Behind the Dillard abortion slam
Wednesday, Feb 19, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Champion News dug up a 2003 Project Vote Smart report that claimed Sen. Kirk Dillard had a 100 percent voting record from Planned Parenthood Illinois Action…
This image speaks for itself and the voting record of Kirk Dillard on pro-life issues.
The image…
Champion News is published by Jack Roeser, who is a major Bruce Rauner supporter. Rauner describes himself as being pro-choice.
* A Dillard campaign surrogate responded via press release…
Recently the pro-life voting record of gubernatorial candidate Kirk Dillard has been called into question by a smear campaign funded by his political opponents. Yesterday, an internet blog calling itself “Champion News” used a decade-old web page to imply that Dillard was favored by abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
Pro-life leaders from around the state are outraged, and have demanded an apology from the staunchly pro-choice Bruce Rauner, who opposes Dillard in the GOP Primary March 18th.
Kirk Dillard has been a long time pro-life leader. He has sponsored parental notice legislation, championed abstinence education, and has stood up for life throughout his career in the Illinois Senate. Just last week, he was the only candidate for governor to be endorsed by Illinois Citizens for Life and Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Dillard has also been endorsed by pro-life Eagle Forum State PAC and Family-PAC. Furthermore, Dillard is supported individually by pro-life advocates state-wide, including Penny Pullen, Bonnie Quirke, Mary Anne Hackett, Liz Eilers, Sheila Devall, Reverend Bob VandenBosch, Nick Costello, and Phyllis Schlafly.
Sharee Langenstein, Illinois’ pro-life representative to the Republican National Platform Committee in 2012, now serves as statewide Co-Chairman of Conservatives for Dillard. She had this to say about the anti-Dillard story: “Champion News is wholly owned by Jack Roeser, who is an open supporter of pro-abortion candidate Bruce Rauner. Rauner and his wife Diana have donated tens of thousands of dollars to pro-choice organizations including Personal PAC and Emily’s List, and Rauner has donated $440,000 to Roeser’s political organizations. We no more trust what Champion News has to say about pro-life candidates than we would trust Planned Parenthood. We demand an apology from Bruce Rauner for this attempt to deliberately mislead pro-life voters through the Champion News blog.”
* OK, what the heck is this about? I mean, Dillard has, indeed, been a pro-life legislator his entire career.
So, I called Planned Parenthood and told them what was going on. They were as initially stunned as I was. Kirk Dillard had a 100 percent voting record? Really?
They checked their records and got back to me. According to Planned Parenthood, they rated Senators on just one bill in 2003. That bill required insurance companies to cover contraception.
* There are plenty on the right who oppose any governmental insurance mandates for contraception, but Dillard wasn’t supporting an abortion bill, so any implication that this record implies he’s pro-choice is ludicrous on its face.
- Madame Defarge - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:12 am:
This from Roeser who is supporting an openly pro choice candidate– doesn’t matter where you are on the issue what we are seeing here is money talking folks.
- Smoggie - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:14 am:
If anybody wants to know why Quinn will be re-elected in November, just read this post.
The Republicans are arguing over who is more pro-life.
Somehow, they seem completely unaware that this Bill Brady’s pro-life views cost in the 2010 election.
Just bizarre.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:14 am:
Rauner camp: Rutherford is done, on to Dillard.
Attack ads, open fire!
- too obvious - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:16 am:
Dillard has problems, but implying he’s pro-choice is absurd. Beyond shameful.
And as a previous commenter noted, it’s especially shameful coming from Jack Roeser’s lackeys. Roeser is the biggest sellout in the GOP these days. He always wanted to be “Mr. Conservative” and now he’s supporting the only pro-choice candidate in the race.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:16 am:
Bill Brady must be feeling awfully left out. He’s not important enough to attack.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:16 am:
=== Jack Roeser, who is a major Bruce Rauner supporter ===
Speaking of which, how is Mr. Rauner on the pro-life issue Jack?
