The Gasp heard ’round the internet.
People must not like uncomfortable questions.
Case in point, my post last night on whether the birth of her child will affect Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin’s postion on abortion. The Rapid City Journal gasped. Cory over at Madville Times gasped. And God knows a number of commenters gasped as they squirmed in their seat for the question even being asked.
It wasn’t intended as “spin,” which is the knee jerk reaction du jour of those doing the gasping. Just a discussion on whether her opinion will change or not. And as any good discussion should do, it made people uncomfortable. Despite my own personal opinions, I didn’t say her current position was right. I didn’t say it was wrong. All I said is that having kids changes people, and what their opinions are on the world.
Whether a congressman changes their mind on an issue – any issue – is something that affects whether people are going to vote for them or not. It might make us more likely to vote for a person. It might make us less likely. But a change is inevitable.
That’s what has me somewhat surprised this AM. Isn’t it the job of the media to “comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable?” One portion of the journalist’s creed says that journalists should be “respectful of its readers but always unafraid.”
Was such a simple question – without passing judgment – just too unafraid for most? Or not?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I will defend Pat on posting the question (though I disagree with his position). Stephanie made her pregnancy our ‘business’ by putting out a press release about it, so her pregancy is fair game. I actually had a toon posted about it last night, that I pulled down.
I will post it at a later date.
This is a very weak defense of your post for a number of reasons.
First, If you truly want to take part in the proud journalistic tradition of which you consider yourself an acolyte, you might consider improving your grammar. The third paragraph, for example, is riddled with errors:
“Whether a congressman changes their mind on an issue – any issue – is something that affects whether people are going to vote for them or not. It might make us more likely to vote for a person. It might make us less likely. But a change is inevitable.”
1) You switch between singular and plural nouns in reference to members of congress:
“congressman” = singular
“their/them” = plural
“a person” = singular
2) “Us” is a vague pronoun to use in reference to “people.”
3) “It might make us less likely” is a sentence fragment.
I am also very confused by your indictment of your critics. You say that these commentators engage in “spin.” How, exactly, are they twisting your post to meet their own political aims?
Finally, I am confused by your definition of legitimate discussion. You say that you were simply asking the “simple question” of whether Rep. Herseth-Sandlin will change her views on abortion, but you are uncomfortable with critics’ “simple questions” as to the tact of your post. What makes your question more valid than your critics’ questions. Instead of simply defending your “simple question,” you exhibit the same lack of tact of which you were accused by insinuating that the only reason that people could possibly disagree with you is because they are uncomfortable engaging in discussion. If they were so uncomfortable, why would they challenge you?
Anon, you noted “Your suggestion that Stephanie will change her position on safe and legal abortion because she is going to be a mom is absurd.”
However, I didn’t say “she will.” I asked “will she?”
Grammarian – you should read the post – I didn’t say they were engaging in spin, I said that’s what they were accusing me of.
Detroit is right with regard to Stephanie making a public announcement with campaign funds. And, the fact it happened in the middle of a campaign makes it even more appropriate to discuss its ramifications with regard to policies (#1), her ability to do the job (#2) and the campaign itself (#3).
1) Pat is raising a very pertinent issue. Significant events in people’s lives shape them in ways that people don’t expect. And, in the end, death of parents or child, wedding/marriage, and birth of child (esp. first) are events that change us. Personally, if I were to look at these three events they have had more to do with my current outlook and worldview than my intellectual learning. Anyone who says they know what the impact on Herseth will be is full of dung.
For instance, the death of my father affected me in ways that neither I or my wife expected. I dare anyone to tell me that the Vietnam War didn’t have profound effects on those who fought in Vietnam. The more significant the event or experience the more potential it has for being life-changing. For me, becoming a parent has been the most profound and life-changing.
#2) I said on a previous thread I see no reason that this will affect her ability to do the job. But it might affect priorities and outlook. Anyone who listens to Chris Lien give a speech, its themes are put in the context of the legacy we will leave to our children such that the here and now must consider the long-term ramifications on our children. Does anyone think he would present issues so strongly in this context if he had no children?
#3) I said on a previous thread that I see no reason that her pregnancy should affect the campaign in any material ways. Skipping debates is material.
One thing I have noticed through the years is that people are very sensative about the abortion issue!
It will be interesting to know if Mrs. Herseth-Sandlin, after viewing her ultrasound, will change/soften her position on abortion.
I know she will debate because she is very good at them and South Dakota voters want to know how they stand on the issues.
RCJ might have gasped, but, they also devoted eight paragraphs to Pamela Anderson’s new reality show.
I’m just say’n . . .
Asking that question is right on, PP, and makes sense.
I was pro-choice until I became a parent. Then, very slowly, but surely, my position changed. I am now pro-life and always will be. But, it didn’t happen until I became a parent. So, poster number 1, your comment is “absurd” because I’m living proof that it does happen.
By the way, becoming a grandparent even makes it stronger.
PP keep up the good work. This is an appropriate discussion.
I wonder though- Did Steph send out a News Release or an email to friends (not sure what kind of friend forwards a friends email to the media but it is politics I guess).
Keep up the good work PP. You are asking the hard questions unlike the spineless, non-pajama wearing journalists across the state.
