« COLEMAN ENDORSED BY MCLEOD COUNTY CHRONICLE; ENDORSEMENT MOCKS FRANKEN WITH COMPARISON TO MARK DAYTON | Home | COLEMAN LEADING FRANKEN BY 9 POINTS IN LATEST POLL »
WHAT DID REPRESENTATIVE MADORE MEAN?
By Michael B. Brodkorb | October 24, 2008
A dedicated reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed sent me a link to audio of Representative Shelly Madore in a committee hearing on February 27, 2008. Below is a partial transcript.
“I did not have the benefit of the registry [an information system containing data on the cause, treatment, prevention, and cure of major birth defects], and had I had that, I may have made some different decisions with my family planning.” Source: Housing Policy and Finance and Public Health Finance Division, February 27, 2007
I encourage you to listen to the audio. The quote above starts at 1:08. What does Madore mean by “different decisions with my family planning?” I sent Representative Madore’s office an e-mail requesting clarification about her comment.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for information on this developing story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 55 Comments »
55 Responses to “WHAT DID REPRESENTATIVE MADORE MEAN?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I am appalled that Rep. Madore would say on the record that if she had the benefit of knowing about birth defects, she might have made a different family planning decision.
What does Madore mean? That she would have had an abortion if she had known about the birth defect in utero. Even if she doesn’t mean that (which I am sure she will say is the case), she would mean that she wishes she would have taken precautions to not have one of her children she has now.
Either way, she should be ashamed of herself.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Wow! I think that she means that she would have probably . . maybe . . aborted her daughter? I really hope that is not true, what a cruel thing to say about a fellow human being, and worst yet, your own child. Can’t wait to see the Rep’s respnse.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:02 PM
To call into question that she would had an abortion is an incredibly foul and disgusting move by Team Brodkorb. You’re sick.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Terrorist!
October 24th, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Aaron: You’re insane.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I scanned the audio at the 1min 08sec mark and the 1hour 8min mark and then scanned the whole hearing. All I hear is foreclosure abatement discussions. Are you sure you have the right clip?
October 24th, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Personally, I won’t touch this issue with a 10 foot pole 11 days from the election. Let’s stick to the issues. What is going to be perceived as a “personal attack” this close to the election is only going to backfire.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I hope her kids don’t read this.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I listened to this, and this is disgusting. She isn’t talking about what color she’s going to paint the room.
She needs to answer this question at least.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:19 PM
This is ridiculous (and not only because you dug something up from like 9 months ago).
It’s not like she’s saying “oh man, I wish I could have aborted my kid.” She’s saying that given more information back then, my choices AT THE TIME may have been different. Lots of parents face this decision when they get test results back indicating early on in the pregnancy that their child has severe or debilitating abnormalities.
Stop playing all high and mighty about what she should have done or what your God tells you what a parent should have done in that situation until you walk in those boots.
I love how conservatives think government should stay out of people’s gun shelves, health care system, economics, jobs, and everything else unless it comes down to people’s personal choices when it comes to family and love.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Does she have a “handicapped” child? Or is it possible she is saying she wouldn’t have aborted a child with a “positive” in utero test?
October 24th, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Folks, let’s keep the comments respectful. This is sensitive subject material.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:24 PM
The reaction to this is remarkable after all you did was pose a question.
I don’t understand why some people posting on this blog are so afraid of asking questions to power. I listened to this several times, and there is a legitimate question here as to what she meant.
And yes, it is sensitive and potentially damaging, but if you hold a public policy decision as an elected official and make public statements in a committee hearing, don’t you think you should be prepared to defend what you say?
That is the beauty of the blogosphere. Information is power, and people like MDE provide the general public with information.
Thank you Michael
October 24th, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Quite a contrast with Sarah Palin, isn’t it.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:31 PM
“This is sensitive subject material.”
Then why are you trying to make it a huge issue?
October 24th, 2008 at 3:44 PM
“Quite a contrast with Sarah Palin, isn’t it.”
How shameless.
She has (I believe) two kids with spina bifida and Asperger’s syndrome. SEVERE disabilities. Far more severe than mild Downs. I have nothing but respect for Sarah for brining a child with Downs into the world, but, to question someone who brings two children with spina bifida and Aspergers into world is just reprehensible. These disorders not only create an extremely difficult life for the child, they create an extremely difficult life for the parents.
