« MDE EXCLUSIVE: MOMS PAINT DISTURBING PICTURE OF BONOFF’S HANDLING OF SENSITIVE LEGISLATION #2 | Home | A MESSAGE FROM MDE: I DIDN’T SPEAK WITH ANYONE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH MADIA’S CAMPAIGN REGARDING MY POSTS TODAY ON BONOFF »
BONOFF CAMPAIGN RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MDE POST; STATEMENT CREATES NEW PROBLEMS FOR BONOFF
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 31, 2008
I received a statement from Terri Bonoff's campaign regarding my post from earlier today:
"Terri recalls her conversation with Sandy differently than you’ve described. This bill was authored with the best of intentions, but it became clear could be used as a vehicle for anti-choice legislation, particularly because the bill’s language had changed during the interim. Terri has a long and strong record as an advocate for a women’s right to choose. When people who Terri trusts became concerned that the bill, with its new language, was going in a direction that contradicted those beliefs, she withdrew her support." Source: Franny Starkey, Terri Bonoff for Congress
I called Sandy Maclean and asked her to comment on the Starkey's statement. I received a very precise and direct response:
"I stand by my story. I know what the Senator said. The people of Minnesota are all owed the truth." Source: Sandy Maclean
The statement released by Bonoff's campaign does create new series of problems for Bonoff. The statement specifically says that "the bill's language had been changed during the interim."
The reality is that the language of the legislation hadn't been changed during the interim, nor could it have been changed. The bill's language could only be changed during a legislation session. Records from the Minnesota Senate show that the language of the bill hasn't been changed.
I have e-mailed Bonoff's campaign for a clarification on their previous statement that the "bill's language had been changed during the interim." Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
Topics: Uncategorized | 16 Comments »
March 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
More from the Makato Free Press
“I think it’s important, and it shouldn’t get caught up in issues regarding choice,” Bonoff said. “… I’m honored to bring the bill forward.”
March 31st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I like that Madia is fighting back against the unfair news stories that Bonoff has floated in the media.
Keep it up Ash!
March 31st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The house version of the bill did have a change.
The verbage
“occurring after a gestation period of less than 20 weeks”
was added to better differentiate between what is a stillborn child and what is a miscarriage.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
If the requested services are already available under state law, why do we need this bill?
I applaud Terri Bonoff for recognizing the repetitive nature of the bill and withdrawing it.
Similarly, I shame those of you who would take the pain of a grieving mother and use it as a political wedge issue. MDE has always been a gutter-dweller, but this is taking politics to an all-time low. Michael Brodkorb should be ashamed of himself.
Or have you finally stooped to using fetuses to
March 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
They don’t cover miscarriages that occur before 20 weeks of gestation. They only cover stillborns that occur after 20 weeks.
It’s the groups like Emily’s List that have made this a political issue, and don’t want mothers to have the choice to grieve or not.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
It is the republicans who stand in the way of grieving parents. It is more important to them to fight with pro-choice candidates and try to smear them. Anyone who is on here to smear Bonoff is obviously against women’s rights!
March 31st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Jack, conservatives actually like to let babies live. The “grieving parents” would be grieving if they had not just killed their baby. I’m all for women’s writes. I’m also for babies rights.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“I’m all for women’s writes.
No, you’re not. It’s very easy for you to be anti-choice; as a man, you’ll never have to make that choice.
My wife and my daughters don’t need you taking choice away from them.
Then again, it’s very typical that you, rePete, a republiCon man, would want to take choice away from females:
there’s nothing more in the angry white old male GOPer tradition, than making laws that don’t affect themselves.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:24 am
Why not write into the law, that this law only effects females who have the potential to get pregnant only.
Then at any point in the future, someone may call the law discriminatory, or promise full funding for scientists to work work full speed ahead, to find a way for males to have and deliver babies.
It could be called the Grieving Gender Inequality, and FUNding the Gender Equality FUNding Act.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:26 am
[Not necessarily an April Fool's joke.]
April 1st, 2008 at 6:32 am
Puddles, I believe in the right for both male and female babies to be born. I don’t really care what a hateful person like you believes as you have no honor. To allow millions of babies to be butchered every year is simply wrong.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:16 am
It’s hard to run for Congress while you are serving in the State Senate. It’s especially hard to run for Congress while serving in your first term as a State Senator. Let’s all give Terri a break here. It’s really hard running for Congress.
Republicans will do better against Terri Bonoff than we will against Ashwin Madia. Let’s not be so quick to throw Terri under the train.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Let’s not be so quick to throw Terri under the train.
Drew, that may be true, but I really dislike Bonoff. I can’t stand the thought of that disingenuous self serving weasel representing me in D.C. I already have to put up with Klobuchar.
I also want to make sure that this is her last term as state senator.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
It will be interesting to see how our aspiring Congresswoman will react if and when this bill comes up as an amendment on the Senate Floor?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It won’t ever get out of committee.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
There is also the situation of with what to do with the fertilized eggs in the fertility clinics. I don’t remember what the estimates are but they are considerable.
For some people these fertilized eggs in fertility clinics also fall into the babies category.
For Pete it might be “butchered babies” category.
It seems to be a tougher problem to deal with on first blush because they may be thought of as extra or left over fertilized cells if the mother’s pregnancy takes with another cell.