TPM LiveWire

Virginia State Delegate: 'I Don't Believe That Disabled Kids Are God's Punishments, Period'


State Del. Bob Marshall (R-Va)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In an interview with TPM, state Del. Bob Marshall (R-VA) disputed the full accuracy and context of a local news article that quoted him as saying that an increase of disabled children was a punishment from nature for abortion.

"I don't believe that disabled kids are God's punishments, period, end of discussion," said Marshall. "I have defended disabled kids. I was almost kicked out of the Republican caucus because I forced a vote on a bill, because autism parents did not get a vote in a subcommittee."

Marshall insisted that his comments had been taken out of context. (Here's the exact quote, which I read to him, and he said sounded accurate: "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.") However, he said, he was discussing an increased rate of birth defects, not all birth defects in and of themselves.

Marshall cited articles in medical journals, which he claimed showed an increased rate of cerebral palsy, low birth weights and premature births among women who have had prior induced abortions.

"This is nature. It's the same thing if you're talking about getting drunk. If God made nature, and made alcohol with certain characteristics, He's not to blame for me getting drunk and getting in a car and killing someone," said Marshall, also adding: "This is the order of nature. You do these things, you pay consequences. That's not controversial."

"These are both peer-reviewed medical journals," said Marshall. "This is not Pat Robertson, this is not the Pope, this is not some yahoo preachers in a right-wing fever swamp."

Could Marshall understand, I asked, how his comments might offend disabled people or their family members, many of whom never had anything to do with abortions? "I never said every low birth weight problem stems from induced abortion," Marshall responded. "What it has done is increased the low birth weight, pre-term births. Because the normal numbers occur, because we're human. Now, with induced abortions, it has increased that number."

Late Update: Marshall has put out a press release: "I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."

Comments (42) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

February 22, 2010 4:14 PM   

Let's see some citations for these studies.

Not that it would make his comments any less bone-headed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:17 PM   

Shorter version: God is an evil vindictive SOB, who would just as soon cut off your nuts as look at you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:24 PM   

Disabled like...Maher & Maddow? Hey, show some compassion, dude!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:32 PM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Coward.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:39 PM    in reply to TalkTalk

more like loser.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:35 PM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

No, disabled like Trig. That's what he's talking about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 1:03 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

You continue to carry the mantle of stupid Marlow. There is neither any mention of Maher or Maddow (and both are 100 times smarter when they were kids than you'll ever be) and yet you attack them. Lets see if I can do that....Palin is a retard! Gee..that was easy.
By your very comment it showed that you are not smart enough to read an article and post a well thought out response. You, Mr Peanut, are a major retard just like Palin! Whats it like being so retarded that you are not able to digest the jist of story and arrive at Maddow and Maher, neither who are mentioned in it. Sad and pathetic would be a step up for you.
Having said that, this clown, like all conservative retards always use the "it wasnt in the context" as the lastest way to walk back stupid retarded comments after he got reamed!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 9:19 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Using this asshole's logic, your girlfriend Sarah Palin must have had an abortion then because she gave birth to a downs syndrome baby.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:35 PM   

In a weird way, without seeing any studies, what he says makes some sense. Looking at averages, older parents run a higher risk of birth abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome. If you subtract the first in sequence (i.e. the aborted fetus) from birth averages, then the remaining children, i.e. the post-abortion children, are being born to older parents than the aborted child would have been. The simple fact is that aborting children shifts the average age of first motherhood upwards, with the expected concommitant impact on birth defects. The guy may be a douche, but his math is correct.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

February 22, 2010 4:53 PM    in reply to Barleymash

If I'm not mistaken, though, low birth weight is more frequently seen in very young (teenaged) mothers. Perhaps what he is seeing is a consequence of greater rates of teen pregnancy, and higher percentages of teenagers opting to bear those children rather than abort them.

Low birth weights can also be the consequence of poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, and drug/alcohol use. Not to mention multiple births, which have certainly increased in recent decades. Lots of factors could play into this, and you'd need to see the studies and the commentaries on them to have any idea whether those studies hold water, or even if they say what he is claiming they say. (It would not be the first time the right wing glommed onto one small section of a study and trumpeted the study as saying what it does not actually say.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 7:53 PM    in reply to slb

Um, we haven't seen anything yet. Just heard a nutcase make a totally unsubstantiated claim.