Did you people stop to think that her quote may mean one of two things: (1) that with better testing she could have pursued pre-birth uteral treatment for the disorders to minimize their impact; or (2) if she had better genetic marker testing she may have chosen not to have a second kid that ultimately had the disorder? I.e., not conceive as opposed to abort? Of course not, Michael and the republicans would rather attack this as a political issue.
Seriously, Michael has said a lot of things I disagree with, but, this is the first time I’ve been sicked by his actions.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:14 PM
This isn’t an attack. It’s a question. Rep. Madore should clear up what she means, so that it DOESN’T sound like she wanted to abort her own kids, which I do not believe is what she means.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:16 PM
More of the same from an increasingly desperate Michael.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:18 PM
“She has (I believe) two kids with spina bifida and Asperger’s syndrome. SEVERE disabilities. Far more severe than mild Downs. “
I guess once you get used to deciding who gets to be born and who gets ripped from the womb limb from limb and flushed down the toilet, ranking disabilities is child’s play.
Can Democrats make it rain, too?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I guess, regardless of her child[ren]‘s disabilities, to think that because they have a disability makes them a candidate to have been aborted is what’s really disgusting. I don’t care if her life is “more difficult” because of a disabled child, or if the child might have a “more difficult” life because of a disability. To say that someone with a disability is nothing more than a burden, is what is disgusting. Since when did we only care about people who were “normal” and “perfect”? Since when was life supposed to be “easy”? Don’t act like you’d be doing anyone any favors by aborting a disabled child.
And for your information, ‘Plymouth Dem’: 90% of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:26 PM
“This isn’t an attack. It’s a question. Rep. Madore should clear up what she means, so that it DOESN’T sound like she wanted to abort her own kids, which I do not believe is what she means.”
Yeah, posting this story 10 days before the election, demanding an answer to a ridiculous question about a statement made over 9 months ago is neither political or an attack.
Oh, yeah, and your insinuation that she’s no Sarah Palin because you’ve already jumped to the conclusion that she would abort her disabled kids is wasn’t an attack.
OR, was it that you were saying she’s no Sarah Palin because she hasn’t answered the question.. wait, that couldn’t be given Palin has been historic in not answering questions.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:29 PM
“ranking disabilities is child’s play.”
I realize that the science fearing far right can’t grasp the world of medicine, but, yes, you can rank the level of disabilities in children. And, yes, you can rank the pain, suffering, and quality of life issues that those varying levels of disabilities have on the child and the parents.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:34 PM
It sounds like ranking disabilities=ranking people’s worth
Gee, Plymouth Dem, I fear to find out where you rank–
October 24th, 2008 at 4:40 PM
“I guess, regardless of her child[ren]’s disabilities, to think that because they have a disability makes them a candidate to have been aborted is what’s really disgusting. I don’t care if her life is “more difficult†because of a disabled child, or if the child might have a “more difficult†life because of a disability. To say that someone with a disability is nothing more than a burden, is what is disgusting. Since when did we only care about people who were “normal†and “perfectâ€? Since when was life supposed to be “easyâ€? Don’t act like you’d be doing anyone any favors by aborting a disabled child.”
First, you have no basis that this quote has anything to do with aborting a child.
Second, your disgust, when I’m sure you’ve never been in the position of these parents, is what is disgusting. You can’t possibly judge what it is like to be told this news. Severe disabilities not only impact the parents, they impact the family and often the child themselves. Your attempt to trivialize the issue by saying no one should expect life to be “easy” is astonishing. This is not like having to deal with a baby that cries a bit more than others. Sure, some families can adapt and rally around being handed the hand but even those families deal with extreme anguish and many others simply would not survive.
“And for your information, ‘Plymouth Dem’: 90% of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted.”
How does this have anything to do with this discussion? If anything it proves you whack jobs are so ridiculously outside the mainstream view on this issue. But, what solution do you propose? Force these parents to give birth to this child?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:42 PM
“I realize that the science fearing far right can’t grasp the world of medicine, but, yes, you can rank… “
Wow.
Can you walk on water, and change water into kool-aid, too?
At what ranking does the Democrat disability scale mandate a D&E, WitlessDim? Do you folks favor retroactive eliminations too?…you know, “take backs” for dissapointed moonbat parents.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:46 PM
“It sounds like ranking disabilities=ranking people’s worth”
What a bullshit comparison.
It has nothing to do with worth any more than conservative’s judging themselves more high and mighty than people who actually have to face this difficult decision.
