Corrections: Ryan did not vote to ban abortion in all cases nor did he engage in insider trading
posted at 9:37 pm on August 13, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham
If this is anything like 2008, this may become a regular feature.
National Review‘s Ramesh Ponnuru flagged a Buzzfeed report on Ryan’s record on “women’s issues” (apparently, unqualified support of Obamacare counts as one now, too):
The first item: “He supports the Sanctity of Human Life Act” (emphasis in original). Odell wrote that the bill “seeks to ban all abortions, including in instances of rape and incest.” Ryan may, for all I know, believe that abortion should be illegal with exceptions only to save a mother’s life. But has he really co-sponsored a bill to effect this policy? No. The bill declares that fertilization marks the beginning of a human life and then “affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.” In other words, it doesn’t ban anything: It merely affirms that legislatures have the authority to protect unborn life. If Odell wishes to argue that a legislature moved by the convictions of the bill must, to be consistent, ban abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest, she can do so. It’s not in the bill.
The piece, by Amy Odell, has since been corrected. It now reads:
1. He supports the “Sanctity of Human Life Act.”
Ryan was among the 62 representatives sponsoring the bill, introduced in January of last year and declaring that “life begins with fertilization.” The bill defines life as beginning at conception and give states the right to ban all abortions*, including in instances of rape and incest…*Correction: The Sanctity of Human Life Act gives states the right to ban abortions, without exception; it does not ban abortions, as a previous version of this item stated.
No. 5 on the list is also very misleading, suggesting Ryan “supports a bill that would allow employers to deny women birth control coverage based on personal beliefs,” by which Odell means he supports the radical notion that religious organizations should be able to keep the religious and economic freedom to leave free birth control out of their health care offerings— a right that was pretty noncontroversial until three months ago when Odell and the rest of the press decided free birth control was a human right.
I wanted to flag the misreporting of the Sanctity of Human Life Act because I’ve heard several TV pundits go down this road, charging Ryan with extreme extremism on these issues, and this is a mischaracterization that will be happy to find its way into the cable-news bloodstream now that Odell has offered it up.
A helpful counterpoint for this accusation is the fact that opposing an act that would make sure infants born alive after abortion attempts would not subsequently be left to die is pretty darned extreme.
Matthew Yglesias was more gracious in his correction of a charge that Rep. Paul Ryan may have benefited from insider knowledge when trading bank stocks in 2008. Credit to him for leaving the original item available, struck through, with an apology for jumping to conclusions:
Let me apologize. I originally had a too-credulous item here linking to a piece at The Richmonder alleging that Paul Ryan has sold bank shares after a closed door meeting with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke on the financial crisis in 2008. As Eric Platt explains he certainly seems to have sold the shares on the same day as the meeting, but the meeting happened in the evening by which time the markets would have been closed. One can perhaps construct a scenario by which the Richmonder’s theory of the case holds up, but they don’t have the goods and I shouldn’t have passed their analysis on with no qualification and so little scrutiny of my own.
As Brad DeLong writes, for one reason or another Ryan did quite a lot of trading of individual bank stocks in 2008 so the timing of this particularly transaction isn’t particularly noteworthy when put in that context. For posterity’s sake the original item is below now in strikethrough.
Nonetheless, Jim Geraghty does the legwork on batting down this claim, which will likely surface again.
Update: TPM joins in the debunking of the insider trading story.
Credit for front-page photo to photosteve101.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Someone doesn’t sound convinced.
CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Someone’s got issues.
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM
You ridiculous irrational buffoon. Most of us are younger that we didn’t live in those days.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Fixed.
Just having God removed from our schools by tinpot assthiests like you would actually be an IMPROVEMENT at this point.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Christian social “conservatives” on this site have variously wished terminal cancer and now a hanging on me, and I’m the unreasonable one here. Go figure.
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM
If he were deported to Iran, he’d be crying on his hands and knees from the Islamic Sharia in a day or less.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM
You would like for all of us to be snuffed out. Pardon us if they don’t take kindly to that, jackwagon.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Ayeah, go figure.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Seriously. It is the religious paradise you’ve always dreamed of. Sure, they worship a different dead semite, but why sweat the details?
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Shut the f^ck up Taliban member 654987 and stop trying to force your morals onto us. Your as religious and anyone else about your ideology.
astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Children benefit from intact families. Children are always the future of any society.
INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Lets look at the values put forth in that book, from the Old Testament to Jesus’ reformations in the New Testament:
1) Murder is bad. Is this out dated thinking?
2) Having a day off from work?
3) Honoring your mother and father?
4) Stealing?
5) Adultery?
6) Bearing false witness against another?
7) Coveting the goods of others?
8) How about seeing the virtue in weakness instead of exploiting or deriding it?
9) Charity for those who can’t help themselves?
10) The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; do you find this outdated and objectionable as well?
The Magna Carta was inspired by this 2000 year old book, do you dismiss that as well and it’s place in history? The Constitution and the founding fathers were clearly influenced by that 2000 year old book, is the law of this nation irrelevant as a result? What about that 200+ year old Constitution written by long dead white men wearing funny wigs, using your logic that should no longer apply as well – it’s so old.
Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM
$10 reward for the poster who puts up the troll’s IP address.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM
And you’d be asking “which way is Mecca? It’s almost prayer time!” in about 3 hours.
Really? That’s interesting. where did I ever wish for anyone to be snuffed out?
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Armin the antireligionist is actually religious…in an empty sociopathic sort of way.
Like Bill Maher, I guess.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Thousands of ME Christians say different.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:52 PM
When you wish we would shut up and tell us to convert to Islam.
But why am I laying pearls before swine.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Yes off course Akin and Mourdock exacerbated to the max a horrible situation with the no exception for rape viewpoint. Now Kentucky of course is red, but so Paul didn’t pull an Akin, and 2010 was a clear Repub wave election. Paul even in that red state won despite his no exceptions stated position, certainly not because of it. It is just an insane archaic virtually Taliban viewpoint to take in 21st century America (no exceptions for rape), most find the viewpoint literally repulsive, it at least not going to win us a single election, and I’m afraid that’s the name of the game. Everyone here should knock down ANY candidate that takes that “nutcase” view, and I’m afraid that includes Rand Paul, and that’s sad because otherwise I like Paul a lot.
anotherJoe on March 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM
A small government can’t ban anything. It has no power to just enough power given by the people to punish after the fact if the crime is worth punishing. The crime of “Dr” Gosnell is worth punishing but the makers of Plan-B are not.
One side will bans gun the other side bans abortion. Both sides need a big government to do the banning.
tjexcite on March 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Not that I’m willing to give the bible credit for anything you’ve cited here, since literally all of these things have antecedents in the laws of earlier civilizations or religions, but even if the bible really did invent the idea of murder being bad, for example, so what? A mature, rational society should be able to take something like the bible and extract useful moral or ethical principles or lessons from it while discarding the worthless superstition.
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM
Forcing kids to pray? No.
Teaching the bible which is arguably the most important and influential book on western society? Yes.
Then again, I strongly favor private alternatives as competition to the public schools. This would of course result in a ton of students going to religious schools and being home schooled, which would result in more social conservatives, can you handle that?
Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM
I can. It will also lower the burden of paying taxes on my home!
astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Did you know there are people conceived by rape who are pro-life and who do speak publicly? Should a child pay for the evil of an adult? Not only that, but do you know of the impact of abortion on a woman’s body and to subsequent children? Politicians need to learn how to answer the hard questions.
INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Yeeeeah, no big deal one way or the other. Though of course, Hot Air commentators will argue and bicker about Rand Pauls positions anyway. 9_9;;
WolvenOne on March 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM
And right there you hit a snag: the US is neither mature nor rational in any sense of the word. No thanks to your friends in Congress.
Hell even in terms of age of our nation’s age, we’re somewhat young. We’ve only gone through ONE c1v1l war, only a couple truly nationwide economic crises, have never been subjugated, and haven’t even had foreign troops on our soil since 1812. (unless you count a few tiny Alaskan islands being occupied for a very short time in WW2. I don’t.)
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Yes, lets take this worthless 2000 year old book written by desert wandering savages, and learn from it. lol
Have you even read the Bible? Particularly the New Testament? Even liberal academia does not consider you an educated person if you haven’t.
Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Come out swinging! That’ll make the icky feelings go away!
CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM
“At heart, all political problems are moral and religious problems.” ~Russell Kirk
INC on March 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM
I’m thinking that maybe you have a very odd definition of being “snuffed out” in that case.
And my hortation that certain posters here convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia is made out of an abundance of consideration for their own comfort and well-being. Clearly, they want to live in a hyper-religious society where the principles of the state religion dictate the behavior of everyone. I’m simply letting them know that such a paradise already exists and it’s only marginally different from what they presently idealize.