- DuPage Rep - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:16 am:
Seems like D-Lard is getting a little of the Drip Drip Drip excrement that he has been doling out via Jon Zahm, Willy j. Kelly and Ibendahl.
- Old Guy - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:18 am:
Just wondering: If they only used one bill that year, how come there are ratings for other Senators of 20%, 40% and 50%?
- Generation X - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:19 am:
This is a mistake by the Rauner campaign for purposes of the primary. It highlights his pro-choice stance on abortion much more than it damages Dillard. It won’t play well with the social conservatives which could give Dillard another voting block to go along with labor
- Mokenavince - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:22 am:
How far right do you have to be ,contraception
eliminates the need for abortion.
It looks to me like a farce to me, gray haired
men auguring over women’s rights. And who is in
favor of taking them away.
Quinn VS. Rauner that’s the race.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:22 am:
So Project Vote Smart - isn’t.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:24 am:
I have this mental image of the Baron as the “Eye of Sauron”. First he focused his gaze on DR, shot out a death ray and turned him to burnt toast. Now he is turning his gaze towards KD. Will Frodo and Sam get the ring to Mt. Doom in time?
- Commander Norton - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:25 am:
This should be (but I’m sure won’t be) a wake-up call to proudly single-issue anti-abortion voters: this is what happens when you let it be known that a pro-life dog whistle is all that’s needed to win your support. The fact that an openly pro-choice politician’s campaign just smeared an openly pro-life politician for not being pro-life enough, with any expectation of success, is just pathetic.
- G'kar - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:25 am:
Opps, 10:24 came from me, G’kar.
- DuPage Rep - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:26 am:
==It won’t play well with the social conservatives which could give Dillard another voting block to go along with labor==
Speaking of labor, does anyone know the percentage of IEA members that are fair share? Last I heard it was about 35%. Is that the labor vote that Dillard is counting on? Better rethink that voting block, because fair share people do not like the “Government Union Bosses”.
- Mr. Negativity - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:29 am:
others may have had committee votes that factored in to their ratings?
Yes, shameful. If you had any respect for Roeser I’m sure you lost what was left with this
- Anon - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:29 am:
Not incredibly relevant, but ahhhh. Project Vote Smart.
I interned there for a 10 week summer a few years back.
40 college kids spending the summer filling in bio information, summaries of key legislation, speeches and interest group ratings- for every state’s legislature!
The best part- The offices are located on a ranch in the Rocky Mountains of Montana!
Breaking down the Illinois budget by day, and hiking a mountain, riding horses or having a drink in the tiny local mountain town by night. It was the life.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:30 am:
Rauner is running a tight campaign, but I question accepting “support” from Whacky Jack.
Has Roeser every backed anyone that won? He’s the kiss of death.
- Anon - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:31 am:
I agree with gen x. Rauner’s camp has poked a sleeping dog with this one. Now that the pro life group has been awakened, and their issue has bubbled to the surface, Dillard has the conch. I expect lots of right wing red meat from Dillard on this. The real question is can Rauner get through an entire primary without ever having to state his positions on the issues? Are republican primary voters so simple as to allow a heavy tv campaign completely influence the outcome of the election?
- Generation X - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:33 am:
–Speaking of labor, does anyone know the percentage of IEA members that are fair share? Last I heard it was about 35%. Is that the labor vote that Dillard is counting on? Better rethink that voting block, because fair share people do not like the “Government Union Bosses”.–
That number seems high to me, but I honestly don’t know. They may not like Government Union Bosses much, but they like people who threaten their pensions even less
- Toure's Latte - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:42 am:
I am happy the GOP provides so much winter entertainment: it generates the best comment threads. Imagine if the hot topic was Sheila Simon’s fantastic dynamic campaign against Lisa Madigan.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:47 am:
It’s not just Roeser. Dillard lost Jill Stanek too. According to Stanek:
“(Dillard’s) voting record as state senator is certainly not one of being consistently pro-life.
