Rape Victim “Disgusted” By Barnes Ad.

Lori Geary of WSB TV interviews a rape victim(video) who is “disgusted” by the Democratic Party’s ad claiming Deal wanted to weaken the rape shield laws.

Betty Beasley explains how Nathan Deal prosecuted the man who raped her when she was only 14 and defended her from attacks on her character.

34 comments

  1. Jeff says:

    I’m still trying to get my hands on SB 51 from 1991, but from all the accounts I’ve seen, it is clear Nathan Deal introduced it, and it is also clear that it would have gutted the Rape Shield laws.

    In other words, Nathan Deal flip flopped on RAPE.

    Disgusting.

    • B Balz says:

      I am puzzled that you feel this way. Ample evidence shows this to be a specious, terrible argument against a law designed to help victims.

    • rightofcenter says:

      From all accounts I’ve seen, this was being pushed by the State Bar of Georgia and was approved by a committee that included Roy Barnes. Maybe it’s just me, but that smacks of hypocrisy on the part of King Roy.

      • Jeff says:

        20 years later, we STILL don’t have access to committee votes. Don’t know about the other political bloggers, but that is something I’ve inquired about repeatedly already, and it is something I intend to KEEP pushing for.

        Did Barnes vote for it in Committee? We’ll probably NEVER know, at least as far as the official record is concerned.

        • rightofcenter says:

          Barnes wasn’t in office at the time (I don’t think). The committee reference is to the State Bar Committee.

  2. Phil Henry says:

    Jeff,
    You should also check the voting record of that bill to see who else voted for it. You might find that it passed the GA Senate unanimously, as in every state senator voted for it. Go to Barnes’ web site to read the articles, or read the October 15 post here on PP. Recall that in 1991 Nathan Deal was a Democrat and the senate had a Dem. majority. Are you disgusted by Sanford Bishop, who is running for re-election to the U.S. House this year? He voted for it. Roy Barnes would have voted for that very same bill, but he had left the senate to run for governor in 1990. Again, it was a unanimous vote. Barnes conveniently leaves out that fact in his ads.

    • Jeff says:

      Yeah, I’ve never said I was happy with Bishop – only that Keown is just as bad, and as I said back in 02-03 with Saddam, personally I prefer the evil bastard I know and can deal with over the unknown evil bastard who is just as bad, and could turn out to be far worse.

      HB 614 – the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program – was very nearly a unanimous vote in the Georgia House in 2009 (and yes, Mike Keown voted to invade medical privacy). Does that mean it was a good bill?

      • jeff says:

        HB 614 doesn’t invade anyone’s privacy. This bill only provides for the monitoring of prescribing and dispensing on controlled substances, not all prescriptions. The purpose of the bill is to stop people who are getting multiple prescriptions for controlled substances filled at multiple locations. It is simply a bill that is aimed at curbing prescription fraud and controlled substance abuse which is a major problem. This bill doesn’t open up any of your medical records or prescription records to monitoring. In fact this is also a bill that your favorite politician Austin Scott voted for. It was also a bill that was favored by Democrats and Republicans. I think most people felt like it was a good bill.

        • Jeff says:

          Then why was it killed every time it was brought up? The ONLY time it hasn’t been defeated was that first vote in the House, when it snuck up on people. (Could have been Crossover Day, I don’t remember though.)

          • jeff says:

            My guess is the bill was killed in the Senate due to wording or language or perhaps some special interest group got heavily involved. Who knows? The vote in the House was 161-9. I hardly think that is sneaking up on people. This is one of those bills where if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Do you have any idea how common it is for kids to be using and abusing prescription pain medication in middle and high schools these days? It is now the drug of choice. How do you think these drugs make it into their hands. This bill was an attempt to curb some of that. It had nothing to do with invasion of privacy. There are 36 states in this nation that have a similar law in place.

