All I wanted was a breakdown of the Blazers game (pause for derisive laughter at Laker fans).
But when I saw that Politifact Oregon had a special item on "Did [Republican State House incumbent] Matt Wand side with anti-choice activists to limit access to abortions?", I couldn't resist. What a golden opportunity for their unique brand of ham-handed equivalencies!
They didn't disappoint.
Did Matt Wand side with anti-choice activists to limit abortions?
Pretty straightforward question. We are going to need some obfuscation, and Janie Har of Politifact is just the one to do give it to us.
First, some background.
The mailer urges a vote for the Democrat in the race, Chris Gorsek, who is endorsed by Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon. We wanted to know whether Wand, who is endorsed by Oregon Right to Life, sided with activists "to restrict access to reproductive health care services."And now, we "check" "facts."
The mailer doesn't mention the word abortion at all -- not once -- but the evidence cited for the claim is Senate Bill 901 from 2011. The legislation would have re-defined Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortions as "ambulatory surgical centers," subject to the same regulations as centers that do plastic surgery, spine surgery, vision laser surgery, and so on. The legislation would have applied to places that advertise as offering abortions, 10 or more in a month, 100 or more in a year.
House Republicans, who suggested the fact check, and Oregon Right to Life, the anti-abortion group behind the legislation, say the bill was aimed at making abortions safer, not at restricting them.So a group that is explicitly out to get rid of abortion, says that their bill is designed to make abortions safer. Got that? Where did you get the idea that we at Oregon Right to Life would ever back legislation that restricts abortions? What's that..? The legislative guide on our website? Oh, that's a typo.
Let's give some obligatory equal time to the fact that the sun does indeed rise in the east:
Wand co-sponsored legislation that in all likelihood would have translated into fewer places for women to go....Oh no! We're getting close to a definitive empirical judgment on the matter at hand! Can I get some mud for these waters?
Anyone reading the mailer cold might assume that Wand is an extreme anti-abortionist who wants to take away a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions. Given the "reproductive health care services" language, maybe he’s even against contraception. But the bill wasn’t nearly as drastic as that.Ah yes!! I might conclude that this Republican is in line with the national and state platform of the GOP! And the mailer did not specifically tell me not to conclude that!
The legislation focused on abortion, targeting clinics that provide them. But with abortions performed in a variety of places -- at private medical offices, at the women’s health center at Oregon Health & Science University, at Lovejoy Surgicenter -- the legislation would not have shut down every provider as Lutz claims.Mmmmm, that's good. Replace the statement in question with a far more extreme version, then fact-check that statement.
His stated motivation was safety, not necessarily a desire to restrict access....Oh yes, we're so close!! CAN YOU FEEL IT?
We rate the statement Half True.I need a cigarette.
Oregon Democratic Party, here's your new Politifact-compliant mailer text, free of charge!
Matt Wand sided with anti-choice activists to limit access to reproductive healthcare, but he said it was for good reasons, and besides there will probably still be a few places that you can go, at least for a while, and he's a good dude who likes women and respects the crap out of them so stop thinking that he's not, he just backs a law that was written by an anti-choice group, but an anti-choice group that also has some wonderful people in it who are similarly respectful of women and the choices they make in a number of things that aren't abortion related but you never hear about that do you.Remember kiddos: if you think something is true, and it is true, but other things are also true, then it's only half true.