I agree with this completely. But quoting Walsh's own words, and pretty much leaving it at that, is hardly character assasination.

I think Walsh's views typically range between idiotic and repugnant. And even where we have some degree of agreement; the problems with gender ideology for example, I think his absolutist approach of simply banning all care for genuine transgender people and leaving them to suffer is abhorrent.

In answer to your points; no, I don't know anybody who's done that with poison ivy. And I only included it because it speaks to his argument about the intelligence required to vote.

The point about catholic priests should gross you out. You're defending the indefensible there. If you have to quibble about the age of the children the priests abused to defend his homophobia, you should probably rethink your position.

Lastly, if a 12-year-old girl goes to get an abortion and doesn't have to go to a back alley clinic somewhere that would put her life at greater risk, the doctors would immediately recognise it as a rape. By definition, a 12-year-old girl can't get pregnant unless she was raped (Walsh's belief in immaculate conception aside). Genetic material could be retreived from the foetus to implicate her rapist. The idea that allowing this poor hypothetial girl to get an abortion would allow her rapist to get away with it is ridiculous.

Again, I agree with you about the importance of representing people honestly. Even if I strongly disagree with them. But I don’t see how I’ve been dishonest here.