Bush Appointee Rapes Wife

"I want to share with you some information about how God has called me to stand in the gap. Not only for others, but regarding ethical and moral issues in our country. You see, there is a war going on in this country. And I'm not speaking about the war in Iraq. It's a war being waged against Christians, particularly evangelical Christians. ... By making myself available, God has used me to stand in the breach... Just as he has used me, he can use you."

- Dr. W. David Hager -- prominent OB/GYN, Jesus-freak self-help guru and Bush appointee to the "Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs" for the FDA -- waxes FANATICAL

"I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal sex all the time. But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the sex that was so horrible."

- Hager's former wife and co-author, Linda Carruth Davis, describes her ex-hubby's burning obsession with forced and coerced anal buggery.

"In the Gap"....indeed

This man would deny women the choice to take a morning after pill if they were, let's say, raped by their husband and did not want to bring his demon seed into the world. He even raped his wife, in another stark contrast to the sacrament of marriage, after she was diagnosed with a sickness:

. But Davis says it was after the diagnosis that the period of the most severe abuse began. For the next seven years Hager sodomized Davis without her consent while she slept roughly once a month until their divorce in 2002, she claims. "My sense is that he saw [my narcolepsy] as an opportunity," Davis surmises. Sometimes she fought Hager off and he would quit for a while, only to circle back later that same night; at other times, "the most expedient thing was to try and somehow get it [over with]. In order to keep any peace, I had to maintain the illusion of being available to him." At still other moments, she says, she attempted to avoid Hager's predatory advances in various ways--for example, by sleeping in other rooms in the house, or by struggling to stay awake until Hager was in a deep sleep himself. But, she says, nothing worked.

This is another example of today's "embattled Christians", folks, who run your country.

And back to that "Liberal Media" being all over this......*cricket*

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Bout Time]

Oh yes, the oh so holy Republicans.....

Copy/Paste from one of my other posts. I know no republican has read it cause then they would learn something.

Also, how many republicans are on a second or third marrige? So much for sanctity of marrige.
Rush Limbaugh is on his Third Marrige....
Newt Gingrich, who after divorcing his wife when she was in the hospital hours after getting breast cancer surgery, is on his third marrige.(He showed up with his two kids and divorce papers, caught her so off guard she thought she had died during surgery and was in hell) Here is a link to most of this.
www.realchange.org...

www.courttv.com...
www.stolenvows.com...
That one is how the republicans support divorce, mainly Reagan.

JUNE 22--In what may prove a crippling blow to his U.S. Senate campaign, divorce records reveal that Illinois Republican Jack Ryan was accused by his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, of pressuring her to have sex at swinger's clubs in New York, Paris, and New Orleans while other patrons watched.
www.thesmokinggun.com...
www.nbc5.com...
Oh that's right, they believe in the sanctity of marrige, is group sex considered ok then?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A state senator sponsoring a constitutional amendment aimed at "solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman" is accused in a divorce case of cheating on his wife.
www.wsmv.com...
Again, more "Marrige is a holy bond, unless I get caught screwing another woman, then it's ok to divorce....

www.treefort.org...
More affairs/divorces by the "Marrige is Sacred" group.

I hate to interrupt this little anti-republican love fest, but I have to ask a few questions. How many women has Bill Clinton rapped? How many women has he had affairs with? How many women has he forced to have sex with him?

See? It goes both ways.

Originally posted by HALLOWEEN78
I hate to interrupt this little anti-republican love fest, but I have to ask a few questions. How many women has Bill Clinton rapped? How many women has he had affairs with? How many women has he forced to have sex with him?

So are you saying that as long as they rape less women then Clinton its OK?

What is the cut off line for rapists in office? one woman? Ten women?

Hmmm, well, we have proof he raped her, do republicans have proof Clinton raped anyone? Affairs? He is a democrat, what do you expect man? Free love man, free love.(does hippie peace sign) You see, republicans have called divorced women sluts and divorced men, well, they don't care if a guy is divorced since most of them are. But dems don't, they don't say divorce is evil, so if they get divorced, no big deal. Like a gay dem, no big deal, but gay republican? "Gee, at Justice Sunday weren't you calling for the extermination of all gays?" "Well uh, what I meant by "Final solution to the Gay Problem" was uh, SHUT UP and leave me alone!"

Amuk, you able to find any transcripts of speechs given at Justice Sunday? All I get with google is who spoke, and if they were part of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or the CCC.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Amuk, you able to find any transcripts of speechs given at Justice Sunday? All I get with google is who spoke, and if they were part of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or the CCC.

I have found NOTHING to back your claim the Republicans are calling for an extermination of Gays and to be honest if you are going to repeatedly claim this YOU should back it up with something other than "They" said it. I can not count the number of times you have claimed this as fact but I havent seen you post ONE link to back it up.