It has everything to do with what pain and suffering such news has on the child itself and the family including the parents.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:50 PM
My heart has sunk. This is the most disrespectful post on this site all week, if not in the last few weeks. I happen to know the Madore family and I know exactly what this is about. Bringing this up in this kind of framing and context for political gain is appalling and shameful, Michael. I’m usually not surprised with the kind of depths you will go but this is close to rock bottom.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:50 PM
“Wow. Can you walk on water, and change water into kool-aid, too? At what ranking does the Democrat disability scale mandate a D&E. Do you folks favor retroactive eliminations too?…you know, “take backs†for dissapointed moonbat parents.”
Again, what a stupid comparison coming from the party that favors the death penalty. Oh, that’s right, there ARE some times that you get play “god.”
October 24th, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Say, WitlessDim?
I’m fascinated by this peek into the moonbat world.
Do you drag elderly, washed-up moonbats out onto the ice when their spittle glands can’t manufacture enough hockers for a Republican convention delegate?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Brodkorb/Carey/Craig,
Wasn’t it your boss Norm that just a few weeks ago told people that they shouldn’t respond to questions you raise in your blog?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Aairhead whined: “My heart has sunk.”
Yeah, well your brain has shrunk too, but that doesn’t seem to slow you down any ya boob.
We have ears. We know exactly what was meant…but you go ahead and try to tell us the meaning of “is”, we always enjoy that.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Aairhead whined: “My heart has sunk.”
Yeah, well your brain has shrunk too, but that doesn’t seem to slow you down any ya boob.
We have ears. We know exactly what was meant…but you go ahead and try to tell us the meaning of “is”, we always enjoy that. *snicker*
October 24th, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Aaron: I’m not sure what you are talking about. This is audio from a committee hearing and I asked a question.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I’m guessing WitlessDim and his ilk cheered at the opening scenes from “300″.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:34 PM
You’re disgusting.
Just absolutely putrid. You’re going to make this post, and then act like a school marm when shitheads like swiftee barf up the vile shit (that you knew was coming) that’s coming.
You make this bullshit post to call out the dogs and then *gasp* you’re surprised when they come out?
Did you ever think Michael that what she meant was, that if she knew any children she had would be more likely to have birth defects that she wouldn’t have had them in the first place?
But, more importantly, if you would have thought that Michael, would it have stopped you? Would it have stopped you from this?
I doubt it.
Let’s hope you and your wife never have to deal with something so important Michael, and more importantly lets hope that if you do, some prick on the internet doesn’t try to score cheap political points off of it.
Sean Broom
October 24th, 2008 at 6:36 PM
And, specifically, by “Never had them in the first place” I meant she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant. That she would have filled her family through adoption.
God I am so damn angry. You’re shameless.
Sean
October 24th, 2008 at 6:43 PM
You’re lying. It is clear exactly what you’re doing. I don’t know how you can live with yourself sometimes. Disgusting.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Wasn’t this comment (and we have yet to get an answer as to what was meant) said in a State House Committee Hearing, on the record, in response to a political topic???
Stop with the feigned outrage to avoid answering the question. It is truly unbecoming.
Michael, you’ve handled a very delicate issue, on a very important public policy topic very sensitively and we appreciate it.
The question remains, what family planning choices get to be made in the middle of a pregnancy? Condoms (no). The color of the drapes in the bedroom (perhaps).
I wish more voters got to see what their supposed leaders are saying during the heat of public policy debates.
This is a great post Michael, thank you.
Let us know when Madore comes out of her shell to explain what she meant when she went on the public record with these comments.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I’m not taking a lecture from the kids at MN Publius. Sean needs to get off his high horse and think about some of the trash he as published. This is audio from a committee hearing and I asked a question. It’s just that simple.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:16 PM
yuo let sean call people shitheads..yet yuo wil lnot publish my post..shame Mike..shame….
October 24th, 2008 at 7:19 PM
I’m not sure what you’re talking about…please keep commenting.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:22 PM
i had post number 40 up..then it was gone..it was in regards to Hitler and abortion
October 24th, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Yes…let’s keep Hitler out of the comment section.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Practictioners of eugenics made “family planning decisions” based on the worth of the person. they also made “choices” according to how they ranked a persons usefullness…and race…. Abortion is eugenics…as practice by Margaret Sanger..founde of Planned Parenthood. folks who support state sponsored terrorism that is called abortion disgust me.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:10 PM
“God I am so damn angry.”
Squirt us some tears, ya punk.
Where is your anger over all the kids that have had their bodies torn limb from limb to accommodate some lowlife, fucking scumbags idea of “family planning”?