BTW, I'd like to see some statistics on children born after a first pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage, because 3 women in my family had their first pregnancy spontaneously abort (as it's called).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 9:02 PM    in reply to Barleymash

Except that IF the studies he claims to cite (I have not seen his sources) are legitimate, the scientists would have controlled for the mother's age in their results.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 1:08 AM    in reply to Barleymash

Low birth weight happens more often in young girls/women, those who smoke and those who do not get proper prenatal care. I don't believe for a minute his statements are accurate. I think we need to look more environmently for the real reason some things might be increasing. When a mother is tested and finds awhol;e bunch of chemicals in her blood and breast milk, it is not a stretch to know that it is passed to the fetus during pregnancy. There are so many things that can contribute to unhealthy babies and he has no leg to stand on when he says it is because of a previous abortion. There are moe of us who never had an abortion than that did and I know to many people who have perfectly healthy kids after having an abortion. Bogus B.S. Bogus man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:37 PM   

Would be nice is TPM posted links to the studies he cited. I could see this as potentially being a documented medical condition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:07 PM   

In an interview with TPM, state Del. Bob Marshall (R-VA) disputed the full accuracy and context of a local news article . . . [Emphasis added]

For Pete's sake, TPM--if you interviewed this guy, why couldn't you have asked him what "peer-reviewed medical journals" he was referring to?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:14 PM   

Here's a link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1695927,00.html

The link takes you to Time magazine's discussion of a major study from 2007, published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 7:34 PM    in reply to PiledHighandDeep

Gee.....

the last time I checked, scientific consensus is NOT reached through ONE peer-reviewed study. It requires further studies, verification, and replication by other testers before it begins to assume accepted scientific or medical thought.

One study? Sorry. When you have 4 or 5 major independent studies that all come to the same conclusion, get back tp us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:45 PM    in reply to GayIthacan

Actually the Time article mentioned that there were many other smaller studies. It also mentioned that most of them didn't show any correlation between abortions and later problems with live births.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:42 PM    in reply to PiledHighandDeep

From the Time article: "doctors theorize that the cervix may be weakened by miscarriage or abortion, increasing the risk of preterm birth later on."

If the quality of the research matches this speculation, then forget it. If miscarriages or abortion of a small fetus are going to weaken the cervix, what is a full term baby going to do to it? Is he also claiming that going to full term with vaginal delivery causes birth defects?

And, as Cal Gal points out, if you have had a miscarriage or a medically required abortion, then it is likely that whatever caused those conditions in the first place still exist. Then when you do manage to make it the whole nine months, or in many cases, not quite that far but far enough for viability, the new born is partially suffering whatever its sibling succumbed to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:48 PM   

My take from this article is:

If you don't know what you're talking about, STFU!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:53 PM   

If I were making this point, I would have said "Studies have shown a higher rate of certain birth defects and illnesses in children born to women who had previously had abortions" -- assuming of course I had authentic research behind it. That would be a legitimate statement of fact, do with it what you will.

But that's not what he said. He characterized it as a natural punishment for the act. Going back to the original, this quote was also teamed with the key passage:

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being,
animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's
a special punishment Christians would suggest."

In dextrous back-pedalling worthy of a shut-down NFL cornerback, Mr. Marshall essentially quoted himself out of context to get off the hook.

But that second quote, aye, there's the rub.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 9:23 PM    in reply to Doc Magnus

So aborting the *second*-born is Biblically okay?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:55 PM   

The study is from 2007, but the study data are more than 40 years old.

From the article:
"The big question, however, is how well data from the 1960s really represents American women today. Back in the '60s, induced abortions were illegal in the U.S. It's possible that some women in the study had abortions but denied it — even to their doctors — or claimed to have miscarried. That makes the data harder to interpret. Illegal abortion techniques of the day, moreover, were no doubt cruder than abortion procedures today, and they may have caused more permanent damage to the reproductive system. Indeed, the public-health implications of the JECH study may be more suitable for developing countries, says Adera — places where abortion is still illegal, and where prenatal care may be similar to what was offered in the U.S. half a century ago. Still, he says, all over the world, "Women need to be informed about these risks.""

Maybe Marshall is looking forward to our medical system resembling that of a developing country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 6:00 PM    in reply to jeffs

Whaddaya mean "looking forward"?? I thought we had arrived there already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 7:56 PM    in reply to jeffs

Consequently, women interviewed in the '60s had had abortions for medical reasons. THOSE were legal. So it makes sense that subsequent pregnancies might have some of those same problems that made their first pregnancies subject to LEGAL abortions for medial reasons. Now we're getting somewhere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:46 PM    in reply to jeffs

You may be on to something there. I went to school in the eighties and I specifically remember being taught in health class that women who reported having had multiple abortions had more problems with carrying subsequent pregnancies to full term. This was used as justification for the argument that women should not use abortion as a primary method of birth control. At the time taht I was in school, the data you mention would have been relatively recent. So, the numbers may have been related to illegal procedures or procedures that were done in an unsafe way. It might be difficult to interpret the data. I'd be interested to see if there are studies done with data since Roe v. Wade. The CDC's data on abortion that I found didn't cover subsequent pregnancies. It mostly dealt with overall numbers and demographics, even so, the numbers were incomplete nationally because California, New Hampshire and Alaska didn't submit numbers.