Where are you getting this information that the Republicans are planing to do a Nazi "Final soultion" to the Gay Problem.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Amuk]

JUSTICE SUNDAY! Remember that? The big Mega Church? The speeches all had either "radical judges need to be stopped" or the "Final Solution to the Gay Problem." THERE WORDS! Wait, they were either KKK, Neo Nazis, or CCC, My job is done!

www.kkk.bz...
www.k-k-k.com...
www.kkklan.com...
en.wikipedia.org...




www.patriotic-flags.com...
Just them calling for the end to oppression of whites.(You heard me, the oppression of whites! hahahahaha, funny ain't it?)

Read this, ALL of it, not just some, not just the first paragraph, but all of it! It is the CCC saying whites are better then blacks because whites are more human and blacks are more monkey.
www.cycad.com...

There, may not find transcripts of speeches given at JS, but since these are the people speaking there, put 2 and 2 together.

Any way to get text of the speeches given at Justice Sunday? I can't find anything, all I get is KKK Mebers were..... CCC members were...... and Neo Nazi members were....... but nothing on speeches, who watched, who attended besides the speakers, hell, most don't even tell you where it was at.(Mega Church)

[edit on 25-5-2005 by James the Lesser]

I don't understand the problem here doesn't the bible fundamentalist believe that woman is to submit to their husbands?

Well in their own fundamentalist rights they are exercising what the good book is telling them.

Yes . . . doesn't stop to amaze me how this people get to be in roles of making decisions in our names.

The hypocrisy makes me gag.

And for Clinton it seems to me that women were willing victims to his charms.

Hell marge, with his mug and bod, he was a hunk!(I am secure in my sexuality to be able to observe others of my sex without wanting to mount them, unless it is Seth Green, crazy for red-heads)

But Marge, the bible and the real world are 2 different worlds, and the real world says rape is rape.

Yes sad as it may be, that is not the way that fundamentalist see their sins, occurs more and more we are starting to see this people true colors.

Scary to think that their views on religion are what they one for the rest of the nation.

And for Clinton well . . . I didn't vote for him, I even thought that he was going to get killed he was very charismatic after all.

But as you can see didn't happen.

Originally posted by HALLOWEEN78
I hate to interrupt this little anti-republican love fest, but I have to ask a few questions. How many women has Bill Clinton rapped? How many women has he had affairs with? How many women has he forced to have sex with him?

See? It goes both ways.

Being a Proud Conservatives does not mean you have to be Republican, or accpeting , BLINDLY, of everything GOP....grow up.

It's a childish & unfounded anology you're trying to hoist here.
The point of observation you're missing - this bible thumper has broken repeated Commandments & several laws, yet he is in a position of limiting the very rights of the type of victims that men like HIM create. Capiche?
He just happens to be N.D. the B.F.....if his Mrs. was younger and his orifice choice was on the other side of the taint, we'd have a child(ren) to contend with.

Sick, sick man. Not just raped her, but used her illness against her in these. What a p*ick. Guys like this should be put in the stock in the middle of town square and have the same treatment done back. I could not imagine what type of hell she went through. Trying to stay up later than her husband....

I'm honestly suprised with one of the responses.

I hate to interrupt this little anti-republican love fest, but I have to ask a few questions. How many women has Bill Clinton rapped? How many women has he had affairs with? How many women has he forced to have sex with him?

Halloween78, your approach to this is absurd. This woman was raped. She was sodomized. She could not do anything about it because a condition rendered her unable. But that obviously matters not to you in this era of extreme partisan politics. You just have to bring up Clinton to justify this guys actions (or even more evil, to minimalize his wrongs)...To show some possible hypocrisy that does not exist.

Repeat after me, wrong IS wrong. Wrong IS wrong. WRONG IS wrong. wrong IS WRONG. WRONG IS WRONG! No matter how much you try trivialize it or bury it, it is still wrong. Come on, ADMIT IT. IT IS WRONG! You are trying to hide the bad!

Look at this example of what you are doing.

Person A: "That Scott Peterson killed two people."

A**hole A: "I hate to interrupt this, but I have to ask a few question to ask. How many people did John Wayne Gacy murder? How many boys did he gut? How many boys did he bury in the basement?"

Also, I have an even bigger problem with your last statement. You obviously did not put what your post is OBVIOUSLY about. It should probably read like this:

"See? Hager's not that bad."

And if that was not your intention, then you need to convey your message more clearly, because it looks like you are trying to minimalize this guy's actions.

Oh my gosh!!! Y'all have opened my eyes, I have seen the light! Republicans, and Christians are...human?! They're not perfect?!

I'm assuming, too, that because y'all are pointing out everything any promenant Republican has done wrong and no Democrats were included that this must mean the Dems are, infact, perfect. Must be nice...