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Again…doesn’t this make him 100% opposed to his nitwit Liberaltarian youngster supporters?
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Do you favor my tax dollars going to subsidize these supposed “private” alternatives, as many social “conservatives” do, in the form of “voucher” programs?
Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM
Um, why? Because being pro-life means acting like Akin?
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:06 PM
INC on March 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM
http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/shark-warning-card-stacking-as-propaganda/
INC on March 21, 2013 at 5:08 PM
I guess your ignorance doesn’t allow you to understand logical progressions – and your antireligiosity blinds you to the differences between Christianity (which many social conservatives follow) & Islam.
You are no conservative. Your blathering is what liberals do.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Not sure what that means, but no — being “pro-life” means being “anti-choice”, according to the Libertardians I have heard from. Hateful conservatives pushing their theocratic agenda blah,blah,blah? You remember?
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:12 PM
You didn’t answer my question.
The Federal Government should be out of it 100%. On the state level I would absolutely support a voucher program as an alternative to public education, I am in favor of school choice.
Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 5:14 PM
This is certainly the concern I have. In just the past few days, Rand Paul has pushed forward a bill that he knew had no chance of passing Congress, while saying there were thousands of exceptions to the “100% Pro-Life” bill he had proposed.
It was a very Ron Paul type of move. Brag about bills you’ve proposed that are not serious — that is, that never stand a chance and everyone knows it — while not actually doing anything substantive.
He manages to avoid sounding too much like an advocate of Ron Paul’s isolationism, but in practical terms there doesn’t seem to be that much difference.
And the filibuster seemed designed to make a lot of noise, but not actually change anything.
So far, if Ron Paul had been a little savvier politically, he might well have done the same things.
I’m not ready to pronounce Rand Paul just a junior version of his father yet, but I’m beginning to wonder.
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Daughter texted from the Libertarian center of the universe DC and says Rand has a get-out-of-jail-free card on abortion, because the True Believers know it’s not going away.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Oh good bleeping grief. What exactly do you think he can do with himself and a tiny handful of others against something that all of libtard-dom has established as sacred right? What, in your mind, is an anti-abortion bill that HAS a snowball’s chance in hell?
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:20 PM
And the sick thing is they’re probably right. The GOP hasn’t cared for decades, the libertarians have other priorities (gasp! shock!). Tell her to text that to the bonebrains who think any anti-abortion move by Rand is all…Hot Air.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM
Wrong, I think. We don’t “need” a big government to ban abortion. When the SCOTUS invented a right to kill unborn children, the Federal government went hard to work funding that “right” with pro-life taxes. Take away their stolen funding and the radical abortionists dry up and disappear. They don’t do “back alleys”.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM
So you agree it was basically grandstanding?
So was it grandstanding to make a point about the preciousness of life, or grandstanding to say, “I’m pro-life! Well, except for thousands of exceptions.”
And the answer, I think, is to watch his actions and see just how sincere he is. Proposing a bill that you know will go nowhere may or may not be a good idea. It can be an effective rhetorical device, like when the Republicans in the Senate forced the Democrats to vote on the president’s budget, and proved that the president’s own party didn’t take the president’s budget seriously. But it does not automatically prove anything.
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Too funny. She says legalizing drugs is pretty much the only important issue; there are others, but they really don’t matter.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM
There’s nothing funny about the idiocy of drug legalization. Or abortion.
And there’s also nothing funny about you lying and projecting, so kindly cut it out. You’re not Armin, you are physically capable of better.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Wait…you misinterpretted my comment. The “she” is from my previous comment, my daughter in DC works with the radical L element, and this is exactly what they say. Not putting those words in your mouth.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Same team … no friendly fire!
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Well, an old leftie atheist like Nate Hentoff is pro-life, so there ya go.
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM
* Nat Hentoff, sorry
ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Sorry.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Which is really weird considering your such a nice and amiable guy, right? I mean, aside from the ‘American Taliban’, faith-denigrating, other bomb-throwing and general blaming the woes of the world on them, of course – you’re a real peach of a fellow!
Midas on March 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Sidebar:
I saw BOC in 1975, with the unknown opening act – Kansas.
Kansas was absolutely phenomenal – it was their Masque tour.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Yes. And since it’s so transparent, it won’t work. You can’t please everybody, and the more you try the more you’ll alienate everybody (see: Romney, Mitt).
