican base. The base doesnât care about literal truth when all them little angel babies are being massacred by the socialists.
Fiorinaâs description of video evidence of PP performing a horrible procedure looks to be untrue, particularly since the footage:
⢠Didnât come from the videos Fiorina was discussing
⢠Thereâs no evidence that the footage comes from PP
⢠Thereâs very good evidence that it doesnât involve an abortion
Even if we grant that Fiorina was confused on the night of Sept. 16th when she made her statement about the video, the only way to explain her continued insistence that what she saw is real is to say sheâs too stupid, too stubborn to admit sheâs wrong, and/or that sheâs a liar.
None of these are good qualities to have in a president.
Yet, the Right sees it exactly the other way: They think these are great qualities to have in a president. Itâs a perfect projection of themselves onto an extremely powerful person, one who doesnât give two fucks about reality, facts and evidence, and will lead from the gut.
Thatâs how we ended up in Iraq.
There has been some conversation on the internet to the effect that efforts to cut funding to Planned Parenthood are equivalent to a Bill of Attainder. Perhaps not exactly so, but certainly so in spirit.
Don’t see it as a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate funds, and that authority is not constrained by what they might have funded in the past. It would make every budget debate a possible Bill of Attainder situation. Should the defense industry be able to argue that killing the A-10 Warthog is unconstitutional because it unfairly singles out the defense industry?