More on the Bob Marshall Controversy

The flap over statements that Bob Marshall never made is nothing but an attempt to discredit the most eloquent defender of life in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bob opposes funding of Planned Parenthood (PP) an organization that is the enemy of the handicapped. Margaret Sanger, its founder, was a champion of eugenics who would have happily orchestrated the death of every handicapped baby in utero, little ones she considered "human weeds." PP contributes to the number of handicapped children by abortion on demand which damages women's bodies (especially the youngest) making them more prone to miscarriage and premature birth later. Prematurity is the greatest cause of physical and mental handicaps in newborns. And sadly, women are never told this in abortion mills going for the quick sell. They care about what's best for women as much as the proverbial used car salesman cares about what's best for the customer. Women who desire children later never know that the decision they make in the abortion mill today endangers their ability to carry a pregnancy to term later. Some lose the capacity altogether, like one young woman I counseled in a pregnancy center where I worked. But she was lucky; she almost died of septicemia.

The News Messenger, a local Virginia paper, posted an editorial which I've copied below the video. The writer says that "whether you believe what [Bob] said or what he meant to say, it's another example of him getting involved in some dispute that does nothing to improve the lives of his constituents." That statement is wrong! It ignores the point of Marshall's statement which was the physical consequences of abortion which women have the right to know.

If one woman reconsiders her decision because of the dangers to subsequent pregnancies, Bob will have saved her a life of sorrow and regret. Many women are pressured and arm-twisted into abortions they do not want. If they had one bit of support they would choose life. Bob's statement offered solid medical data which is denied by abortionists selling their bloody service. And that, indeed, has the potential to not only "improve the lives of his [female] constituents" but save the lives of his littlest ones.

As for the flap, it may be a blessing in disguise by magnifying the information on the dangers of abortion. That was the point, after all, of Bob's comments and women who see the information will be better able to make that famous "choice" in the light rather than in the dark where the paternalistic abortionists want to keep her.





EDITORIAL: Yet another Marshall controversy

Our View

Published: February 28, 2010

While one may argue that Del. Bob Marshall has been misrepresented in media accounts of remarks he made about abortion, it can't be disputed that he has put his foot in his mouth.

The hubbub is about whether Marshall said that children with disabilities were a punishment from God on women who abort their first child.
The original journalist who reported this as being the case stands by the reporting. Others have jumped on Marshall and harangued him for such a statement.

However, Marshall himself insists that what he said was misunderstood. The delegate said he was simply trying to point out statistics that indicate women who get abortions have "significant problems in their subsequent pregnancies."

Regardless, one thing is certain, Marshall has, once again, revealed how his religious views shape his legis-lative heart.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Marshall has never really hidden his religious convictions and, given the fact that he is elected over and over again, we must imagine that his beliefs reflect those of his constituents, or at least don't present a problem for them.

And this brouhaha makes another thing clear: When a legislator reveals his religious beliefs on a political subject, people get mad, perhaps rightfully so. After all, should religious belief underpin all the actions taken by our government? Some say yes, but others say no and complain that religion and governance should be separated by a thick wall. Needless to say, it is controversial.

In the end though, Marshall should be taken at face value. If he says he is being misunderstood, then he is.

We say this not only because he has a track record of looking out for the interests of disabled children, but also because he is an honest politician—he says what he means, and he does so unapologetically.

No matter the controversy, when Marshall says something that reflects a deeply held belief, he stands by it.

If he had said that children with disabilities were God's punishment to women who aborted their first child, then he would be defending his statement right now. The fact that he isn't is enough to tell us that he didn't say that. In our view, Bob Marshall backs down from no man ... only God.

But that is all distraction; the real focus of this situation shouldn't be, "Did he or didn't he?" Rather, whether you believe what he said or what he meant to say, it's another example of him getting involved in some dispute that does nothing to improve the lives of his constituents.

And for that, we hold him completely responsible.