When Missouri’s GOP delegation traded the perpetually foot-in-mouth Todd Akin for the unctuously smooth Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2), they were undoubtedly hoping that she would help to mute all that “war on women” talk. The hope seems to have been that Wagner, who is quite a bit smarter than the Todster, would be able to paint hard GOP policies in soft terms that would be more acceptable to women. No surprise then that Wagner is taking a leading role in demanding congressional hearings on the Planned Parenthood video that was recently released. Who could be more effective expressing outrage over what the GOP clearly hopes will be perceived as atrocities than a smooth-spoken female professing her determination to confront the horror.

What better way to shift the narrative from one dealing with the suppression of women’s right to control their own bodies to one dealing with what folks like Wagner hope to paint as distasteful abuses stemming from legalized abortion. And finally, what better time to do this than during an election year when the unvarnished truth abut GOP policies dealing with women might alienate female voters.  

On the surface, the noise generated by the video, which shows a Planned Parenthood doctor talking abut the mechanics and financial aspects of donating fetal tissue to researchers, along with demands that it needs to be “investigated” by Congress, seems purely silly. Consider the following points that would seem to relegate this “scandal” to the trash bin:

— It is entirely legal for Planned Parenthood to supply researchers with fetal material and recover the costs of doing so. Staff of the PBS Newshour viewed the unedited three hour video and confirmed that the official was very clear about the legalities.  

— Fetal tissue research has contributed significantly to improvements in human health over the years and donating such tissue – and insuring that it is  usable – strikes many of us as an excellent thing.

— The Planned Parenthood participant in the video has been criticized for her “flippancy.” However, doctors that I know are often quite matter of fact about physical details that they deal with routinely. Folks who have to put their hands where many doctors do, can’t afford an overly precious attitude about bodily parts and functions.

— It is because the full video does not suggest either illegal activity or “disrespect” for the unborn  that it was only released in a heavily edited form designed to upset the squeamish.

— The group that made the video is both deceptive and has ties to an extreme anti-abortion group, Live Action, which has contrived video sting efforts in the past.

But wait there’s more. It seems that Republicans have known about this video for some time, including one GOPer who tried to deny that he had just admitted that this was old news. This fact raises some serious questions. And the answers may lie in some observations by Steve Benen. Maybe what we are seeing is not the real outrage of anti-abortion zealots, but the unfolding of an election year strategy intended to blunt the effective war on women rhetoric of the Democratic party. Benen quotes a Politico article:

Republicans on Capitol Hill are betting the secretly filmed Planned Parenthood video – depicting an executive allegedly discussing the sale of fetal organs from terminated pregnancies – will give them cover to more aggressively push abortion issues without the political ramifications that have haunted the party in the past. […]

To which Benen adds:

Ah, there it is. Republicans don’t have proof of Planned Parenthood wrongdoing, but rather, have a desire to claim a “scalp.” When the GOP went after women’s healthcare in 2012, it backfired on the party, so Republicans hope a misleading video will offer new opportunities to try the same move again.

That’s the point of the GOP calls for investigations, hearings, and probes. That’s why Republicans are trying to use this story to raise money and advance their personal ambitions.

It’s very likly that Wagner’s and other GOPers’ plans for a congressional investigation is designed to keep the story fresh well into 2016 where it can be utilized to undercut discussion of the entire range of anti-choice GOP policies as well as giving them cover to push more abortion and contraceptive restrictions. Ann Wagner, as a member of the Republican House leadership, will be well placed to push “baby parts for sale” lies. Move over Benghazi; we’ve got another faux-scandal to keep GOPers occupied – unless Democrats grow some backbone and push back full force against the lies.

“….I do not dwell on this aspect of the prejudice suffered by the population of the youngest adolescents, although it should not be ignored, because the number of these adolescents who actually use levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives is miniscule, and they have been invoked in the debate over access to these contraceptives mostly as a red herring to justify the continued burdens suffered by older women who seek access to the drug….”

On Friday Judge Edward Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected the administration’s request for a stay while they appeal his ruling on lifting restrictions on the the availability of Plan B contraception.

