Saturday, January 26, 2008

Bob's Quest for Government Control of Women

Over the last few years, I've learned much about Bob Dutko's beliefs on how the government should control a woman's reproductive system. For instance, I've learned that Bob believes the government should outlaw the sale or distribution of oral contraceptives because they might cause a fertilized egg to be expelled in a woman's monthly period. We also know that Bob would imprison women who have abortions (at taxpayers expense, of course) because they are guilty of "murder".

But I learned something new last Tuesday. A caller asked Bob if he would allow a woman to have an abortion if her life was at risk. Bob replied, saying he would "need to have several doctors, a good three or four doctors, including Christian doctors, verify exactly the same situation that there is no chance whatsoever the mother is going to survive unless we take that baby out of there." Bob also opined, "what I think happens is this is a risky birth, and the mother is in some kind of risk by ... carrying the baby to term and we tend to call that 'protecting the mother's life'." (Bob's emphasis)

Wow, look at all that. So, if a woman is told by her doctor that her life is in danger by continuing a pregnancy, Bob would require that the woman visit two or three more doctors to verify the diagnosis. Also, one of those doctors needs to be a professing Christian, even though the woman may not be a Christian and one's religion really shouldn't have anything to do with a medical diagnosis. Furthermore, each doctor must believe, with 100% certainty, that there is "no chance whatsoever" that the woman would survive without the abortion. Apparently, if the doctor thinks there is a 70, 80, or 90% chance of death, those odds would not be good enough to permit the woman to have an abortion.

Bob doesn't say how he would enforce such a cumbersome system. I'm guessing that since abortion would be generally illegal in Bob's ideal world, an agency of the government would have to review the woman's medical records before clearing her to have a legal abortion. Plus, the government would have to check all the doctor's Christian credentials. Would that include records of attendance at church? And I thought Bob didn't want government involved in health care!

Folks, I just don't think Bob has thought this one through. In fact, I don't think Bob thinks a lot of things through. But one thing is clear: if Bob and his ilk get their way, we're headed for a dangerous and depressing future as far as medicine is concerned...


selderane said...


I don't know you so forgive me if I'm incorrect but it seems to me that you'd have a problem with any restrictions placed upon abortion. If this is in fact true, then anything Bob says that might roll back those "rights" (I don't believe there is a right to abortion) you will have a problem with.

It's like arguing the infield fly rule when, in fact, it's the entire game of baseball you don't like.

Bob will come across as unreasonable and maybe even crazy to someone that believe unfettered access to abortion is a human right. So, nit picking his more specific stances under that same subject is pointless.

Until you two can come to a sort of agreement on the greater subject there's no point talking about the more granular things of it. Of course you won't agree on that either!

I don't think I'm going to be visiting this blog again. It's a little creepy that anyone would dedicate as much time as you have to a man you obviously don't care for. Clearly, you're not going to change his mind and he's not going to change yours. Move on already.

At this point all you're pretty much going to do is attract a group of like minded people and pat yourselves on the back for being so much more enlightened than the villainous Bob Dutko. That's called a echo chamber. Never a good thing.

So, yeah, I'm just looking out for you. Forget about Dutko. Expand your blog. Get more readers. It'll be great!

Kevin D.

Irl Hudnutt said...


It's interesting that instead of agreeing with Dutko or making an argument that there is no "right to abortion," you simply attack Jeff.

Hell, you go as far as claiming that Jeff believes that abortion is a "human right." It's funny, I've read Jeff's post several times and I don't see where he made that claim anywhere. You just seem to be making that up.

So here's my suggestion: Why don't you spend some time proving what legitimate authority the government has to dictate what a woman can or can't do with her uterus? I bet you can't.

And by the way, if you want an echo chamber, listen to Dutko. This blog demonstrates that the man is a liar and a fraud, making money off a tired schtik that is neither scientific or logical. What's your solution when you see a fraud? Ignore it? I'm proud to be associated with a group of contributors who are tired of people like Dutko, who deceive people by invoking Christ and labeling it "Christianity.

So unless you are going to contribute, you're nothing but a troll.

selderane said...

If all you got from my post is that I'm attacking Jeff perhaps you should heed your own advice and not attribute things to me I did not say.

