Replies

How is it a hit piece? Where is it wrong? Let me point out a couple:

The guy tries to calculate the amount of his "abortion" holdings by assigning the "lowest possible value" to each of the 16 holdings. While at first blush this seems reasonable and conservative, it is, in reality, calculated to show Frist in almost the worst possible light, without appearing to do so. The only kind of calculation that could make his percentage of investment look more lopsided would be to maximize his HCA holdings and minimize the rest. It seems fair and reasonable - but it is actually terribly slanted in a most negative manner; the work of a MASTER propogandist.

"HCA reportedly provides abortions" - another way of saying RUMOR, without appearing to do so; the work of a master propogandist.

"'Some of the hospitals in the chain perform abortions.'" This is a quote from someone else - the author never directly makes this statement. Some, SOME! This could be one, it could me all but one. But neither the author nor the speaker specify; the work of master propogandists.

Now, lets look at the other side of the picture:
Frist is actually at least 4 degrees removed from the abortion: Blind trust, corporation, specific hospital, doctor who performs the abortion. There is probably a holding company in there and possibly some other layers between Frist and the abortion.

This is a family business, begun by his father and brother.

Frist has no policy making authority regarding the hospitals.

The impact to Frist's income or net worth from abortions is so small as to be non-existant.

It is inconceivable that Frist's opinion regarding abortion or his actions in public or in private would be influenced by these holdings (although the author carefully plants the idea that they will).

It is unrealistic to expect someone to divest themselves of the family business because of such a remote and financially inconsequential feature (the author makes much of Frist's ability to divest himself of this asset).

So let's see - Frist has no direct influence on policy, the company is not only family created, built and owned, it is highly profitable (and most likely the foundation of Frist's financial well being). Abortion probably has so little impact on the corporation's bottom line as to be a statistical zero. Frist will not be influenced in his thinking or policy toward abortion by this tiny speck in his family's business. And folks demand him to be "pure" by selling this asset. BROTHER!

I am strongly anti-abortion (ask Howlin) and I would love to see the guy make such a super-human sacrifice for his convictions; but I don't examine my stock holdings and my mutual funds to determine whether or not they ever perform an abortion. Even as anti-abortionists, we have no right (indeed, no rational reason) to demand such purity. One cannot make the case that Frist "profits from abortion" except in the most theoretical sense - nitpickingly technical...yes, in sensible reality...no! The demand for divestiture is strictly emotional. If it does not affect his decision making as a senator, then it is disingenuous and morally inappropriate to demand that he, as a pro-life senator, divest. Would I prefer that he not have these in his portfolio? Yes. But this discussion should not be about our preferences - it should be strictly limited to his fitness to serve in the Senate and its leadership - this issue does not make him a whit less fit and should not be under discussion as if it did.

Besides - does anyone have any idea what he is or isn't doing to remove abortion from those "some" hospitals? Isn't it possible that there are becoming fewer because of his influence in the past? Mighten the chance for ridding the corporation of this procedure be greater should he continue to keep his holdings than if he were to divest, and the shares be bought by an active abortion promoter? Does Frist contribute monetarily to pro-life causes? If so, is it more or less than the tiny "profit" he makes from the abortions performed under the corporate umbrella?

Since we don't know the answers to these questions, it is irresponsible to be demanding a decision based on such flimsy and skimpy information. But the author of this piece clearly is urging us to do just that - And those are the reasons why this is a slimy hit piece, and wrong - as are you in labeling the man "an abortion profiteer". While possibly technically correct (it might even be technically wrong!) it is a gross overstatement, intended to create a greatly distorted picture of the truth (exactly like Clinton's assertion that he had "never broken any of this country's drug laws".....the work of a master propogandist.

1) It's not that Frist would be influenced or have influence. It's that a true pro-lifer would not own $5m or more (possibly much more) in this kind of stock. It throws his truthfulness into doubt.

2)OK, so maybe the 89% thing is wrong, but given that he could own five times as much HCA as $5m, it's probably not too much of a stretch. Either way, that part does little for the piece anyway.

3) It's more than a rumor. As recently as 1998, HCA was telling people yes, we do them. This fund won't hold them because they do them. Now they're not answering Jeffrey's phone calls. Should he not write the piece just because they won't answer questions? The use of "reputed" and "reported" only shows that he's extra careful, nothing more.

4) When you get the answers--which will be forthcoming now, I'm sure--will you still support this guy like you have money bet on him? I'm very suprised at the vehement defense of him by so many people.

People who b!tch and whine because real conservatives want to have a small hand in running the GOP are not the kind of people I'd expect to see on FR.