The Quad City Times’ published a hatchet job yesterday. That is not unusual nor that it would be aimed at Bobby Schilling, but we were a little taken aback that Barb Ickes the author would fulminate so recklessly on behalf of a candidate in a Republican primary with so little understanding of what makes conservatives tick, or make a serious effort at due diligence on her own. You know, as a factor in credibility. And we were surprised at the vituperation of a journalist over a busy conservative candidate not getting back to her on her schedule when she has a big glaring liberal hatchet-woman demeanor pasted across her face.
OK we were not really surprised about anything that generated her writting. But we have some Wuhan induced work reduction free time to devote to responding to a couple of the claims Ickes makes.
The title of the Barb Ickes/QC Times hit piece is When all else fails, Bobby Schilling makes stuff up After we finished it we had some ideas for a more accurate title:
When Barb Ickes has an axe to grind, she grinds it
Given an opportunity for snob appeal, Barb Ickes goes for it
If the whole truth be told, look elsewhere than Barb Ickes
Barb Ickes reporting on a Republican primary is cluelessness in action
Titles that were a little more cumbersome included:
When the QC Times opines in a vacuum, they rely on the vacuity of Barb Ickes
When Barb Ickes should feel an obligation to independently uncover the truth, she fails
If your waiting for the Barb Ickes hatchet job on MMM – that’s the back-up plan if MMM wins the primary
Much of the Ickes’ article is petty criticism about Bobby Schilling in an effort to serve liberals in trying to dismantle Schillings blue-collar appeal. Schilling’s son Terry “owns” Ickes for her snobbery in an effective Twitter series.
In our view, when not incontrovertible, Schillings criticisms of Miller-Meeks are reasonable extrapolations of statements made by her. It is the legitimate give and take of politics. With Ickes in making demands for discovery from Schilling on matters that are common knowledge in conservative circles, it is an effort to jam up the candidate and “I’ll get back to you” is about all they deserve.
Barb Ickes has been around long enough to know the reputation of the person she wanted documentation about — Maggie Tinsman. But “long enough” does not translate to Ickes being a serious observer of conservative politics. Nor as to Miller-Meeks if Miller-Meeks is so oblivious to Tinsman’s history as one of the grand dame apologists and promoters of the “right” to dismember unborn members of the human family for any reason.
Because of our experience with the issue we respond to the parts of Ickes article focused on the Maggie Tinsman matter and challenging Schilling’s criticisms of Miller-Meeks for fairly recent and troubling statements where she describes her own position regarding abortion legislation. Interestingly it sounded a lot like Maggie Tinsman.
Hearing or reading the transcript of Miller-Meeks stated position to the Ottumwa League of Women Voters less than two years ago one can easily defend describing Miller-Meeks position as pro-choice because that is how she described her own position. If it was a slip of the tongue, further verbiage in her response would be expected to be out of sync with the pro-choice mantra. They were not. Viewing the video and knowing the audience she addressed, does any conservative not believe she was hedging in order to garner support from the politically liberal women who involve themselves with that group and its goals?
If she is so pro-life why was is she not as straight forward as her primary opponent (video and transcript below)?
One can properly question Miller-Meeks sincerity on the abortion related votes she has taken given that the implications of her comments indicate she is OK with voting for pro-life legislation on the hopes it will be struck down by courts or otherwise fail because she really resents having anything come between a woman and her doctor (again, roll tape and transcript). At no point does Miller-Meeks make a distinction about elective destruction of the unborn baby and a doctors practice of medicine. Maybe Miller-Meeks did not take the Hypocratic Oath. It may not have been part of her investiture as a physician. She is free to take it now.
Her comments can easily be construed as an attempt to wring her hands, appeal to the liberal League of Women voters attendees, to say I am one of you but I have to move this stuff along hoping for the better judgement of courts.
