1. If the stakeholder is an insitution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.
The group of House Republicans/the House Republican Conference are/is seen differently depending on the source. These Republicans are from around the country, they are anyone from millennials to older adults, teachers, farmers, and business owners who have served the country before, whether in state legislatures, city councils, or held a position on a school board. People that are not republican sometimes view the group as corrupt, lying, cheating, ignorant, "dumb," and the list of negatives could go on. Regardless, they are a powerful group since they are members in the U.S. House of Representatives, and therefore, have a huge say in politics- or at least, get to weigh in and bring things to a debate. They are responsible for relaying the Republican message to the rest of the members of the House of Reps. The members are conservative, more traditional, and pro-life. Seeing as there are 246 Republicans in the house, and only 188 democrats, the conservative view tends to override the liberal view. Their webpage, is very official, yet inviting; it has an active blog, colorful images, and is easily navigable. Their Facebook and twitter appearances are similar. Their social media and websites are informative and make use of videos and links. They are not afraid to be vocal on what they stand for or view as an important issue.
2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
1. Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers:
“The admissions by Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director for Medical Services, in the recent undercover video go beyond a debate over pro-life vs. pro-choice. This is a matter of following the law. The practices described are not only disturbing—they’re illegal. Women’s health is a priority, and it is unacceptable and unconscionable to exploit the need for health care for profit. As a mother, as a woman, and as an American, I applaud Chairman Upton for launching an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s practices and procedures.”
-- McMorris Rodgers on Planned Parenthood Video Admissions: “Disturbing” and “Illegal”
2. "When discussing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and how abortionists take the law into consideration,
Nucatola goes on to say 'the federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interepretation. SO there are some people who interete it as intent. So if I say on Day One I do not intend to do this, what ultimately happens doesn't matter. Because I didn't intend to do thison Day One so I'm complying with the law.'
Both the references to the process of breech conversion and the interpretation of intent raise serious questions about whether abortionists and particularly abortionists in the Planned Parenthood organization are complying with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act."
-- "The House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch demanding further investigation by the Department of Justice into potential violations of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by Planned Parenthood." ON JULY 17TH, 2015.
3. “When an organization monetizes an unborn child — and with the cavalier attitude portrayed in this horrific video — we must all act”
-- Mr. Boehner (his quote is found under the 5th Paragraph), at the time, he was the Speaker for the House of Reps.
3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
The House Republicans carry out these claims by attempting to use facts and carry out the U.S. laws. Their argument has some soundness to it, but they themselves, are even unsure, of the truth in the debate, which is why they are calling for an investigation to be opened.
Once investigations took their course, it was discovered that Planned Parenthood had complied with all legalities and did not do anything wrong, unlike in the situation provided by Daleiden and the CMP.
4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
These claims fuel Dacleiden's argument. This is exactly what he wanted, to have an investigation or many open up on Planned Parenthood in order to discredit their work and show the "atrocities" they have been committing.
Additional Republican figures stood by these claims for political gain, like Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush.
No comments:
Post a Comment