Also, do you want Doctors who prescribe Emergency Contraception to rape victims to be criminally charged?

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.

“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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aaron: I’m not sure what you are talking about. This is audio from a committee hearing and I asked a question.

You’re lying. It is clear exactly what you’re doing. I don’t know how you can live with yourself sometimes. Disgusting.

God I am so damn angry. You’re shameless.

Sean

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

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*

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.

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?

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?

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.”

Michael B. Brodkorb Says:

Folks, let’s keep the comments respectful. This is sensitive subject material.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Gee, Plymouth Dem, I fear to find out where you rank–

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.

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.

And for your information, ‘Plymouth Dem’: 90% of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted.

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?

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.

Then why are you trying to make it a huge issue?

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

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.

She needs to answer this question at least.