There’s been a lot of discussion (in the blogosphere, anyway), about Jim Gilmore’s record on abortion – particularly whether or not pro-lifers should support him for the nomination or would support him in the general election. Naturally, yours truly would rather they support Bob Marshall, whose record on life issues is impeccable. However, quite a few Gilmore supporters are insisting that his record as Governor is sufficient to call him pro-life, despite his eight-week “choice” window (Richmond Times-Dispatch).
They might think differently once they know this: Jim Gilmore has served and is serving on the Board of Directors for one of the biggest abortifacent sellers in America – Barr Pharmaceuticals.
Barr is the manufacturer of Plan B, an “emergency contraception” pill that earned the firm tens of millions in revenue over the last two years (Washington Post), and is expected by at least one analysts to bring in over $120 million this year (CNN).
Now, Barr insists that Plan B is only for preventing pregnancy, but in their own explanation of the drug, the truth slips out:
It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).
In other words, if conception did occur, the conceived child will not be able to develop – (s)he will be killed instead. This is the exact definition of an abortifacent, a drug designed to ensure that any conceived child dies.
What does this have to do with Jim Gilmore? How about this: Gilmore was elected to Barr’s Board of Directors in May 2002 (Forbes), and remains a director to this very day. Even at the time Gilmore was elected to the board, Barr was marketing Plan B in Canada. It started trying to get approval for over-the-counter sales in the U.S. in 2003 (the FDA caved in to them in 2006). All the while, Gilmore continued to serve on the Board and earn up to $50,000 a year (SEC, note that Gilmore himself served on the Board’s Compensation Committee).
Now, just to be clear, I recognize that those who are “pro-choice” are completely unfazed by all of this. Additionally, Gilmore, who himself allows for the aforementioned eight-week window, clearly doesn’t have a problem with this either. However, for those of us who are pro-life, this is a very big deal. You cannot serve on the board of a leading abortifacent provider and call yourself “pro-life,” period.
Meanwhile, Gilmore’s aid says the candidate “personally opposes abortions” (R T-D). Then why we would he serve on the board of a company (and be paid to the tune of $50K a year) that makes them infinitely easier?
Gilmore should come clean on this; he should admit he’s “pro-choice,” but supports certain restrictions. Above all else, he should stop calling himself pro-life, because he’s not.
There’s only one candidate who is pro-life and it’s Bob Marshall. Marshall is the only one who can win over the Huckabee supporters, socially conservative Catholic independents, and all the other Virginians best described as “pro-life liberals.” They will support Bob Marshall; they will not support Jim Gilmore. It’s that simple.
January 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
BINGO.
January 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
Sir, do you or your US Senate candidate realize Barr is one of the largest employers in Virginia? They are home to countless employees in the Lynchburg area.
Barr does much more than produce the morning after pill. It is one of many products the company produces. You should really study such topics more before blabbering on in hopes to direct traffic to your website.
January 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
I’m not asking for Barr to be shut down, Henry; I am saying that someone who serves on its Board of Directors cannot run for the U.S. Senate as a pro-life candidate in any serious way, shape, or form.
January 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
So by your logic even the pill can be considered a form of abortion since it stops conception from happening.
January 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
Nice job, we Republicans should be in the business of ‘demonizing’ one of the most effective Pro-Life Republicans to ever be Governor or VA. George Allen being the other.
‘Slash and Burn’ continues from the B4M camp. As far as your assertion that Gov. Gilmore can not win over Pro-Life Conservatives in the base, I guess that means they will only vote for an absolutist on the issue, or will just stay home. Even if that means sending Mark Warner to the Senate to help confirm Pro Roe V Wade Supreme Court Judges?
Now if you can really ‘demonize’ Gov. Gilmore your assertion can play out better… He’s an “abortifacent”! Thanks for increasing my vocabulary today.
How many lives did Del. Marshall save by actually signing into law a 24 hour waiting period for abortions in VA? Did Del. Marshall sign into Legislation a law making late term abortions in VA illegal? What about fighting for parental notification in VA, as AG, and supporting it as Governor? How many babies lives has Del. Marshall ACTUALLY save, by taking his hard and fast stance? Ya’ll are making this guy look like a ‘Grandstander’, in comparison to a Governor who has actually made a difference in enacting Pro-Life Legislation.
