Comments on: Worst ad ever

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:57:45 +0000

Something tells me this is not one of those cases.

By: eric

eric — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:10:09 +0000

i thought the acting was good in it’s badness. i would hire those actors to play bad actor characters in a movie about making bad movies… like mark wahlberg in boogie nights!

By: jonolan

jonolan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:05:50 +0000

No; wonders will never cease, but they’ll continue to be rare. That’s why they’re wonders.

One thing – To my mind the scariest thing about “insane people” is how often they turn out to be right, or close to it, once all the dust settles.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:22:36 +0000

Wow. An articulate and thoughtful response on our site. Will wonders never cease?

By: jonolan

jonolan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:16:14 +0000

I’ve read the bill and there is the suggestion that it would, de facto, force taxpayers will fund abortions. Various passages include the vague term “other services” alongside more descriptive coverages.

When that is combined with the fact that the amendment to the bill that would have stated that it wouldn’t cover non-medically required abortions was voted down, the suggestion is definitely there.

Without a direct prohibitive statement forbidding the funding of abortions in the bill, legal precedence would hold that abortion must be covered, as was the case with Medicaid.

From the 1996 Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler Appellate Court ruling

Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including ‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’

So it’s not such a bad ad from a truth perspective after all. The acting was sub-par though.