I’ve written before of Dillard’s support for embryonic stem cell research, his ambiguity on comprehensive sex ed, and his infamous support of pro-abortion/pro-infanticide Barack Obama for president.
There is more to add to the list of pro-life concerns.”
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/02/stanek-dillard-not-the-guy-for-pro-lifers-to-get-behind.html
When you’ve lost Jill Stanek, can you really be the pro-life candidate?
- Mr. Negativity - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:02 am:
-When you’ve lost Jill Stanek, can you really be the pro-life candidate?-
yes
- MrJM - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:10 am:
It’s the difference between pro-life and Pro-Life™.
– MrJM
- justsayin' - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:17 am:
Rauner’s paid staff at Champion News has stepped in it big time in their zeal to attack Rauner’s opponents.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:39 am:
Kirk has been too fickle a friend to too many who were among his strongest base. One day he’s right of them, the next he’s a continent over. This isn’t really fair given his record. It is though enough to pique the people he’s been frustrating. It’s not the right time to be trying to shore up what you thought was your impenetrable base. Can’t work on addition when you’re consumed by subtraction.
- Will Caskey - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:41 am:
This is why I despise using group ratings and vote statistics. If they’re meaningful then the underlying votes and positions are and those make a much more effective case.
- Jabes - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 11:42 am:
That’s disturbingly sloppy and misleading work by Planned Parenthood Illinois Action.
- MrCR - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 12:11 pm:
Can Champion News just go away?
- very interesting - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 12:19 pm:
Champion News is anything BUT a legitimate news organization.
- Adam Smith - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 1:02 pm:
Whether it is Roeser, Zahm, Ibendahl, Kelly, Walsh, Caprio, or any of the other whackjobs, every candidate would be wise to avoid them entirely.
None of these people has proven to be able to move numbers for a candidate. They don’t raise money. They say and do incredibly stupid things. And they are a constant source of embarrassment to the Republican Party.
I know many pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage republicans that this crew has tried to destroy. For them, it’s not enough to be conservative. You have to hate everyone who isn’t.
Unless, of course, you have the money to pay them enough to abandon their supposed principles.
- Confused - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 1:26 pm:
Is there any question whatsoever that Dillard would use a piece of information like this in exactly the same manner?
- DuPage Rep - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 2:47 pm:
Adam Smith - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 1:02 pm:
Well said. You sum up a big problem with the Republican party rather nicely.
- JImbo - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 3:22 pm:
pro-abortion/pro-infanticide ===
Jeez, I thought it was jumping the shark when the anti-abortion people assume people are for abortion just because they don’t support banning it. Now they’re saying they are FOR killing infants? Before someone parses the meaning, the word infanticide means killing infants. Infants have been born. Calling someone pro-infanticide means you think they are FOR killing babies after they are born, regardless of whether you believe killing a fetus is equivalent, infant has an actual definition and it does not include a fetus in the womb. Pro-infanticide, Jesus take the wheel.
- DuPage Rep - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 4:14 pm:
Jimbo,
It is called partial birth abortion. That is what even rational people in the pro-life camp term as infanticide.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 4:17 pm:
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 19, 14 @ 10:24 am:
I have this mental image of the Baron as the “Eye of Sauron”. First he focused his gaze on DR, shot out a death ray and turned him to burnt toast. Now he is turning his gaze towards KD. Will Frodo and Sam get the ring to Mt. Doom in time?
+++++++++++
Don’t go where I can’t follow you…
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 20, 14 @ 12:13 pm:
I’ll never understand how people will think pro-choice or pro-life should be an issue. It’s like these people have learned absolutely nothing from prohibition, from the wasteful war on drugs, and from pre-Roe v. Wade abortion clinics.
You can dislike abortion, that’s fine. I certainly agree that it should be prevented at all stops but outlawing it. But outlawing it will do nothing. Absolutely nothing.