I would also like to point out that this is a he said she said issue. No criminal charges were ever filed, and no investigation took place. However, because it's a Republican you're talking about, you immediately assume guilt.

For the sake of arguement, however, let's say this f%$# actually did those things. How is it acceptable when one individual screws up you take that behavior and apply it to the whole group if they're Republicans or Christians while at the same time, if someone were raped and mugged by an african american, they are absloutly not allowed to apply that one person's actions as the norm of the whole race? Why is biggotry only acceptable when we're talking about Christians or Republicans?

By the way, 'Bout Time, that source was extreamly unbiased It's remarkable to note that this story is showing up on a bunch of lib blogs, like Daily Kos, DemocracyNow, and the like, while there is absloutly nothing on any major news page. As a result of that, I'm starting to wonder if Dr. Hager is a threat to the Dems that we're just not aware of yet and they decided to jump in early in assassinating his character.

Originally posted by junglejake
... you take that behavior and apply it to the whole group if they're Republicans or Christians

...It's remarkable to note that this story is showing up on a bunch of lib blogs, like Daily Kos, DemocracyNow, and the like, while there is absloutly nothing on any major news page.

" You attack one, you attack us all" - that is at the heart of Fascism , Jake. The reason the "Jesus Freaks" are so flock worthy is that it appeals to their core sensibilites to be so. What you missed is the clear reason as to why this activist zealot, who is in clear position to direct our countries position on reproductive rights, needs to be called to task.

Are you honestly referencing the lack of corporate media coverage as a litmus test of legitimacy to a claim!?!?! For someone within the inner Bush Reich!?!
It's not Jesus Juice you've been drinking, but certainly the Kool Aid, Jake!!
Just going back 6 months on ATS & the Blogsphere will uncover a weeks worth of reading on what happened in the world that American Corp. Media refused to cover.
In this case - this woman is our elder generation, Jake, and she is "of your tribe". She's on the ministry & married to a minister.....a woman of that hue & of that era.....is she likely to defy her husband? Is she likely to be subservient? Is she likely to put her children's perceptions ahead of her suffering? Is she likely to keep her dirty laundry as shame, even though she's the victim & the shame is not hers?

You've got to be honest on those question, and then tell me if your opinions not moved.

Originally posted by Bout Time

" You attack one, you attack us all" - that is at the heart of Fascism , Jake. The reason the "Jesus Freaks" are so flock worthy is that it appeals to their core sensibilites to be so. What you missed is the clear reason as to why this activist zealot, who is in clear position to direct our countries position on reproductive rights, needs to be called to task.

I'm not saying this individual shouldn't be called to task if the allegations are true. What I'm saying is that the Republican party and Christians shouldn't be called to task for the actions of an individual.

Are you honestly referencing the lack of corporate media coverage as a litmus test of legitimacy to a claim!?!?!

No, no, no. The media covers what it wants to cover, and doesn't what it doesn't. This woman's claims aren't negated simply because the MSM doesn't cover the story. My point was that I don't trust the source of the article. It would be like me directing you to an article which only appears on RightWingNews.com saying Kerry raped a woman with a quote from the woman to be taken as proof positive Kerry is guilty. You wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect you to. However, I do disagree with your point of the MSM protecting the Bush administration. If that were the case, we'd have far fewer national stories.

You've got to be honest on those question, and then tell me if your opinions not moved.

I actually think you misunderstood my point there. I was questioning the source, not the individual. Heck, yes I am. I'm questioning the individual, too. She has made these claims, but cannot back them up. Why did she finally talk to The Nation, of all news agencies? Why now? What has changed? How did this news reporter find out about her? Did she contact him?

There could be an alterior motive here. I am questioning her, because I try to live by our courts most fundamental rule: innocent until proven guilty. I will not assume he or anyone is guilty based purely on the testamony of someone I don't know whatsoever.

As for the Kool-Aid, it's quite tasty!

What were you refering to in the 6 months back thing?

The past 6 months was an anology to the myriad of stories that drew nary a whisper on the Corporate Media 24 hourt news cycle, yet were key actions in multiple areas, from war to terrorism to the economy to validity of claims by the WH, ect.

you BLOW ME AWAY with this one:

However, I do disagree with your point of the MSM protecting the Bush administration. If that were the case, we'd have far fewer national stories.

D'oh!!

The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred.

-- from The Nation's founding prospectus, 1865

130 years old....way before Liberal the word was co-opted.. Katherine Van Dehuval, David Corn and Norman Mailer are some of the brightest minds in the country....and write for the Nation. I think that their reputation for investigative reporting & quality reporting is exactly why Mrs. Carruth Davis went to them. Hell, the author is a writing fellow for the American Prospect!!
As for proof, it's on Hager to refute - she's brought the history to the fore, she's set to stand by her positions & , as the article states, she has those who will back her version up.
I wn't get graphic as to supposed proof you're looking for, but you know how my mind works a bit, no?

