That Lady is Tough
Posted by David Keelan on Thursday, October 26, 2006
…and she should be. She is Senator Sandy Schrader who has had it up to her ears with Jim Robey and his campaign style. To know her is to love her, unlike some people and others.
See the related Examiner article
He also was quoted as saying he didn’t know who the committee is, but later said he was consumed with another event at the time and didn’t realize the committee was one with which he was connected.
“I did not connect that name with the group I slated my campaign with earlier in the year to help pay for campaign expenses,” he said in a statement.
Should we give him the benefit of the doubt?
Robey continues to stand by the accuracy of his distortions. Wow, anything to stay on the public dole.
I don’t blame her. I hate attack ads (take it easy Mona Mary). Especially ones that distort an opponents record such as this. If Robey is ahead in this race why did he give his committee the blessing to go forward?
It is Halloween and I guess people on both sides of the aisle are just trying to scare the hell out of us.
Well Jim Robey denied any knowledge of the attack ads that the Maryland Senatorial Democratic Committee put out. The Baltimore Examiner on October 24, 2006 quoted Mr. Robey as saying he “didn’t know anything about it.”
Really, well Mr. Robey I think Sandy has the goods on you.
Please find attached the official documants signed by Jim Robey, documenting that he joined the Maryland Senatorial Democratic Committee, last month and received his offical notifcation that he is a member of the Maryland Democratic Senatorial Slate, on October 12, 2006. The Maryland Senatorial Democratic Committee was responsible for the distrubution of the mailings that deliberatly distorted Senator Schrader’s record and unduly alarmed the women of Howard County by claiming birth control was banned in Howard County.
Here they are:
Howard County Maryland Blog 
Freemarket said
Can you double check that docs 1 and 2 are linked correctly? I clicked but do not see anything.
mary smith said
Beheading humble mary.
What has this achieved? Has it restored you to prior status wherein you seemed trustworthy?
Accumulating and tracking personal information about your own readers and commenters, I would think, is important for them to know about.
I began posting to this site as a regular voter, no big name, no big money. The title mary smith seemed highly appropriate, considering I have no big power, either.
Now you can pat yourself of the back, my personal information is in your shaky hands along with everyone else’s personal information including our method of making a living, and for what? To post a target on me, and anyone who would have the courage to oppose you? I cannot believe you are really that fearful, I just cannot believe it.
These words are sincerely and humbly spoken, after awaiting the imminent beheading. While I expect the normal character assassinations and name-calling, it seems futile, David.
observer said
I believe Don Dunn is masterminding all of this negative campaigning, he seems awfully quiet on the subject, very suspicious.
ed said
mary,
what the hell are you talking about? keelan has been nothing but nice to you on this blog. you are the one who has repeatedly, constantly tried to assisnate merdon’s charecter on all of these blogs with your snarling attacks. do you have any understanding of this at all? do you think that noone will stand up to you and your dirty inuendo tactics? some of us here do not think that merdon is the son of satan as you apparently do.
Bubba said
I’M BACK!
After an extended break, David seemed bored and Queen Tax Courtney and King Tax Jim Robey need some beating on again for their taxing and spending ways! Is Jim trying to kid us with his comment about property taxes? HE IS THE TAX AND SPEND KING please remember that the next time He reachs for your wallet!
BUBBA
Freemarket said
I have not seen the mailing, but I understand that it accused Schrader of voting to limit access to birth control pills. Schrader voted to deny minors access to “morning after” pills. Thus, as far as I can tell, the statement the mailing made about Schrader is true, because morning after pills are a form of birth control pills. The problem is that the picture near this statement shows regular birth control pills, not morning after pills. I am not sure I could tell the difference between types of birth control pills when looking a picture, so I certainly would not expect a guy in his 60’s to be able to tell the difference either. I honestly doubt that Robey could tell the difference between birth control pills and Flintstone vitamins. Therefore, even if Robey saw and approved the mailing, he has nothing to apologize for in my opinion.
Why doesn’t Schrader focus on attacking Robey on the issues instead of manufacturing garbage like this? If we are to believe Alan Kittleman, Robey “did everything in his power” to deny workers’ comp benefits to a severely injured auxiliary police officer. Unless Alan Kittleman is lying, why doesn’t Schrader attack Robey on that?
Jim Walsh said
You can dress this pig up all you want, but it still doesn’t fly (at the risk of mixing metaphors). There’s a HUGE difference between saying that Sen. Schrader voted to “ban access to birth control” instead of saying that Sen. Schraeder voted to “ban access to morning after pills by minors.” The fact the she voted to ban access to one form of birth control for minors does not make the statement that she voted to ban access to birth control (period) true.
Melissa said
I did see the ads and I think they were mailed/targeted to women (I didn’t get one, we saw it at the HCWRC meeting this week), the picture on the front were several packets of 28 day packs of what are normally thought of when you think of the *Pill* – The morning after pill comes in packs of 2 pills. Nearly every women – young and old – knows what a pack of b/c pills look like. This seems to be a clear attempt – coupled with the language of *banning birth control* – to distort the difference between the two products.
To Freemarket: access to birth control IS an issue with most women. If a legislator truly tried to ban it, they certainly would lose many votes. Sandy has to correct the perception or risk losing women’s votes.
Freemarket said
Access to birth control pills in an issue with me also, so I hope Sandy does lose votes. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to restrict access to emergency contraception.
Melissa said
if access to b/c is an issue with you also, why did you say Sandy is “manufacturing garbage like this” and for her to go after “real” issues?
I don’t want to get into a huge debate on this issue because I think there is generally room for disagreement over its implementation and certainly don’t want to imply someone’s faith or other reason for wanting to restrict such a thing is somehow wrong. BUT, Sandy isn’t against restricting this emergency contraception for everyone, just minors.
If a child is in school and needs an aspirin, a parent has to go and dispense it to the child. But, the legislature is trying to take parental authority away by allowing every minor access without any type of parental involvement.
Can you at least see the point here? I understand you may not agree with it, but at least accept that some people, not even just parents, don’t think minors should have unfettered access to this product. Minors can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol, rent cars. Because you may think there are no problems with kids having governmental permission to leave parents/adults out of very adult decisions, please don’t think everyone shares that view.
Since your name is freemarket – I ask: who has the greater rights, when they conflict, here? The minors (which every court in our land has agreed have limited rights) rights to unrestricted access to emergency contraception, or the parents right to know what is going on with thier child and the right to raise them as they see fit (Which the courts have also ruled have limits, such as can’t harm the child) Just asking for your thoughts – not picking a fight! 🙂
Melissa said
Oh, one more thing on the ads. If the issue is Sandy restricted access to emergency contraceptives – they should have said that. Not that she banned “birth control” wholesale. While in the most technical of sense, what they say has truth, its a cheap used car salesman tactic to generate votes on something other than realistic facts. If that’s what its going to take to win – what are the voters in district 13 really getting for that victory? A senator who is going to walk (poorly) the fine line of fact/fiction as it suits his needs and doesn’t hesitate to distort or spin the issue? Good luck with that.
hocomd said
Freemarket,
Aside from the distortions that Melissa outlined so well…
I do not want Jim Robey telling my child that she can have access to birth control pills without my consent.
I do not want Jim Robey to give my child permission to buy emergency contraceptives without my consent.
Jim Robey is not raising my daughter.
Sandy Schrader respects my rights as a parent to guide and educate my child.
If my daughter makes those decisions as an adult then it is none of my business.
Jim Robey sticking his nose into my family life is arrogant.
That is what Robey is saying. Aside from distorting Sandy’s position he is telling parents that they have no right on this issue.
Sandy, next time you talk to a reporter ask the question. “Does Jim Robey want to distribute birth control pills and emergency contraceptives to our school girls?”