The language is scathing:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANNIE TUMMINO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

– against –

MARGARET HAMBURG, Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, et al.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

No. 12-CV-763 (ERK)(VVP)

KORMAN, J.:

[….]

….This salutary principle was flagrantly violated by Secretary Sebelius, who completely lacks the “necessary information and scientific expertise to assess the data and information required to make a determination that a drug is safe and effective,” and whose role in the process has been circumscribed by Congress as well as by the delegation to the Commissioner of any authority that the Secretary may have-a clear recognition by Congress and the Secretary of her lack of competence in this area. See Tummino v. Hamburg, 2013 WL 1348656 at *21. Yet, in something out of an alternate reality, the defendants seek a stay to pursue an appeal that would vindicate the Secretary’s disregard of the very principle they advocate….

Ouch.

And, living in the real world:

….Moreover, while there are some retail establishments that are open for longer hours than their pharmacy counters, the unjustifiable point-of-sale restrictions left in place under the Teva-FDA agreement will continue to present barriers to all women. Many women do not live near a store with an on-site pharmacy, and even when the drugstore or comparable facility has an on-site pharmacy, the difference between the hours of the pharmacy and the store itself is often significant. Indeed, a research letter published in the journal of the American Medical Association found that “of the 943 pharmacies called” in a survey of emergency contraceptive availability in five geographically diverse cities, “only 4.7% were open 24 hours.” Tracey A. Wilkinson et al., Research Letter: Access to Emergency Contraception for Adolescents, 307 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 362 (January 25, 2012)….

As anyone who lives in the real world can tell you, a twenty-four hour store with a pharmacy doesn’t necessarily have a twenty-four hour pharmacy. And that can depend on where you live. There’s a significant difference in availability from “on the shelf” to “behind the counter and you have to ask for it and present ID”.

And, further, the administration’s motivation for opposing availability of Plan B contraception gets attention:

….This argument ignores the fact that the FDA found that the drug was safe and could be used properly without a doctor’s prescription, and was prepared to make it available over-the-counter for all ages. As Commissioner Hamburg observed, “there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.” Statement from FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D., on Plan B One-Step (Dec. 7, 2011). Thus, if a stay is denied, the public can have confidence that the FDA’s judgment is being vindicated, and if a stay is granted, it will allow the bad-faith, politically motivated decision of Secretary Sebelius, who lacks any medical or scientific expertise, to prevail-thus justifiably undermining the public’s confidence in the drug approval process….

[emphasis added]

And, even more smack down of the administration:

….Nor is there any merit to the related argument that a stay will “prevent public uncertainty regarding the status of the drugs at issue here pending the government’s appeal to the Second Circuit.” Defs.’ Br. at 13. This silly argument ignores the fact it is the government’s appeal from the order that sustained the judgment of the Commissioner of the FDA that is the cause of any uncertainty, and that that appeal is taken solely to vindicate the improper conduct of the Secretary and possibly for the purpose of further delaying greater access to emergency contraceptives for purely political reasons. Whether my order is stayed or not will not resolve any uncertainty….

And, the “I can’t believe anyone with a grandmother, mother, sister, or daughter wrote that” quote:

….The defendants also argue that “if the status of these drugs is changed and later reversed, it can lead to situations in which women mistakenly believe that they can obtain the drug without a prescription or at certain locations where it used to be available, but is no longer.” Defs.’ Br. at 13. This argument assumes that defendants have a likelihood of success on the merits, an issue that I will shortly address, and is largely an insult to the intelligence of women….

This is not a happy judge:

….On remand, defendants engaged in the same bad faith that resulted in my initial remand. They delayed the decision for three years and, ultimately, improper political influence prevented the FDA from granting the petition. Nor do they claim a reasonable probability of success on appeal in challenging my analysis of their flagrant misconduct….

And, the final say:

….The motion for a stay pending the appeal is denied. Indeed, in my view, the defendants’ appeal is frivolous and is taken for the purpose of delay. Nevertheless, as a courtesy to the Court of Appeals, and to enable it to schedule the motion in the ordinary course, I grant a stay pending the hearing or submission of the defendants’ motion for a stay in the Court of Appeals on the condition that the motion for a stay be filed by noon on May 13, 2013….

This will be interesting.