    • perimeterprogressive says:

      Phil,

      You should check the history of that bill. The bill that was voted on by the GA Assembly had Deal’s weakening of the rape shield amended out. In big bright letters from the AJC on Tues Feb 5, 1991
      ,
      “Senate OKs amended bill that retains rape shield.”

      And you’re saying Barnes is leaving out facts? How about you stop flat out lying here on PP?

      • Phil Henry says:

        You obviously didn’t read the articles linked here on PP or on Barnes’ site. From the first article linked, The Fulton Co. Daily Report, Feb. 5 1991 : “The changes in the rules of evidence, which the Georgia bar has been pushing since 1986, passed the Senate unanimously last year, but stalled in the house.”
        What this means is that the original bill that passed the Senate, before any amendments to protect the rape shield law, passed unanimously sometime in 1990, but never made it through the GA House. Yes, I am saying that Barnes is leaving out facts. Isn’t that obvious to you? Somehow, amazingly, every single one of our state senators in 1990 thought Deal’s bill was a good idea, but now Barnes is using it to say the Deal would have put every woman in the state of Georgia in peril, had he gotten his way. Funny, he leaves out the fact that EVERY SINGLE STATE SENATOR AGREED WITH HIM. Let me point out again that Deal was a Democrat leading a Democratic majority senate in 1991. I think we need to consider the possibility that the bill wouldn’t actually have done what Barnes is claiming. Professor Milich has explained that point in other places, if you’d care to educate yourself on the matter.

        Look, I don’t like either Barnes or Deal. To me it’s deciding, once again, between the lesser of two evils. I also don’t like people who twist history and leave out facts in order to make someone appear as something they’re not. Barnes has done that to Deal here. I was led to this site because I heard the ads and I wanted to find out the facts about the situation. I found the facts here on Peach Pundit. It’s amazing to me how many blind Barnes supporters here have ignored those facts.

        • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

          So if the Georgia Senate unanimously voted to beat puppies up with a stick with a nail in it, you’d then say it was a good thing? That, essentially, how”right” something is relies on the percentage of votes it gets in a legislative body? What about slave laws in the 1800s? Were those right or just?

          Your argument that just because it got passed unanimously makes it okay is a load, and you know it. It doesn’t matter what the State Bar said, they’re not the determinant of what is “right” either!

          And, sir, if your facts are coming from Peach Pundit, you are a buffoon. This is a right-leaning political blog. Its contributors openly back one candidate over another. It’s a sounding board, for crysakes. Is that a good thing? Sure! I’m all for free speech. But perhaps before using PP as your “holy source,” you should read other things. But I know you won’t, because you’ve made your mind up far before you read all of this.

          • Phil Henry says:

            E.M.E., you obviously haven’t read the links in the original Oct.15 post here on PP. It links to articles on the Barnes website. That’s my “holy source,” but you haven’t bothered to read it. My point is that so many blind supporters of Barnes here on PP haven’t taken the time to read the info available to them here or on Barnes’ site. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

            No, the slave laws of the 1800’s weren’t right. The difference is that we all agree everyone who voted for them was wrong. The point you’re trying to make is that only Deal was wrong for introducing a bill while everyone else -the entire GA Senate who voted for it- was innocent in the matter. You can’t have it both ways. Either they were all wrong or nobody was wrong. How would Barnes have voted on the bill had he not dropped out of the senate to run for governor in 1990? Would he have been the lone dissenting voice against his party and the Georgia bar? Or would he have supported modifying Georgia’s rules of evidence to make them more like federal rules? Only his political aspirations saved him from being as guilty as Deal on this matter. Ironic, isn’t it?

            • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

              Exactly my point– Barnes DIDN’T vote on the bill. I never said everyone else was kosher in my book.

        • Jeff says:

          Deal would have put every woman in the state of Georgia in peril, had he gotten his way. Funny, he leaves out the fact that EVERY SINGLE STATE SENATOR AGREED WITH HIM.

          Just ask Preston Smith (among others) what happens when the Lt Gov or President Pro-Tem of the Senate (Deal’s position at the time) speaks and you don’t listen…

            • B Balz says:

              Blue Light Special Reynolds Wrap!!!