OMG! This guy sodomizes his wife repeatedly and we get "Clinton had consensual affairs" and "SHUT UP!". Wow, so, CLinton gets a bj, so it makes it ok for republicans to rape little kids, rape their wives, declare war on lies, destroy the economy, and have sex with animals? So, a couple bjs, or rape, rape, rape, beastality, slaughter, and rape?

Also, we dems are perfect! You see, a dem can have all the gay sex he/she wants, we don't call gays satans children, so being gay is no biggie. But a republican can't be on Justice Sunday calling for the "Final Solution to the Gay Problem"(their words, several times on Justice Sunday) and then be gay. Also, when do dems say "Marrige is sacred holy bond."? No? Republicans do, but your biggest butt buddies, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are on a 2nd or 3rd marrige. More divorces in red states the blue states.

Why James, your comments don't seem to add to the conversation and seem geared towards getting a rise out of my fellow opinioneers (I just made that word up Go me, I should work for Webster's!) Are you trying to shift the conversation from being on topic to simple exchange of insults?

'Bout, I find your statement about Hager having to prove his innocence instead of his ex-wife having to prove his guilt very sad. That is one of the most core American principles, to assume innosence over guilt. Yet, when it's someone you're not a fan of politically, it goes the other way. Tell me, how did you feel about Paula Jones's lawsuit against Clinton? I really want to know, what did you think when she put forward that lawsuit? If you believed it to be on Clinton to prove his innosence, kudos, at least you stand for your values regardless of political affiliation. If, however, you supported Clinton through that...Well, about the only think I can think of saying is that I'm disappointed with you. I always considered you to be one of the good ones.

EDIT: Missed an "r"

[edit on 5-27-2005 by junglejake]

...Before I get flamed for "you were one of the good ones", let me explain who the good ones are. I consider the good ones to be anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves. Someone who applies the same rules of standards to people they love and people they hate. People they agree with and people they don't.

I thought of you, Bout Time, as one of the intellectually honest elite in this community. You and about 4 others who disagree with me on about 99% of everything in this community I hold with great respect. This comment, though...Well, I won't draw any conclusions until you answer about Clinton, though I do suspect. Please, prove me wrong.

I find your statement about Hager having to prove his innocence instead of his ex-wife having to prove his guilt very sad. That is one of the most core American principles, to assume innosence over guilt.

Never been in the military, huh?
I do believe that Clinton was/is obligated to prove his positions, absolutely. But, this analogy, is just as disingenuous - one time advance vs. rape do fall under the morality category umbrella.....just as being hit with a spitball vs. a .44 Magnum slug constitute being shot.
Let's move forward on the Clinton points of moral departure as our paradigm of public dissemination, shall we? For you or those who don't know, Paula Jones was the low level state employee that was dug up by the Right Wing slander team of Poppy Bush & brought a suit that Mr. Clinton, the Governor, dropped trough in a hotel room & solicited a BJ. The case was thrown out based on lack of merit. This fecal nugget hoisted onto the American public, again, was part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy to first derail the lead opposition contender ( failed), then to bring down a sitting president (failed). It was funded by the Rutherford Institute & the "investigative reporter" for the American Spectator was one David Brock. Mr. Brock has since had an epiphany and outed the nefarious scumbags of whom he was once one in the brilliant book, which should be required reading for ANYONE posting in US Political forums, Blinded by the Right. Ms. Jones did receive a settlement & went on to do beaver picture layouts for both Playboy & Penthouse....such a delicate moral flower she is. The important outcome, for the RWC, was that Ken Starr got his beak wet & could initiate the detailed, graphic character assassination of the best president of our life times to date, to a total of over $70 Million and over 700 Agents being pulled away from things like checking flight school & other terror leads.
Contrast this to the former Mrs. Hager - clearly exhibited batter wife syndrome. Clearly from a fundamentalist type upbringing where the wife is second class to the husband. Clearly from the generation that would lose a limb before "shaming" the children. Clearly empowered herself via her devout Christian beliefs: "Linda Davis quietly fumed in her chair. "He had the gall to stand under the banner of holiness of the Lord and lie, by the sin of omission," she told me. "It's what he didn't say--it's the impression he left."
So, in your dilemma as I see it, is to realize a devout Christian lied....either the wife or the husband ( though if you read through the article, the husbands "defense" is basically " I thought she liked it" , never refuting that he actually DID IT ). One is notable amongst the Bush inner Reich & even has a Limbaugh endorsement. I wonder which one the rank & file Christian Conservatives will support?