Truthspeak or Wordspeak or Blatent Lie?

What do you call saying things in terms that really does not speak truthfully about what you actually mean? Some people say “politics as usual” some say “wordsmithing” but I remember reading in the George Orwell novel, 1984, that describes it as truthspeak. We really should add truthspeak to our urban lexicon, because there is a lot of it going on in D.C. these days. Or maybe we should call it wordspeak, because there really is no truth in what passes as identifying laws or bills these days. Three cases in point:

1) The Stimulus Bill: this one is so obvious we don’t need to go into the details, it should have been called the Porkulus Bill.

2) FOCA, Freedom of Choice Act. Really?! As I read in this column, calling it this is an insult to our intelligence. What choice are we talking about here?

The Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, would eliminate all laws passed since Roe v. Wade that restrict or regulate abortion. Among them are parental notification laws for a minor’s abortion, informed consent (patient information on aftereffects of abortion and fetal development of the unborn child), waiting periods, and freedom of conscience rights for healthcare workers. It would also allow more tax dollars to be used to pay for abortions, allow healthcare workers other than physicians to perform abortions, and allow partial-birth abortion, which was deemed unconstitutional in 2007 by the United States Supreme Court.

In the past few months, I’ve heard the term “FOCA” so many times, but have never given serious thought to exactly what the consequences would be. snip

Why is it seen as a threat to women’s health for women to be given told that abortion could increase her chances of infertility, depression, breast cancer or subsequent pre-term birth? Why is it so dangerous to tell a mother that her unborn child has had his own heartbeat since he was just 21 days old?

Why should parents have no involvement with their teen daughter’s pregnancy, especially when school employees, abusive boyfriends, or ignorant girlfriends can be so manipulative and coerce her to abort?

I maintain that women are smart! If women were given accurate medical information, they would seek alternatives, not abortion. And, the abortion industry doesn’t make money from women who choose life.

As it stands right now, though some laws exist to ensure informed consent, women are not told the truth about their pregnancies or about abortion. They realize the harm done only after it’s too late, and the result is millions of wounded women who regret their choice.

To make FOCA the law of the land is to declare their pain invalid, plunging these hurting souls into depression. As a nation, we need to validate the pain of so many women suffering after abortion, not to continue to keep women in ignorance and pain before, during and after abortion.

For abortion advocates, it is a dream come true for abortion to remain shrouded in secrecy, however the result is a nightmare for women suffering after abortion as the entire culture shuns her pain and mocks her trial.

For more information about FOCA, please visit www.fightfoca.org.

3) Fairness Doctrine. Again, really?! This is about controlling what we hear. How is that fair? Why not let us choose, by say, turning the dial?

June 20, 2008
The Fairness Doctrine at Work
By William Tate
While some Democrats push to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, an example of the harmful effects of doing so has played out in the most unlikely of places--the Aspen airport.

For those not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine, it was a Federal Communications Commission policy that required radio and TV stations to, in effect, provide equal time on matters of public importance. A station which did not do so ran the risk of losing its broadcast license, something which Rupert Murdoch once famously compared to having a license to print money.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally intended to encourage a public dialogue on controversial issues by ensuring that both sides of a topic were aired. As a former radio and TV journalist, I can assure you that the opposite was true. Station owners were afraid that their licenses would be yanked if there was the slightest possibility that they could be accused of violating the doctrine; it was far safer to simply avoid controversial matters.

That, and its questionable constitutionality, caused the Reagan-era F.C.C. to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Within months, Rush Limbaugh's program was nationally syndicated, and radio programming has never been the same. Many industry observers credit Rush with single-handedly saving the AM band, one reason he has achieved cult-like status among broadcasters.

Does anyone else see the pattern here?

Oh wait, I forgot another one:

The Employee Free Choice Act, commonly called the "card-check bill," that died in the Senate in 2007, is expected to come before Congress again in spring or summer. It is often considered the most significant labor bill since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established the ground rules for union organizing. What does it do? Under that act, in effect today, at least 30 percent of an employee group must sign cards requesting union representation. Once that threshold is met, the National Labor Relations Board certifies the cards and sets up a private vote. Approval by a majority of eligible employees puts union representation into place.

The new proposal would streamline the process, making unionization easier. Unions would be certified simply by getting a majority of workers to sign cards on the spot, avoiding the whole election process in which employers usually oppose organizing efforts.

Free Choice Act? How can it be free if you do not have a private vote? Can you imagine the pressure that could be put on from both sides?

Geesh, you cannot make this stuff up!