Pro-Life GOP US Congressman Demanded Mistress — His Patient — Get Abortion
Scott DesJarlais, a Tea Party Republican U.S. Congressman from Tennessee, who is also a medical doctor, had an affair with a patient while still married to his wife, then demanded his mistress get an abortion, according to reports, which also label him “a serial philanderer.”
The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding. Scott DesJarlais, 48, and an Episcopalian, is a medical doctor, who was married (he is now divorced and re-married), had a affair with a woman who was his patient, and pressured her and demanded she get an abortion. DesJarlais, in his campaign video, below, is a self-described, “conservative, pro-life doctor.”
According to the Huffington Post, court records state that DesJarlais and his first wife at one point had an open marriage. But for DesJarlais to run for and elected to the U.S. Congress on a conservative and pro-life platform claiming he believes all life is, in his words, “sacred,” is beyond the pale.
“All life should be cherished and protected,” his campaign website, which is loaded with images of  DesJarlais and his family, and his Facebook page shows a photo of him standing with Mitt Romney.
His campaign issues pages states, “We are pro-life.” The  campaign website, which strangely uses the third person, also, ironically, states, “Being a family doctor brings you very close to your community. It adds, “Marriage is traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman and we feel this distinction is important to the wellbeing of the American family.” DesJarlais is on his second marriage.
The Huffington Post, which reports that court divorce documents “included allegations that he held a gun in his own mouth for hours in one instance and that he ‘dry fired’ a gun outside his wife’s bedroom in another.” The Huffington Post obtained the transcripts of the telephone call Congressman DesJarlais made to his mistress/patient, noting that the “transcript and other revelations from court documents paint a more damning picture of a man who was a serial philanderer willing to push one of his lovers — whom he met as a patient with a foot problem — to terminate a pregnancy, even when he suspected he was the father.”
“You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,” DesJarlais tells the woman at one point in the call while negotiating with her over whether he’ll reveal her identity to his wife. They then discuss whether he will accompany her to a procedure to end the sort of life the congressman now describes as “sacred.”
“You told me you would have time to go with me and everything,” the woman complains.
“I said, if I could, I would, didn’t I? And I will try,” DesJarlais says. “If I can [find] time, you’re saying you still will?”
“Yeah,” the woman answers.
The two bicker over when they can meet to hash out a solution, and they make clear the nature of their relationship when DesJarlais says delaying a resolution isn’t fair to his wife.
“This is not fair to me. I don’t want you in my life,” the woman says.
“Well, I didn’t want to be in your life either, but you lied to me about something that caused us to be in this situation, and that’s not my fault, that’s yours,” the doctor responds.
“Well, it’s [your] fault for sleeping with your patient,” the woman fires back.
After arguing for a bit about who came on to whom — with the woman seeming incredulous at DesJarlais’ interpretation that she made the first move — he gets back to the abortion.
“If we need to go to Atlanta, or whatever, to get this solved and get it over with so we can get on with our lives, then let’s do it,” Desjarlais says.
“Well, we’ve got to do something soon. And you’ve even got to admit that because the clock is ticking right?†he says at another point.
He talks repeatedly of getting the problem “solved” or “fixed” and eventually explains he’s desperate to patch things up with his wife, who had filed for divorce two years before, in late 1998, alleging improper marital conduct. She had relented, however, and according to court documents, they were trying to reconcile.
The marriage appeared to fall apart for good at about the time DesJarlais made his recorded phone call, and he eventually admitted in court papers to at least four affairs. Court records indicate that at one point in the marriage, they had a “written agreement to date other people.”
The Huffington Post closes with this sobering note:
DesJarlais is currently leading Democratic state Sen. Eric Stewart in the polls.
You can visit Eric Stewart’s campaign website here.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0EjOW9UDfsU%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.
Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.
In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.
Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.
RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.
“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.
“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.
“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.
“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.
“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”
Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”
READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.
“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.
“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”
“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.
“You will?” the reporter again pressed.
“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.
TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.
“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.
“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”
READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.
Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.
Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.
In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.
READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.
The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.
“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.
“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”
TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”
READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.
But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”
“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.
Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”
That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.
READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”
Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”
The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.
“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.
Trump apologists: No way, calm down.
Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan found Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for nine violations of his gag order, and served up a threat of time behind bars if he continues down that path. Some legal experts say Merchan’s punishment could have been broader or stronger, while others called it a “smart move.”
Justice Merchan fined Trump $1000 per violation, the maximum allowed under New York law, and warned the ex-president he could face time in jail if he continues to violate the order.
“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” Justice Merchan wrote.
Merchan also gave Trump until 2:15 PM to remove the nine social media and campaign website posts that violated his gag order.
READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
“Trump will see Justice Merchan’s $9,000 fine for violating the gag order as a reasonable cost for the ability to continue attacking the judge, court and rule of law. It won’t stop him,” warned Bloomberg Opinion executive editor Tim O’Brien, who is the author of a 2005 book on Trump.
Calling the opinion “well-reasoned” and “balanced,” professor of law Ryan Goodman, a former Special Counsel for the U.S. Dept. of Defense, made a point of noting its historic nature:
On this day in history:
A former president of the United States was held to be in Criminal Contempt for “willful disobedience of a court’s lawful mandate” by attacking witnesses and jurors in a criminal proceeding.
Court’s finding based on beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 30, 2024
Professor of law and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann lamented Justice Merchan’s missed opportunity.
“Judge missed an opportunity to impose a monitor over his social media posts and to suggest the penalty will be considered at end of trial.”
But national security attorney Brad Moss praised the punishment in Merchan’s contempt finding.
“Smart move by Merchan. This is the first criminal contempt finding. It’s a warning to Trump that the games won’t be tolerated. If he does it again, and Merchan does have to cross the rubicon and jail him, it strengthens Merchan’s argument on appeal.”
READ MORE: Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’
‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’
Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
News1 day agoNoem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death
News1 day agoHunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’
News1 day agoPeter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS
News23 hours ago‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say
News1 day agoFar Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels
News7 hours ago‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach
OPINION5 hours agoTrump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution
OPINION3 hours ago‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’