Miller-Meeks’ campaign says she misspoke but the full transcript hardly puts conservatives at ease. Miller-Meeks can clear up any confusion by responding to a well constructed survey to elicit a clear commitment and real insight into her position on abortion and the right to life of the unborn. We have more comments in conjunction with the video and transcript set forth below.
Barb Ickes challenged Schilling to produce evidence that it was common knowledge among pro-lifers that the notorious Planned Parenthood abortion syndicate water-carrier Maggie Tinsman, who supports Miller-Meeks, was part of the cabal to foster an abortion chamber in this area. Speaking as one who was part of the opposition, and as a conservative Republican, Schilling is correct it was our common knowledge that Tinsman supported the clinic — and for clear and sufficient reason. It was based on newspaper articles, documents, Tinsman’s associations and support network and direct observation.
That Ickes is unaware of Tinsman’s notoriety in conservative and right-to-life circles is incredible for someone engaged in political reporting in this area. Ickes chose to rely on parroting Tinsman’s denial as sufficient to undermine Schilling, disregarding the political predisposition of Tinsman, the Miller-Meeks campaign desire to do so and we daresay Ickes own desire to undermine Schilling.
Curiously, in eliciting a response from Tinsman, Ickes did not report if she asked Tinsman whether or not she was content or pleased with Planned Parenthood siting an abortion clinic in Davenport or Bettendorf. Nor, as revealed to us anyway, did Ickes ask Tinsman if she supported, had memberships in, received endorsements and contributions from or contributed to groups which were part of directly or indirectly the Planned Parenthood syndicate’s efforts or a PR campaign in support of their efforts. It is possible to have a good idea of someone by the memberships they maintain.
Here are a couple excerpts with citations from articles and contemporaneous reports relative to the evidence of Tinsman’s direct or indirect support for organizations engaged in bringing (and operating) an abortion clinic eventually cited in Bettendorf. A scan of the full text of the articles used will be made available on our page bar regarding the IA 2nd CD race on our Page Bar above.
Des Moines Register / AP 5/23/96. (excerpt)
Republican U.S. Senate contender Rep. Steve Grubbs of Davenport Wednesday said primary rival Sen. Maggie kinsmen of Bettendorf helped recruit a new clinic offering abortions to the Quad-Cities.
Grubbs said Tinsman was a member of a group called the Quad Cities Coalition for Choice, which worked with Planned Parenthood in announcing plans for the new clinic. the proposed clinic has been t the center of controversy.
Tinsmen said she belonged to that group but that she was unaware it had worked with Planned Parenthood A scan of the full text of the article will be made available on our page bar regarding the 2nd District race
V’PAC note – why would an organization named Quad Cities Coalition for Choice not support siting an abortion clinic in the “unserved” Quad Cities and what of Tinsman’s claimed obliviousness given the high profile reporting of the matter long before a location was announced? And we would ask Barb Ickes: “if you can’t believe Steve Grubbs about Maggie Tinsman, whose firm is a consultant to Miller-Meeks, who can you believe?”
Dispatch-Argus 7/23/95 John Kanthak, staff writer: (excerpts)
Both the Emma Goldman Clinic and Planned Parenthood are negotiating to buy property for clinics they will open in the Quad-Cities this year (1995)
When the newly created Genesis Medical Center announced it would discontinue St. Luke’s policy of providing elective abortions, members of the Quad-Cities Coalition for Choice contacted the Emma Goldman Clinic and other abortion providers and asked them to open a Quad-Cities branch clinic . . . Coalition members included Iowa state senator (sic) Maggie Tinsman, the YWCA, Business and Professional Women, B’nai B’rith Women and the Doris and Victor Day Foundation.
Emma’s Journal, March 1996
Emma Goldman Clinic Challenges Davenport City Council
. . . The pro-choice community in the Quad Cities responded to the actions of the council by forming the Quad City Coalition for Choice. the coalition included representatives of staff and advisory boards from Planned parenthood and Emma Goldman Clinic, members of the Quad City Progressive Clergy, iowa Civil liberties Union members, and other interested individuals.
