From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:55:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.144400.27076@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>kl>In article <92281.220346KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Oct7.004419.29767@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) says:
> 
>dk>he says is that pro-choicers are scared to put abortion
>dk>legislation to a vote.  He uses the abortion initiative
>dk>on the Washington State ballot.  He claims their were
>dk>more votes against the measure than for it, but it lost
>dk>because they counted the absentee votes.  Um, Rush, hate
>dk>to have to be the one to tell you this, but absentee
>dk>votes count as votes.
> 
>kl>I don't think he said otherwise.  He was just pointing out that in a state
>kl>as liberal as Washington (a state which sends Tom Foley to Capitol Hill, as
>kl>he puts it), the measure BARELY passed.  Indicating that there isn't over-
>kl>whelming support for the pro-choice position out there.
> 
>So why didn't he just say it like that.  Why did he say that
>the initiative got more opposing votes than votes in favor?
>To a normal person this would leave the impression that the
>ballot measure lost.  I don't have the book here at work today,
>but the way I remember his statement was that he was crowing that
>this pro-choice initiative lost in a liberal state like 
>Washington.  Then at the end of the statement he added that 
>the absentee votes ended up resulting in the ballot winning.  
>What Rush either didn't realize or was being intentionally 
>deceptive about was that absentee ballots are votes.  Therefore
>when he claimed that the initiative got more votes against
>than for he was telling an un-truth. 
> 

Well, since *I* live in the Seattle area, I think I can best describe what
happened here with regard to Proposition 119 (guaranteeing abortion rights
in Washington, just as they are now).

First of all, it was a close vote, so close, in fact, that they had to
do a recount.  The measure passed, but barely.  Now, why is that?  Mostly
it had to do with the fact that very few people actually read the law.
I did so I know what it would do and wouldn't do.  That, and the pro-119
folks didn't count on the campagne tactics of the anti-119 side.  They
assumed, incorrectly, that people would read the law and decide on that
basis if they liked it or not.  But, since most folks didn't read the law,
the anti-119 side was able to mount an effective "scare tactic" campagne.
They said such things as "if this new law passes, your daughter will be
able to get an abortion at her school, without your knowledge".  That
was only a half-truth. What they didn't say was the WHOLE truth:
1) Yes, it was true that she could get an abortion at her school, BUT ONLY
if that school was also a medical clinic.
2) And, they didn't mention the fact that 119 wouldn't CHANGE ANYTHING with
respect to this.  The CURRENT LAW says the SAME THING.

They also told another half-truth: They said that under this provision,
Washington citizens could pay for abortions performed on citizens of other
states.  Yes, 119 had no proof-of-Washington-citizenship on its poor who
wanted abortions, but then again, 119 also had no proof-of-Wa-citizenship
on the poor people who wanted financial assistance in GIVING BIRTH, either.
It allocated the same amount of money for abortions as childbirth--a matter
required by Washington law.

And then there were the outright lies.  They sent--unsolicited--in the mail
graphic pictures of third-trimester fetuses (that they described as first-
trimester fetusus) who were aborted.  Thousands of people received these
in the mail.  A church group was responsible.  

In general, they lied and tricked their way into influencing the public.
They advertised against reading the law because they knew that if people
read it, they wouldn't be offended at the law, but in their tactics.

In other words, the anti-119 folks lived up to their potential as fanatical
christian fundies: they lied without regard to consequences--the means justify
the end attitude.

>By the way, do you know the Seattle station that cancelled 
>the Rush show over the caller abortions?  I'm kind of 
>curious if this might be another Rush un-truth.
> 
*I* haven't heard of that and I live in Seattle.

Jennifer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion