Skip to main content

Misreading pro-life legislator Brian Nieves

In the last few election cycles, pro-life Republican lawmakers and candidates have regularly fed the public diet for controversy, with statements about abortion and rape, medically necessary abortions, and related topics.

There is no need, therefore, to gin up an outrageous statement where it does not exist.

The blog Little Green Footballs (LGF), along with The Raw Story and The Huffington Post, reports that a Missouri state senator, Brian Nieves, got into an argument over Facebook with a priest whom he thought was a reporter. Mr. Nieves has a history of mixing it up with constituents and critics and using rather tactless language and imagery when lashing out at those who criticize him.

In the ensuing exchange, according to LGF, The Huffington Post, and The Raw Story, Senator Nieves threw women under the bus by asserting that the life of a pregnant woman faced with a life-threatening abortion is just a "matter of convenience."

Outrageous! Yet what 'we' knew all along: Pro-lifers don't care about women!

But what did Mr. Nieves say, actually? Here is the text of the senator's statement (from LGF):
“Really?!?! Are you sure you want to stick with that definition of partial birth abortion? Really? Didn’t you say you have an advanced degree? Your statement about ‘Life of the Mother’ is one of the most common yet kindergarten ways of proving that you don’t even know what a partial birth abortion is!! You are a ‘priest’ and you speak about matters of life and death for which you don’t have an ounce of knowledge?!? Shame on you.”
“‘Life of the Mother?’ Your own argument proves it is a matter of convenience! Tell me this - Do you even know what a partial birth abortion really is? No, seriously, do you actually know what it is?? If so, explain to me what a partial birth abortion is.”
What do you think? In my reading, senator Nieves did not mean that the life of a mother is a "matter of convenience." Instead, Nieves was expressing skepticism that the "partial-birth" technique of abortion was ever used as a necessary means to save the "life of the mother." Senator Nieves, like many pro-lifers, believes that "partial-birth" abortion was never medically necessary-- as such, it could be banned without hurting women. Therefore, when the partial-birth abortion technique was used by doctors, it was really used for abortions that were not medically necessary. In other words, "partial-birth" abortion is a "matter of convenience."

In Senator Nieves' opinion, his Facebook opponent asserting that the "partial-birth" abortion technique saves the lives of pregnant women proved that he did not know what he was talking about.

Senator Nieves, naturally, denied that he said that the life of a pregnant woman is a mere matter of convenience. Inexplicably, though, he did not go to the trouble to explain what he did mean. Instead, he chose to attack liberals as nasty and unpleasant creatures who are always the ones who start fights, etc.

The vast majority of Mr. Nieves' Facebook writings are typical chat room drivel and stereotyping about liberals, so I am not defending Mr. Nieves' quality of mind or eloquence of expression. Or his judgment, for that matter-- an elected politician gets into a public argument over Facebook? For crying out loud. He is not exactly elevating the dignity of the office of state senator.

He does not need his comments misread and misreported to look foolish, and if pro-choice writers on the left are going to criticize conservatives for bending the truth, they need to parse comments more judiciously.

UPDATE: Here are a few web sites that interpret Nieves' comment correctly (and critically): Think Progress and The Gloss 

Links:

Post in Little Green Footballs (July 23, 2013): Anti-Abortion Politician Admits That the Life of the Mother Does Not Matter

Article in The Raw Story (July 22, 2013): Republican lawmaker: Abortion to save the life of the mother  is 'a matter of convenience'

Article in The Huffington Post (July 23, 2013): Brian Nieves, GOP State Senator: Abortions to Save Mother's Life Are 'A Matter of Convenience'

Post at Women in the World (July 23, 2013): Anti-Abortion Pol: Mom Doesn't Matter

Missouri state senator Brian Nieves' Facebook 'rebuttal' of articles/posts about his stance on pregnant women

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...