V’PAC note: The Emma Goldman newsletter excerpt above speaks to the intention of the coalition to oppose restrictions on, and pave the way for, uninhibited clinic operation in Davenport. Tinsman was a member of the coalition.
Tinsman in her personal or political capacities has received succor from one or more entities attached to, and given succor to, Planned Parenthood which operated an abortion facility in Bettendorf until the end of 2017. This was before and during the presence of the clinic. Tinsman attended the grand opening of the clinic, no doubt smiling and applauding at their presence. Her gifts to Planned Parenthood over the years helped sustain the operations of all its clinics. Her political support was rewarded with some of the largest contributions from Planned Parenthoods Freedom Fund. (see scans of campaign reports)
The response to the Ottumwa League of Women Voters by Miller-Meeks
Mariannette Miller-Meeks answered a question about abortion legislation posed by the moderator at a Ottumwa, Iowa League of Women Voters forum on 31 May, 2018. That is not very long ago but long after her several runs for congress in which one would think she could get her story straight and not have to rely on charitable interpretations of her comments (which we have imparted in the past) or claims of “misspoke”. A transcript of her remarks and that of her then opponent is set forth below. We make use of the Google/YouTube transcription feature which required only minor clerical interpretations.
It should be noted that the introductory text visible onscreen at the start of the video may be in error as the current Iowa Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the Heartbeat legislation matter referred to. The writing may have been an extrapolation from the Court’s interpretation of the Iowa Constitution generated by a previous matter regarding a 72-hour waiting period prior to an elective abortion.
There may have been a sea change in the Court since then as only one of the justices who voted to somehow find a right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution remains on the court in the 22 months since the decision was handed down. The Cady Court finding would flabbergast the framers of the Iowa constitution who empowered subsequent legislatures who banned abortion, and who subsequent to Roe V Wade, regulated it for decades subject to court review. In all that time those courts never went so far as to even suggest that Iowa’s constitution enshrined abortion on demand. But we digress.
Here is the video (wait 35 seconds to load). Transcript and our commentary follows.
The question first went to Daniel Cesar, Mariannette Miller-Meeks opponent in the 2018 primary for the Iowa State Senate (District 41). Mr Cesar, “a Catholic,” is clear and definitive in his response in support of the right to life of the unborn.
Question to both candidates by moderator: “would you consider rescinding the fetal heartbeat law that was passed in the previous legislative session. Daniel take this first”
You know as a Catholic and as a Christian I believe life begins at conception no exceptions now I think the fetal heartbeat bill was flawed I think on several points but I have to say I would have voted for it
~~ If just you said it is knocked down and not making it ~~ I’d come right back and say life begins at conception. Oh is it protected then Roe V Wade says not, it’s only protected when it’s viable inside the womb.
I first brought this off when I was in the mock legislature Ohio in May 2nd
1970 and a baby is not part of the mother’s body it’s a separate individual
and the baby has just as much right to live as a mother and so I’d have to say let’s think about how we can work this through let’s come together and protect life and let’s go forward and let’s find a way that we can help those involved but we have to have our sense of balance and that’s protect life.
(End Daniel Cesar)
Mariannette Miller-Meeks in her response to the same question refers to herself as “pro-choice” (transcript and video link below). Her congressional campaign people are now saying she “misspoke”. On its own even as a slip, her utterance is troubling stated by someone in tune with the right to life realizing the signal the term sends to voters. In the right context it might have been a clever segue if she went on to say she is pro-choice on a lot of matters ( right-to-life conservatives properly are) but the right to life is so fundamental that it must be enshrined with the rarest of exceptions. Miller-Meeks did not.
Moderator: Thank you. Marionette
Begin Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Paragraphing is arbitrary here, that and the dashes-— indicates interpreted pause.
I think which was mentioned earlier that this is probably something that’s going to be challenged by the Iowa Supreme Court and will go forward whether it or not it will be upheld —- we’ll know in the near future — and will it be a costly endeavor — yes it will but sometimes when it comes to issues that are extremely challenging that are controversial and that creates tremendous animosity on both sides it is best that that be challenged be brought up legislatively have the people decide and then if it’s challenged in the court system I think that offers resolution to people on both sides of the issue.
It’s difficult as a woman to to face this issue I’m also Catholic I am pro-choice but very sensitive issue and when roe v wade was decided and even since that time we have not done a favor to women there are women who have had abortions who regret that they’ve had abortions and don’t know where to seek solace or help our support and there are women who are caught in an untenable situation that they’re looking for guidance and a resolution to their situation and the best thing for they and their family to do.
Ultimately as a doctor and a health care provider I think these are decisions that are best left to providers to doctors and to patients I don’t want the government in my health care decisions and I think that that’s why it’s a good thing to bring it up and to be challenged but it is a very personal issue when I talk to people I can tell you women may support it or not support it but they don’t think that abortion should be used as birth control we need to continue to educate we need to make sure that young women are have available resources both for birth control and the educational wherewithal to be able to prevent pregnancy.
Moderator: Time. Thank you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indeed the full text is troubling coming so recently from a person claiming to be pro-life. Bobby Schilling was astute in pointing out the full text is hardly exculpatory to a slip of the tongue.
As the transcript of Miller-Meeks response goes on, compounding what she terms a slip, is that she seems to be saying in part that she is comfortable with having contentious legislation be passed and then having the courts decide the issue. That is troubling on many levels to conservatives.
Miller-Meeks goes on to say “as a doctor and a health care provider I think these are decisions that are best left to providers to doctors and to patients I don’t want the government in my health care decisions and I think that that’s why it’s a good thing to bring it up and to be challenged but it is a very personal issue”
Maggie Tinsman would be happy with that response and has said as much herself
Other than believers in doctors as gods, what instinctual believer that each unborn child is a child of God, that parents are stewards, formulates a response that way? Miller-Meeks response is riddled with “pro-choice” formulations of the issue including their clichés. She also uses the sometimes dodge, sometimes shield “I am Catholic” as if that has any legislative implication given the gamut of “Catholic” legislators on so many issues. Some of the most ardent abortion promoters claim that title and Miller-Meeks must know better. What is clear to us is that Miller-Meeks will be “high maintenance” on the issue.
As regards Barb Ickes employer the Quad City Times
In a masthead editorial some years ago the paper objects to any bounds to abortion then in the context of proposed bans on partial birth abortion known in pro-abortion newspaper circles as “intact dilation and extraction procedures”. It is a nicely obfuscatory phrase for proponents of baby-killing. The terminology unwrapped is as follows: “intact”(with reference to the baby . . . “dilation” (expanding the birth canal prematurely in order to partially remove the intact baby) and “extraction” . . . crushing the babies skull and removing pieces as necessary. There is not an abortion they will not defend.
That is where that newspaper is coming from. Even Maggie Tinsman did not go that far although we suspect it was more a political vote than anything. The truth Ms Ickes is that Bobby Schilling made nothing up, but the QC Times covered up.
We would advise Mariannette Miller Meeks if she is desirous of conservative pro-life support to do the right thing and admit that Schillings characterization was not unreasonable and, if she has changed her mind and can now speak clearly on the issue, to do so and fill out a definitive survey on the matter from pro-life activists. She ought to reject the shoddy journalism in the Ickes article because Ickes shaved the transcript when she could have revealed the entire text (the QCT buys ink by the barrel) as a service in truth to readers.
Of course that won’t happen. We highlighted a gross distortion hit-piece at the hands of Miller-Meeks in an earlier post. You can expect more from her and her handlers. Posts relevant to the 2nd District race can be found on our Page Bar above. Additional documentary information can be accessed there as well.