Because that would be the smart move, and if there’s one thing we’ve seen from GOP politicians, it’s that they are apparently genetically incapable of speaking coherently on social issues. Remember Herman Cain’s “I want to make it illegal, but I don’t want the government involved” schtick?
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2013 at 5:46 PM
My take away from this thread is that social conservatives here believe Jesus thinks they should get in everyone’s faces about whether women can have abortions and who other people sleep with and marry, but that whole “turn the other cheek” thing? Not so much. Name=calling and insults are OK, too.
DRayRaven on March 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Once every year or so I play it straight, but everyone assumes I’m being sarcastic. Goes with the territory.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM
I think you can do better than this if you try. Come on, give it another try.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Amazing album.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 5:58 PM
As an atheist and social conservative, I can say right now that you’re wrong about my beliefs regarding Jesus. But do I think that the government has a role in abortion (protecting the life of an innocent child), who other people sleep with (stopping prostitutes, incest, pedophilia, etc…) and marry (which exists for procreation)? You betcha.
Stoic Patriot on March 21, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Thank you. You don’t have to be a Christian to realize how superior Judeo-Christian morals are to everything else (especially actual Sharia, which Armin needs to experience). Or how absurd it is to think that concepts of morality can basically be pulled out of a hat, much less run a solid and free nation based on said morals.
Disorder does not form itself into order, stable families are not the invention of mere tradition, and without protecting the rights of life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is a joke.
MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 6:07 PM
‘Toons of the Day: The Grim Reider
M2RB: Blue Öyster Cult
Resist We Much on March 21, 2013 at 6:13 PM
My take away from most encounters with internet atheists is that they are illogical flamethrowers who have a compulsive need to torch entire fields of strawmen to avoid anything that might be called a rational debate.
They are the ultimate irrationalists, bitterly clinging to their personal values they thought of perhaps that morning, perhaps over time, and believing that their mere denial of God’s existence is sufficient to prove their rationality in spite of all demonstrative evidence to the contrary.
They are rudderless, evasive, and more judgmental than any single other group of people I have ever had discussions with – and the worst part is their foundations and thought processes are invariably the weakest.
BKennedy on March 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM
You’re logically incoherent. Yes, abortion ends a life. I would fully expect that protecting life IS one of the functions of government. As for marriage, it was Jesus Himself who said, “Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female? And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
You seem to be confusing your version of Jesus with the Real Thing.
There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 6:30 PM
They opened with Song For America, from their previous album, and then flew into Masque.
I was stunned by their musicianship. I’d never even heard of them, until the concert, but that same week I got the Masque album and, to this day, it’s one of my all-time favorites.
I saw Rush, in 1977, on their A Farewell To Kings tour, and I put the musicianship of Kansas above Rush. And, for me, that’s saying something.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 6:30 PM
Friend turned me on to them in high school, and Masque blew me away. I was dating a girl who would become a renowned classical singer, and she was blown away (musicianship). To this day, no one talks about them much, but you can’t name many ensembles who could do what they did.
Now that I’m old, I do spin class to Icarus.
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Yep you have the mental capability to comment on two, yes only two subjects. Zzzzzzzzz.
CW on March 21, 2013 at 7:04 PM
Well written.
slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Amen. After that, what more need be said.
Cleombrotus on March 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM
DRay hasn’t chosen to improve upon his poor effort, sadly. What do you suppose he means in this strange passage?
Jaibones on March 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM
JFKY on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM
If a person supports a women’s right to murder an unborn baby conceived through rape…then they’re not really anti-abortion.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Wrong. You need to get out more.
22044 on March 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Stuff it, fool. Some of us know the difference between saying “why sure you can abort your baby because it’s inconvenient” and saying “Yes you had a horrible thing happen to you, I urge you not to punish the baby too, but ultimately the choices is between you and whatever god you worship.”
95% of abortions are pure adulterated convenience. Oppose the 5% to no end and what tiny chance you have to end the 95% goes bye-bye, which means millions more babies dead.
MelonCollie on March 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM
The only ones that are not convenience are the ones where both the mother and child are certain to die unless the child is terminated. That is the only time that there is no good choice, but just the bad choice to abort the child and hope the mother survives. Thus saving life.
If the mother’s life is at risk, but the child can be delivered alive, the child should have precedence.
No other cases of abortion are necessary. They are all convenience.
I would argue they compose .5% or less of all pregnancies.
astonerii on March 22, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2