Did dramatically increasing funding for adoption services in VA pass your ’sniff test’ for spending increases, or should he be roundly denounced for that? As a matter of fact Del. Marshall wants to decrease funding for Adoption in VA? What about creating an Abstinance Initiative in VA? OMG did he have to devote tax dollars too it? Heresy screams RWL, Heresy!
What about banning Human Cloning in VA? How about going to court to try and save the life of Hugh Finn? Oh, sorry those were just a run of the mill life issues.
You might find this quote from an article by Mike Reynolds in the Nation Magazine useless to your cause:
“In 1998 Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and Claude Allen, then his secretary of health, threw their state’s entire $1.5 million sex-ed budget into IYD’s abstinence-only school program along with a statewide television and radio campaign crafted by the group.”
http://www.whrnet.org/fundamentalisms/docs/issue-gluttons-0706.html
One thing is sure politically about abortion… You will be demonized either way you go on the issue… Bottom Line Gov. Gilmore has been elected state wide twice, carrying NOVA both times, and enacted Pro-Life Legislation, not just ‘Grandstanded’ the issues to please Pro-Life Purists… Nor has he changed postions on the issue, which should bring about a sense of security among the Pro-Life Movement that he is not going to go back on what he has already accomplished…
Heck, he ran for President and didn’t change his positions, ala, a bunch of typical politicians… Integrity, you’d think it’d count for something…
January 15, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
Did you actually read the post, Henry? The pill is an abortifacent because it kills conceived children, NOT because it prevents conception.
As for you, STD, the pill is the abortifacent, not the Governor. Secondly, I appreciate the fetal protections the Governor has signed into law (which were, BTW, supported by Delegate Marshall in the HoD); my point is he is not pro-life as many pro-lifers define the term, and yes, I do think many pro-lifers will thus either sit the vote out or (if driven by other issues on which they tack left) vote for the lying sleazeball in November.
Besides, the various executive actions Gilmore did won’t be an issue in the federal legislature; what WILL be an issue is confirming or rejcting appointments to the FDA, the Courts, etc. Can you honestly tell me you trust Jim Gilmore on those issues more than you trust Bob Marshall? If so, you’re seriously deluding yourself.
January 15, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
Just out of curiosity, does this mean that Bob Marshall considers all of Barr’s workers to be de facto abortion clinic workers?
January 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
I may support Marshall, but I can’t claim to speak for him (and I won’t).
As for me, no, I don’t consider all of Barr’s employees to be “de facto abortion clinic workers.” Gilmore, however, was not working or consulting in a different (and given that Barr is a medical firm, helpful) department. He was on the Board of Directors that oversaw the entire firm. That’s a far different level of responsibility.
January 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
DJ Says:
“Can you honestly tell me you trust Jim Gilmore on those issues more than you trust Bob Marshall? If so, you’re seriously deluding yourself.”
Actually, I place a great deal of merit on peoples past actions, to predict their future behavior.
As a matter of fact I am watching you ‘Slash & Burn’ a fellow Republican, while that fellow Republican is practicing the ‘Eleventh Commandment’.
It is safe to assume that your past and present behavior will only carry on into the future… of that I have no delusion.
I guess the only thing funny about this is that ya’ll are making Gov. Jim Gilmore out as some kind of Liberal….
Meanwhile you ‘Grandstand’ Marshall’s position on Life, while he would have never had any of Gov. Jim Gilmore’s Pro Life accomplishments to support (vote for) if Gov. Gilmore had not defeated LG Don Beyer for Governor in 97′.
The ‘Thank You’ Gov. Gilmore gets for pushing a Pro-Life agenda, and signing that legislation is attacks from the hard right, and then your accusation above that Gov. Gilmore just can not be trusted on those very same issues….
Well just look at his past? Well what is that past DJ? Your candidate is all ‘Position, and No Accomplishment’…. I’ll take action over words any day my friend…
January 15, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
With all due respect DJ…You have turned me off on Grandstand Bob and this issue.