Freemarket said
Melissa- I know you are not picking a fight, I am not doing that either. To answer one of your questions, I said that Sandy is manufacturing garbage because SHE is attacking Robey for misrepresenting her record, which I don’t think he did. HE is attacking her legitimately (in my opinion) over restricting access to birth control, which is an important issue. She should find a real issue to attack him on, like taxes. I don’t think I was being inconsistent with either assertion when I said that I hoped she loses votes.
I respectfully point out that your aspirin analogy is faulty on many levels. Last I checked, kids can buy and take aspirin at home. I have no problem with kids not being allowed to use emergency contraception at school, but they should be allowed to do so at home, with or without parental knowledge. I don’t see a conflict between parental rights and rights of minors here. I also don’t understand why Schrader has a problem with minors using Plan B pills but not condoms.
I agree with you that they should have clarified which type of birth control in the ad, but the statement they made was true nevertheless.
Freemarket said
Hocomd:
I do not want Sandy Schrader telling my child that she cannot have access to birth control pills without my consent.
I do not want Sandy Schrader to deny my child permission to buy emergency contraceptives with or without my consent.
Sandy Schrader is not raising my daughter.
Sandy Schrader disrespects my rights as a parent to guide and educate my child.
If my daughter makes those decisions as an adult then it is none of my business.
Any government sticking its nose into my family life is arrogant.
Numbersgirl said
re: “Does Jim Robey want to distribute birth control pills and emergency contraceptives to our school girls?”
There should be easier access to birth control pills and emergency contraception regardless of age.
Denying minors access to these does not keep the kids from having sex. They are either going to have sex or they are not. All you are doing is increasing the likelihood that they will do so without protection.
If your child tries to buy contraception without your consent, it means that he or she is having sex, most likely without your consent.
Rather than living in a fantasyland where people don’t have sex before they turn 18, why not give them the information and the tools to make a responsible choice?
hocomd said
Numbers,
I am not blind to the fact that my kids, when old enough, may have sex. It will most certainly be without my consent or knowledge. Isn’t it usually that way?
Providing them the tools and information to make a responsible choice is what I and countless other parents are trying to do.
hocomd said
Freemarket,
I do not want Sandy Schrader telling my child that she cannot have access to birth control pills without my consent.
Ok. So we don’t agree.
I do not want Sandy Schrader to deny my child permission to buy emergency contraceptives with or without my consent.
Nor do we agree here.
Sandy Schrader is not raising my daughter.
Agreed
Sandy Schrader disrespects my rights as a parent to guide and educate my child.
I don’t understand? By allowing you to decide if your child should use the morning afer pill?
If my daughter makes those decisions as an adult then it is none of my business.
Agreed. As minors we have a responsibility to guide them, not enable them to go behind or backs.
Any government sticking its nose into my family life is arrogant.
Definately agree.
Freemarket said
Let me state my reasoning as to why I think parental consent should not be required for birth control.
Kids have sex.
Kids have sex without parental consent.
Kids who have sex should be using birth control.
Thus, parental consent should not be needed to obtain birth control.
Are you disagreeing with the premises or the conclusion?
hocomd said
The conclusion. Come to me first so I can help.
Melissa said
OK – I’m a little tired of the argument that since kids are going to have sex without permission (Seriously, what rational parent is going to give permission…) that we just have no choice than to help them do it.
People, even teens, commit suicide and we don’t just legalize it (the attempt is actually the crime, since once completed, suicide is its own punishment…but I digress.) We haven’t legalized marijuana even though teens still find a way to purchase it. We don’t let kids drink under the age of 21 – yet they still find a way to drink and drive. And alcohol is often involved in the poor choice to have unprotected sex.