Another possibility is that we have gotten much better at saving premature children since the 1970's. We've also gotten much better at saving children in high-risk pregnancies, and some of those children have problems later on. Greater numbers of premature babies that survive, and high-risk pregnancies that make it could throw the numbers askew. What may be merely correlation is being interpreted as direct cause and effect. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 2:34 AM    in reply to justasailor

"Another possibility is that we have gotten much better at saving premature children since the 1970s."

Bingo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 6:24 PM   

I say idiot representatives are God's punishment for making the wrong choice in the voting booth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 7:56 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Be-at-ti-ful!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 6:40 AM    in reply to almacjr

For this, we are awash in data.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:54 PM   

"Marshall cited articles in medical journals, which he claimed showed an increased rate of cerebral palsy, low birth weights and premature births among women who have had prior induced abortions." I'd love to see the source of this information. Even if true it is a classic case of the mistaken logic of correlation = causation. You know, the rooster crows and the sun rises; ergo, the rooster caused the sun to rise.

Could it be that many women who aborted a first child did so because the fetus was somehow impaired? Which makes a second such pregnancy far more likely.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 10:35 PM   

So we've unearthed the source - an outlier review of old data which only suggests (weakly) a correlation between abortion and one actual disability (CP, since prematurity and low birth weight aren't disabilities). Even that connection is slender since most CP cases can be linked directly to oxygen deprivation in delivery, not anything regarding abortion. It's a hell of a leap from there to what this jackass said.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

February 22, 2010 11:15 PM   

This isn't God's punishment --- this is man's. In Nicaragua where abortion is now banned a woman is being denied treatment for cancer because it might harm her fetus. If she dies, she leaves a nine year old child. http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html#6675723211964801222

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 11:17 PM   

Another idiot who lives his life based on the 6000 year old propoganda of the old testament.

If the people who made that shit up could see these modern day fools they wouldn't believe it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 12:59 AM   

Just to note, Bob Marshall's been pulling stuff like this out of his, err, hat for years. Two years ago Marshall ran for the U.S. Senate, where he was dismissed by southern-Virginia Republicans as too right-wing.

That he's been called excessively conservative by down-state Virginia Republicans should tell you all you need to know about him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 2:30 AM   

My god people seem to be competing to out-do one another at laying proper claim to being the MOST Ignorant Imbecil in the entire history of the human species, and with the aid of modern technology, providing the media footage to prove it.

I'm just happy not to be a designated judge, it would be sensory overload and too many contestants to evaluate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 2:36 AM   

Abortions have actually declined over the last few years, so by Rep. Dimwit's calculations, the number of birth defects should have declined as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 6:21 AM   

"I was almost kicked out of the Republican caucus because I forced a vote on a bill, because autism parents did not get a vote in a subcommittee."

He'll also be disputing he said this, I presume?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 7:47 AM   

Then why did he say exactly that? These people do not live or operate in reality, and think they can get away with anything...

http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 26, 2010 10:36 PM   

"Marshall cited articles in medical journals, which he claimed showed an increased rate of cerebral palsy, low birth weights and premature births among women who have had prior induced abortions." I'd love to see the source of this information. Even if true it is a classic case of the mistaken logic of correlation = causation. You know, the rooster crows and the sun rises; ergo, the rooster caused the sun to rise.

Could it be that many women who aborted a first child did so because the fetus was somehow impaired? Which makes a second such pregnancy far more likely.

Tosh
buy viagra kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 26, 2010 10:37 PM   

If I were making this point, I would have said "Studies have shown a higher rate of certain birth defects and illnesses in children born to women who had previously had abortions" -- assuming of course I had authentic research behind it. That would be a legitimate statement of fact, do with it what you will.

But that's not what he said. He characterized it as a natural punishment for the act. Going back to the original, this quote was also teamed with the key passage:

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being,
animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's
a special punishment Christians would suggest."

In dextrous back-pedalling worthy of a shut-down NFL cornerback, Mr. Marshall essentially quoted himself out of context to get off the hook.

But that second quote, aye, there's the rub.

Tosh
m65 acne

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 11, 2010 7:04 AM   

Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall, R-13th, says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.
watch anime online

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on