As Spanky pointed out
“How many lives did Del. Marshall save by actually signing into law a 24 hour waiting period for abortions in VA? Did Del. Marshall sign into Legislation a law making late term abortions in VA illegal? What about fighting for parental notification in VA, as AG, and supporting it as Governor? How many babies lives has Del. Marshall ACTUALLY save, by taking his hard and fast stance? Ya’ll are making this guy look like a ‘Grandstander’, in comparison to a Governor who has actually made a difference in enacting Pro-Life Legislation.
Did dramatically increasing funding for adoption services in VA pass your ’sniff test’ for spending increases, or should he be roundly denounced for that? As a matter of fact Del. Marshall wants to decrease funding for Adoption in VA? What about creating an Abstinance Initiative in VA? OMG did he have to devote tax dollars too it? Heresy screams RWL, Heresy! ”
Grandstanding indeed.
January 15, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
Sooo…although people who work at Barr are not abortion-pill peddlers, Jim Gilmore is because…well basically because you don’t like him. And even though Bob Marshall continues to call for the “end of the occupation in Iraq” it is okay because you like him more than Jim Gilmore. You should just say that consistency doesn’t matter if you like a candidate.
January 15, 2008 at 9:40 pm |
Carl,
You (and STD) might want to talk to the folks at the Virginia Society for Human Life, who have tracked the legislature on life issues for since the 1970s. Bob Marshall has been defending life in the state legislature for over 16 years, since before anyone outside of Henrico had ever heard of Jim Gilmore, and he’s kept at it long since Gilmore left politics (temporarily) in 2002. He has been fighting for legislation in the defense of life that Gilmore won’t touch, including a bill he intoduced this session that would make abortion illegal the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Now, SS,
My point was that Gilmore, as a Director, was responsible for the actions of the entire company, including Plan B. An employee working on a different product within the Barr company would not have as part of his/her job responsibility for the advancement of Plan B; Gilmore did (that’s why I think this is relevant, Carl).
As for the quote you cite on Iraq, those were Tim Craig’s words, not Marshall’s.
January 16, 2008 at 12:16 am |
You know DJ, people are probably just confused about the whole contraceptive issue since Bob Marshall has a long record of opposing contraceptives as well as abortifacents. Your point about Marshall taking up legislation that Gilmore will not touch is technically true, but it might not be the blessing you think it is.
Marshall is closely associated with “pro-life” groups that have attacked James Dobson, George W. Bush, and Rush Limbaugh among others for not being “pro-life enough” so it is hardly surprising that Jim Gilmore is not up to their exacting standards. The vast majority of pro-lifers will back Gilmore just as they support Bush, Dobson, etc. over the attacks of Marshall & Co.
January 16, 2008 at 12:44 am |
LW, unlike Dobson, Bush, or Rush, Gilmore explicitly supports “choice” for the first eight weeks of pregnancy. That is NOT pro-life, period. I just wish Gilmore would acknowledge it, instead of claiming to be pro-life when he clearly is not.
January 16, 2008 at 12:53 am |
Not that he needs me to defend him, but I don’t think its fair to use terms like hard right to describe RWL on this issue or other bloggers that support Marshall for whatever reason. Maybe I am misreading you STD but that kind of talk is not helpful. And I also think it is a bit melodramatic to describe a post like this as “Slash and Burn.” Those kind of terms are often used by the left to disarm or marginalize all conservatives and Republicans. Gilmore’s service on this board seems a legitimate criticism to me and part of his record.
You have a good point STD that this particular thing is balanced out by the numerous good things he did on life issues as Virginia Governor. In any event it is no reason to start ripping into one another. Ultimately this is about defeating Mark Warner.
January 16, 2008 at 11:28 am |
Since Bob Marshall has worked with and for people who oppose contraception he’s just as guilty as they are – using your logic. So Bob Marshall should just come out and say that he’s opposed to contraception rather than saying he’s pro-contraception, because that clearly makes him not.
January 16, 2008 at 11:55 am |
I’m a little baffled by people calling this post a “slash and burn” on Jim Gilmore. It simply presents facts that indicate he is “pro-choice” up to eight weeks and serves on the board of the only maker of the morning after pill. Jim Gilmore is simply not pro-life. None of us would exist if we’d been killed during the 8-week window he supports for abortion. I appreciate the good he has done, but it doesn’t change those facts.