Having access to emergency contraceptives is not the same as having access to contraceptives. Contraceptives are thought about in advance – on which ever side, the males with a condom or the woman’s with the pill or other device. The decision to have sex has been made. Emergency contraceptives are a form of “Oh S**t, I didn’t think about this before hand and now have to do so after the fact.” It actually relieves the person of responsible behavior and from making choices at all, especially the guy. If the guy thinks that the girl can just take the morning after pill and all is good – where is there any room for responsible action? (Yes, I understand this is a commentary that can apply to those over the age of 18 – but minors don’t have the decision making skills deemed to enable them to function as full adults yet so I start here…) Where is the incentive for the female to get on a responsible form of birth control? She only needs to take 2 pills after the fact and not try to remember to take it all the time. Also, there will not be any ‘pill packs’ for parents to find – you need a prescription for the pill, meaning a Doctors visit. How inconvenient is that for a child? It’s much more efficient just to take care of it after the fact. Also, the morning after pill doesn’t affect STD transmission. So if it becomes the b/c of choice, will we see a rise in STDs that condoms currently at least abate?
Just because an issue is difficult to address, and kids will likely skirt the rules as they (we) have always done, doesn’t mean that parents/adults should abdicate their roles as such. As someone who took the risk of getting pregnant serious – it was a large factor in my behavior at that age – I can say the thought of having a kid and “messing up the rest of my life” truly made an impact. But if there was a way for there not to be consequences, would that have made my decision any different? I can’t say for sure – but probably. So what happens now is likely girls will be using the morning after pill – designed for emergency contraception – in lieu of regular preventive measures. Has there been any study on the safety of taking such concentrated doses often? If it is easier to get than the pill and easier than getting the guy to use a condom (the whole, Baby, it doesn’t feel the same… lines) and enjoys widespread acceptance, where is the emphasis on anything OTHER than condoning sex?
We don’t let consenting adults smoke in Howard County. So a 45 year old can’t light up but a 14 year old can get high doses of b/c that will allow them to avoid any physical consequence of getting pregnant while having unprotected sex (That is to say nothing of the emotional impact and other physical danger with such activity…)
If your children are allowed to engage in such behaviors and you fully support their right to do so, even if you don’t consent, I have to respect your decisions as a parent and anyone over 18 could purchase the product (the same way kids get cigarettes and alcohol now, BTW). But, there are many who do not for many reasons beyond living in a fantasy land.
This is an aside but it goes to the fantasy comment: I was once told while I served in the Army, that my *cushy* life wasn’t real – the gritty life my handcuffed ‘buddy’ experienced while living in poverty(I was a police officer) – that was what was ‘real.’ While his life was real for him – mine is real for me. The reality in inner cities of drugs, gangs, sex, & crime doesn’t make that the reality everywhere. I resent being told that the worst of things can be the only reality and anyone who doesn’t embrace it as today’s reality lives in a fantasy world. From someone who has seen the worst of people and some of the worst places on our planet – I still say my reality is real and wanting things to be better (wanting kids to have pride in themselves and wanting them to have relationships that involve their parents and wanting kids to not have to bear adult issues as kids….) is only my vision showing through – not my naiveté. I won’t surrender on our minors just because “everyone is doing it…”
Sorry for the diatribe – I’m feeling a bit wordy and preachy today. But I won’t be back on for a few days, so I speak my peace. I won’t be able to answer for a while so if there are comments directed at mine, don’t think I am rude, I’ll just be unavailable.
hocomd said
I am leaving this discussion to Melissa – she handles is very well. Melissa, are you sure you don’t want to take me up on my help wanted ad?
Freemarket said
Melissa- my problem with your argument is that you think that by granting access to birth control we are encouraging kids to have sex. I am sure that there are some kids on the margin who wouldn’t have sex but for the easy access to birth control. This is where good parenting and sexual education become most important. I don’t think we should subordinate the interests of the vast majority of the other sexually active teens for these kids on the margin. Sexual ethics should be taught through a sex-ed program, not legislated through birth control restriction.
Your analogies of suicide, marijuana and drinking have no relevance to this discussion. I honestly don’t even see the point you are trying to make with them.
I also disagree with your assertion that granting access to emergency contraception will decrease the use of other forms of birth control. If anything, I think it would increase the use of other forms as kids see alternatives on the store shelves, get used to thinking about birth control, talk about it, etc.
Enjoy your break.