Given Jeff's tone and vehement disagreement with Bob I think it's a fair assumption to make he believes that abortion is a right.

Statements like, "I'm guessing that since abortion would be generally illegal in Bob's ideal world..." imply that in Jeff's world, abortion wouldn't be illegal. If this were not the case why even mention what you think "Bob's world" might look like? You'd only do so to cast light onto a position you find ridiculous and wish to imply you do not share.

Additionally, phrases like, "how the government should control a woman's reproductive system" is very common amongst groups that believe abortion is a right. If abortion wasn't a right the phrase would be meaningless. The government couldn't exert control over something that doesn't exist.

This piece is littered with phrases and verbal clues that belie what you believe to be the author's neutral position. Jeff is anything but neutral on the issue of abortion.

So, if you don't see Jeff's position on the abortion debate in this piece, I'm sorry, you're willfully blind.

As for your challenge? I'm going to pass. If you cannot comprehend what I was saying in my first response, and fail to see Jeff's pro-abortion bias in his own piece, I'm afraid anything I write in response to your challenge will also be similarly misread.

And as for the echo chamber, I don't listen to Dutko. Further, I often surround myself with people I disagree with and who disagree with me in turn. Head on over to and see how real differences of opinion look like.

This place is an echo chamber. You prove as much by being either unwilling to read or understand what I was really trying to say in my response or simply to set in the superiority of your own position to give serious consideration to a differing opinion.

Another reason I won't bother addressing your challenge. It's already clear to me there's no talking to you about this issue. Which is fine. It's your right to be close minded. But at least be honest enough to say so up front as to save people not so quick as me some time when they fail to see a false challenge when it crops its head. You have no interest in a debate. Stop acting like you're open to a discussion on the issue when you're clearly not. It may impress your friends in the echo chamber but the real world doesn't woo so easily.

Kevin D.

CatsPjs said...

And as for the echo chamber, I don't listen to Dutko. Further, I often surround myself with people I disagree with and who disagree with me in turn. Head on over to and see how real differences of opinion look like.

Well, I took the bait, if he is Kevin D. at the site he blogwhored, he DOES listen to Dutko. As far as his credibility is concerned, I report, you decide.

CatsPjs said...

I stand corrected, he doesn't listen to Bob Dutko.

Irl Hudnutt said...


When did I state Jeff had a neutral position? It's funny, I don't recall saying that.

So not only do you assert to know Jeff's position on abortion, you know my position on abortion because I use phrases "very common amongst groups that believe abortion is a right."

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. You've managed to put words in both mine and Jeff's mouth, without either of us publicly stating a position.

And yet, when I ask you to explain why abortion is not a right, you refuse to answer me and accuse me of being close-minded, having a "superior" attitude, or just being dishonest.

Indeed, surrounding yourself "with people I disagree with and who disagree with me in turn" sure has given you great reasoning and debate skills.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for you to prove you're not a troll. If you have something substantive to say, let me know.

Anonymous said...

Kevin D.,

The purpose of the blog is not to change Dutko's mind about anything. That's simply not going to happen. The purpose is to, perhaps naively, inform Bob's listeners that his “facts” are not true and that his reasoning is fundamentally flawed. It's my hope that if I can enlighten just a few of his listeners and convince them that Bob is not the end-all-be-all of intelligence and wisdom, then my efforts have been worthwhile. If that makes me “creepy,” then so be it.

As far as abortion, I obviously believe that it should remain legal. Sure, Bob and I differ on this issue. But there is no chance to come to an “agreement” with Bob (as you suggest) because we fundamentally differ on what the role of government should be in this issue. Bob wants the government to use its power to make abortion almost completely illegal. He's simply not happy with women being able to make their own choice in this matter. I just don't want the government involved in whether or not my wife or daughter decides to terminate her pregnancy.

But my posts purposely aren't about my opinion on abortion. Instead, I aim to show that Bob must resort to lies and misinformation to advance his position. Further, I aim to show that Bob's position is completely untenable and far outside of the mainstream. Just take a look at the original post here. Does anybody want to live in a world where the government requires 3-4 doctors to examine a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life? I sure don't.

Thanks for stopping by again even though you promised that you wouldn't. Feel free to comment anytime.