              Aisle 4 – On sale now. “Ideal for your tin-hat needs.”

              New contributor, Phil Henry uses facts, with actual sources, and some still persist with their theories and searches for 19 year old legislative history that won’t change a thing.

              The reason I keep posting about this ad isn’t because I MAY vote for Rep. Deal, rather I object to fraud in any venue.

              • polisavvy says:

                Ah! But, you’ll never win that battle on here! It’s only fraud if it is committed by a party other than your own or by a candidate other than the one you are supporting, didn’t you know that? Duh!!

  3. gatormathis says:

    So Ms Beasley gets with a reporter and gives a story, that she in fact did not have to do, and says that she feels bad for not saying “thank you”, looks dead into the camera and emphasizes that. She was the one who suffered the trauma, and has had to live with it. She is the one who was on the stand when it was going on, and felt Deal acted in her best interest. She says that she remembers the trial like it was yesterday, as I imagine only she could. And as she is grown now, in reflction, she still feels her best interest was served.
    Above and beyond what Barnes, or even Deal says on this, I will refer to this courageous woman as the benchmark on this situation.
    This situation makes me wonder where the next ad’s subject matter will come from, as it seems no stones are being left unturned in this race and the many others.

    • B Balz says:

      Agreed, good points, gatormathis.

      Ms. Beasly’s comments carry the greatest weight and ought to extinguish any validity or credibility to the ridiculous use of this ad. It is shameful.

      This cycle has a Steven King-esque, “The Stand” flavor as if the choice for one candidate over the other is a choice between good and evil.

      The ad is aimed at women, and I think most women will come to the same conclusion – It’s a lie.

  4. perimeterprogressive says:

    Just one thing to point out – I heard this case from 1971. Deal tried to overturn the rape shield 20 years later. Even if Deal did do his job and prosecute the rapist, 20 years later in 91 it’s an undeniable fact he introduced a bill at the time thousands of women, newspapers across the state, etc. said would weaken Georgia’s Rape Shield.

    • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

      Beyond that, what Roy said is right. Deal did the exact right thing in 1971– he was an effective prosecutor. Prosecutor is not the same as legislator or executive. While in the Governor’s office, Deal will not be asked to prosecute a single thing. He will be asked to vote on policy.

      Nathan Deal did his job in 1971. Had he not prosecuted a rapist, he would not only be a dink, but also probably would have lost his job because he couldn’t do it right. Being a legislator is different.

  5. MSBassSinger says:

    Can anyone say specifically what was proposed that would have been a bad thing for the fair trial of a rapist and getting justice for the victim? I keep reading about some “black box” topic called a “Rape Shield” law, but I don’t see specifics. Specifics matter.

  6. polisavvy says:

    I’ve been mulling over this one for a few days and, as a woman, I am disgusted that any candidate, and I don’t care who you are or from whatever party you are affiliated, would try to capitalize on something as serious as rape in order to garner votes. It’s tasteless and classless, and should never be brought into a political race PERIOD. Women deserve more respect that an ad like this conveys. Women deserve better.

  7. Jeff says:

    From PolitiFactGa:

    Barnes’ claim is correct, but it leaves out important details.

    A more balanced way to put it is this: Deal started by leading a fight to overhaul the state’s rules of evidence. This included making changes to the rape shield that gave the defense leeway that didn’t exist in state law or federal rules.

    Legislators, prosecutors and victims advocates gave Deal fair warning that they would wage war if he didn’t back off.

    Still, Deal pursued the change until public protest reached a fevered pitch. And while he didn’t fight to help rapists or hurt victims, he invested his political capital as second-in-command in the state Senate on behalf of a law that weakened the rape shield act.

    Emphasis mine. Overall rating (for those who didn’t click the link) was ‘Half True’ because “Statements that are accurate but leave out important details … meet the Truth-O-Meter’s definition of Half True.”

Comments are closed.