Pat:
I’ll defend your right to ask the question about whether SHS will change her position on abortion vis-a-vis her pregnancy. The comments about what this may do to her political career and this election are, frankly, insensitive, but legitimate. But I think the question on abortion is tacky. I hardly think announcing one’s pregnancy opens anyone to attack on abortion.
What if a female GOP pro-life politician became pregnant and had a troubled pregnancy? You’d be all over me or any other blogger that suggested that might change their position on abortion without any hint from the person about the issue. That too would be tacky.
I think whatever our positions on abortion, we should take joy in Stephanie’s pregnancy and leave the debate for abortion and her position on it for another day.
I’m just sayin’.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Detroit Lewis, you claim that this is a legitimate discussion because “she sent out a press release.” Where is it? She sent an e-mail to friends, family and supporters (including me) that was leaked to the press. That’s not a press release. Where did you see the press release, or are you making it up? I couldn’t find one online, so please point me in the right direction…
#1 is exactly correct and the issue could not have been outlined more clearly.
#2 Did you ever think Herseth-Sandlin wanted to share the good news with her constituents and to avoid any speculation? Wasn’t a rumor campaign started in the last election by her Republic opponent and then kept alive by Republican bloggers?
Why must you turn a wonderful event for her and her family into such a nonsensical discussion?
The premise of this post is as absurd as speculating as to whether or not John Thune’s position on Medicare funding has changed due to the death of his inlaws…
Your premise is that those with children are more likely to be in favor of laws to ban abortion. You don’t, however, provide any data to back that up (other than a few anecdotes). According to a study published earlier this year, 61% of women that have abortions already have children at home (http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/79).
If your premise was correct, wouldn’t mothers be very unlikely to terminate a pregnancy?
I’ve seen a lot of published studies that mean little. The whole issue is in the heart and if you value the life you’ve STARTED.
You can passify yourselves by resting on the Roe v. Wade decision, but some of us hold life with a little higher regaurd than you do.
That is the FACT on the Pro-Life ‘crowd’!
Press release or not, it has already been in the newspaper, so it is no longer a ‘personal’ issue. I question the timing of the pregnancy to. Someone who has several endorsements from family planning organizations, certainly knows how to ‘family plan’. I look at her pregnancy as a prop. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure her and Max wanted to have children, but couldn’t they have waited until after the election? I’m just sayin’
Yeah.. because most pregancies are well timed and work with that person’s sechedule..
Emily’s List congratulates Steph and Max, we’ll miss you as a customer, please don’t forget us at Christmas time with another end of the year donation!!!!!
I’m pro-choice. Mrs. Herseth-Sandlin made her choice. Good for her. If she changes her opinion, that’s her choice. If she doesn’t that’s alright too.
Its all up to the individual and individuals should have the freedom of choice.
Life experiences change people, that’s something I hope is accepted by all that read this blog. It’s certainly not “out of bounds” to question whether giving birth to a first child will have a “political impact” on on our Congressperson.
For what it’s worth, when I was younger I accepted ROE v WADE at face value and considered abortion a “womans” issue. As I grew older I realized that my position was a “cop out” and that science had not only proven that the “fetus / child” was truly an individual human being but that viability of the unborn child was extended to increasingly earlier periods of pregnancy. The child has a unique DNA, separate from the mother, it’s not just an “appendage”.
Mankind can now harvest and grow human embreyos for implantation and no one doubts that succesful implantations result in human birth.
When in doubt, I try to error on the side of caution and I cannot see a differnce between a “fetus” and an “unborn child”.
I’m 55 years old and know a “fair amount” of women that have had abortions. I “konw of women that claim to have had abortions without serious consequences but I’ve never actually met one that hasn’t either regretted it, been traumatized by it or hasn’t become “pro-life”.
Wm.
Patti, I saw much too late the thread on your election victory. Congrats. How is that implementing the social contract going? 
Wish you the best.
#18 – I have several married friends who planned all of their children, trust me, it’s possible.
I am so very proud of them. Now the other 80 percent of children who are unplanned feel so much worse about themselves because your friends decided to treat their children like a business venture and penciled them into their oh so well thought out lives…
For you, maybe.
Too bad. I would think being a parent would give you a larger view the world and also having a family would inspire you to get the government’s nose out of yours.
Oh well, maybe Fred Rogers was wrong in your case:
“Parenthood is our last best chance for change.”
– Fred Rogers
“I konw(sic) of women that claim to have had abortions without serious consequences but I’ve never actually met one that hasn’t either regretted it, been traumatized by it or hasn’t become “pro-life”.
Those are the ones that decided to talk to you about it. The real research (oh, but I forgot, you people don’t believe in that) says otherwise.
The question you raised was just so ridiculous Pat, that’s why people respond so strongly. Stephanie is pro-choice because she believes the gov’t has no business meddling in these family decisions….not because she hasn’t been pregnant before. You would think conservatives would agree that gov’t’s role is not to intrude in the private lives of its citizens….but that philosophy doesn’t apply to abortion rights apparently.
Polling actually shows that older voters, with many life experiences, are more pro-choice than younger voters for the very reason that they understand the profound responsibility that comes with bearing children. We also see that the majority of women having abortions already have children at home….because they want to be able to care for their existing children in the best possible way.
Your suggestion that Stephanie will change her position on safe and legal abortion because she is going to be a mom is absurd. Because she is going to be a mom, she will likely be even more convinced that individuals and their families need to make these decisions….not the government.