You Democrats are a waste of flesh. No, I really mean it.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:27 PM
They’re angry for one reason: Michael uncovered something that pokes a hole in the false image of a moderate that has been constructed for Shelly Madore. They can’t risk her being fully exposed as a far, far left radical liberal.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Infanticide IS a core plank of the DFL platform, no matter what euphemism they give it.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:27 PM
An earlier post stated that 90% of downs pregnancies are aborted. If that is the case, it seems that most Americans, facing this very difficult situation, would agree that this is a morally acceptable practice. Assuming that downs syndrome is not assigned on the basis of political party, it would be reasonable to think that both liberals and conservatives are dealing with this situation in similar ways.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:02 AM
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-does-michael-brodkorb-mean.html
Personally if I were Shelley Madore’s campaign, I’d print this post, and use it and ask her opponent to condemn it.
Reading the quote as is, it sounds to me like she would have avoided a second child by not getting pregnant – and Brodkorb is trying to suggest that she would have aborted her child. There’s no evidence of that from the quote.
I’m curious Michael – so are you saying that couples shouldn’t get genetic counselling – and make decisions based on that?
Do you know what it feels like for a parent to be carrying genes that cause diseases like this?
Why does this help? This isn’t the 16th District after all. This is a highly educated district.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Eva, your are so incredibly arrogant. To say people who are pro-life are somehow by neccessity less educated is a pretty poorly thought out position.
If Shelley Madore is using the knowledge or lack thereof of birth defects to discuss mid-pregnancy “family planning decisions” in a public committee setting, she should at least explain what she meant.
And by the way Eva, people who have had the pleasure to have met you say you aren’t that bright yourself.
I hear you’re a little bit “Senate District 16,” to use your newly coined phrase.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:46 AM
BC said, “An earlier post stated that 90% of downs pregnancies are aborted. If that is the case, it seems that most Americans, facing this very difficult situation, would agree that this is a morally acceptable practice. Assuming that downs syndrome is not assigned on the basis of political party, it would be reasonable to think that both liberals and conservatives are dealing with this situation in similar ways.”
Just because 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted doesn’t make it right NOR does that make it a morally acceptable practice. For example, the large number of slave owners in the 1800s didn’t justify the practice of slave owndership as morally right. The frequency something occurs doesn’t make it morally right. The fact that there exists the systematic murdering of innocent, unborn children who have been determined to be too much of an inconvenience for the parents to live as they wish is not only selfish, but nothing short of discriminatory. Unless this is cleared up–and I am convinced Madore didn’t mean what she very clearly meant, I will NOT vote for someone to represent me in St. Paul with the same kind of careless, reckless judgement one would use in considering whether to make a mid-pregnancy “family planning decision.”
October 25th, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The term pro-life suggest that those who oppose criminalizing abortion are anti-life. It’s a nonsense. The same way as the term “pro-choice” is a nonsense term. The debate is whether abortion should be criminal. I have not heard from the so-called “prolifers” what they think the criminal penalty should be for the woman obtaining the abortion.
“Unless this is cleared up–and I am convinced Madore didn’t mean what she very clearly meant, I will NOT vote for someone to represent me in St. Paul with the same kind of careless, reckless judgement one would use in considering whether to make a mid-pregnancy “family planning decision.—
EY: Where did Madore mention being “mid-pregnancy” in her statement? To me this sounds like she may have made a decision to avoid conceiving.
As I said earlier, strategically I don’t see how this is going to help Madore’s opponent, the invisible Tara Mack. The single issue anti-legalized abortion people are already going to vote for Mack. Even Marty Seifert is saying that Republican candidates aren’t going door to door bleating about abortion and gay marriage this time around.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I just want to jump in:
Outlawing abortion wouldn’t criminalize a woman for receiving one–the abortionists performing the abortion would be.
Also, the testing being discussed is in utero detection of birth defects. (And when she references how she shares another Representative’s issue of a “late diagnosis” she means the diagnosis of the birth defect after the birth of the baby.) I followed this legislation in 2007.
I have listened to the whole tape, and with the actual context of the comment, it is more difficult to argue that she would have taken precautions not to conceive once the prenatal testing has indicated the child has a certain birth defects. After conception, a condom won’t solve the problem.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:02 PM
El – that’s inconsistent – and taking the woman who has the abortion totally off the hook. Why won’t the woman be criminally culpable if abortion is made illegal?
Also, do you want Doctors who prescribe Emergency Contraception to rape victims to be criminally charged?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:03 PM
[...] WHAT DID REPRESENTATIVE MADORE MEAN? [...]