As for Bob Marshall. He is no grandstander, but has been a staunch supporter of the right to life from the beginning. He also stands for lower taxes and less government interfering in our lives. He’s smart and articulate and would do well debating Mark Warner.
As for Barr, I couldn’t work for them. What do people say about I.G. Farben, the firm that made zyklon B, the pesticide used to kill Jews? The only difference between what Farben did and what Barr is doing is the size of the victims.
Of course this argument can only take place because everyone on this board made it to birth. Thank your mom.
January 16, 2008 at 11:57 am |
I fail to see your logic here. Perhaps a specific or two on Marshall and birth control . . .
As for Gilmore, he didn’t “work for” Barr. He was (and is) on the Board of Directors, the decision-making body for the company.
January 16, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
I heard somewhere that Gilmore had led the opposition on the board to approving the Plan B drug, but that he was voted down. Under those circumstances, what was he supposed to do? Angrily resign? Why hasn’t Bob Marshall angrily resigned from the General Assembly when voted down on these issues? If Jim Gilmore is responsible for all the decisions of the Board of Directors of Barr Labs, then Bob Marshall bears responsibility for every vote of the General Assembly, regardless of whether he agrees with them. Both are voting members of a voting body, so if you’re going to attack Gilmore on this, let’s apply the logic equally to both men.
January 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
ALL opposes the use of birth control and Marshall was the executive director; therefore Marshall opposes the use of birth control.
January 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm |
NoVa Rep,
I have seen no evidence of that; if Gilmore really did try to fight it, he should say so. I don’t think it’s likely, though, as Barr was already maufacturing Plan B for Canada when Gilmore joined the board.
January 16, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
I like Jim Gilmore, and I like Bob Marshall. But I think Marshall would make a better Senator. My impression is that Marshall is a clearer thinker and debater, in general, on any issue. On the life issues, we have some biological facts to deal with: a unique life with its own DNA begins at conception. Spotting the chemical and surgical abortion forces 8 seconds or 8 weeks after that point to do their dirty work is illogical for a “pro-life” advocate; it’s the sign of a political compromiser. That’s not always a bad trait, except in defense of human life.
January 17, 2008 at 9:20 am |
Delegate Marshall is an extremist. He opposes birth control and all contraception. I read an article years ago where he said that birth control is wrong and women should just be prepared to breed. He called birth control abortions! I could never vote for the man after I read that and I won’t.
January 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
Andrea: show me the quote where Marshall says “women should just be prepared to breed.” I don’t believe it exists, I don’t believe he ever said or wrote that. Also, some drugs induce abortions, and people prefer to delude themselves into calling such drugs “birth control.” But these drugs (including off-label uses of drugs) do induce abortions. My guess is that you never intended to vote for Marshall or Gilmore anyway.
January 17, 2008 at 11:05 pm |
Marshall has no respect for women. He thinks he should be able to dictate what they can and can’t do.
January 18, 2008 at 9:05 am |
Welcome lefty trolls!
January 18, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
Yes, welcome indeed! They’ve found another site to plaster with pro-choice bumper stickers. So who has respect for women? Given about 50 million abortion mill killings since 1973, roughly 25 million little girls were dictated a sentence of death by their pro-choice mothers. Their mothers dictated what these girls could and couldn’t do: they didn’t get to have a life, like you or me. How’s that for “respect for women?”
January 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
While Marshall’s view on women can’t be verified, but it is true he opposes any and all forms of birth control. Now whether people believe that to be anti-women is up for debate.
January 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
Staunton Spectator, you are correct about Marshall’s views on birth control, no doubt about it — a view which I share, for the record. Explaining the natural law philosophy on which this view rests may be outside the scope of this blog, or maybe not. It is a view shared by many orthodox religious peoples of the world — Jews, Muslims, Protestants — not just Catholics. At this point in history, artificial birth control (or what G.K. Chesterton termed no-birth, no-control) is widely practiced by most Americans, and has been for some time; and so now we have some predictable results, such as collapsing Social Security systems, replacement of our labor force by foreign immigrants, pushing women into combat, and widespread demand for abortion as a “backup” to the inevitable birth control “failures.” On the one hand, this topic may be far afield from the initial subject of the thread. On the other hand, Marshall’s Catholic views on birth control should not be just ignored as if they were something negative.