Pro-abortion White House requires registration of preborn babies for tours
It may be above President Obama’s pay grade to know if preborn babies are human, but the White House Visitors Office knows.
This morning its director, Ellie Schafer (pictured above with President Obama) issued a memo to Congressional offices instructing that preborn babies must be registered along with their mothers before visiting the White House. Click to enlarge:
Shafer also breached pro-abortion protocol by calling the baby, well, a baby… repeatedly: “We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,” wrote Schafer. “Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process. The baby’s security information should be entered as follows….”
Ironic that for the purposes of the security and safety of the presidential household and staff the White House acknowledges preborn babies, while on the other hand President Obama devotes an inordinate amount of energy and the peoples’ money trying to thwart the security and safety of those same babies.
Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life legislative director, noted in a press release about the WH memo: “Notably, the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wonder if Shafer is pro-life and subtly getting under her boss’s skin (in which case awesome), or if she’s pro-abortion and just being inconsistent. Anybody know?
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm-1xvWibt0
Oh, Obama administration. Its not a baby unless it is blah blah blah. And they say Mitt Romney is a flip flopper.
Can anybody say, “Crazy making mind games?”
Government, stay out of my uterus!!!
Actually, I love it. I would have proudly registered my unborn son when visiting the white house.
Wait…you only register wanted babies.
I guess registering the baby is just incase the woman goes into labor and the kid is born–that would be a big threat to the resident in the white house now wouldn’t it….another citizen.
“Yes Mr President. We had 18 women, 17 men and 1 lump of tissue visit the white house yesterday.”
“Why did Joe Biden tour the white house yesterday?”
I feel a personhood moment coming on!! If the Oklahoma appeal makes it all the way to the top, won’t this give our pro-life personhood rationale a lot of credence and respectibility? After all, if the White House must declare a pre-born baby as an individual human that literally COUNTS as a person, then the Supreme Court could hardly conclude otherwise. Well, that would be the case in a logical world.
The baby has security information?!? I mean, I know the SS takes their job crazy seriously, but that is some serious prep right there. :D
Don’t forget that corporations are persons, too. Much ado about nothing.
“We would appreciate it if you could just hold off on your government-supported abortion long enough for your parasitic fetus to help us pad our attendance numbers for the Obama White House Totally Awesome Tour. Forward!”
Very cool! I like it.
From Politifact:
Lisa, thanks for the explanation. Makes perfect sense and is no way addressing pro life or pro choice issues
Thanks, Lisa. I guess it was a little too good to be true. :)
HAL,
I am trying to understand why the Secret Service would want to know in advance how many babies would be accompanying their mothers on a White House tour.
I mean it’s fairly simple to determine the mother has a real life baby with her when she shows up at the gates of the White House.
[Is there an increasing trend of mothers abandoning their infants at the White House?]
The TSA deals with this same situation all the time at the airports.
I suppose if Jew hating jihadists demonstrated both the will and capability to conceal a binary chemical bomb in breast implants or baby formula, then the mis-guided muslims could and would use an infant as a delivery platform for an explosive device.
Adds new meaning to mr. bo-jangles concern about ‘being punished with a baby’.
It does address mr. bo-jangles creative use of other peoples personal information to fabricate fraudulent documents for himself.
Expectant mothers don’t be tricked into unknowingly participating in the theft of your own baby’s identity.
Wait til you arrive at the White House to register your infant.
Lisa, thanks for the explanation. Makes perfect sense and is no way addressing pro life or pro choice issues
No problem. And I’m sure that National Right to Life knew the real story before they put out the press release.
In light of this “explanation” provided by LisaC, are you willing to withdraw your emphatic support, Ex-RINO?
I don’t see how this “explanation” will placate the “chersers”. They missed their chance to call them “place-holders” (There’s a new one! LOL!)
It seems we’ve ALL been “punished” with a statistic! (LOL REDUX!)
Nevertheless high-fives to the woman who wrote the email. She did indeed refer to the baby as a baby. The full email appears below:
Still callin’ the “tissue” a baby, still countin’ the “tissue” as a person… ;>)!
Ooh, that’s gotta hurt. “Citizen” as well as baby for these rascally little “products of conception.”
And I wish we would all drop “unborn” and even “preborn”. The true descriptive term ought to be, as was said, “not yet” or “soon-to-be-born”. Heck, I wrote a little essay on this point.
About the baby registration at the White House….This poses a plethera of possible outcomes. A couple of which are not good for US citizens:
1) Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law on December 31st 2011. This law gives our government the authority to arrest and detain American Citizens indefinitely and without trial. The Obama Justice Department has categorized pro-life organization who protest abortion as being ’terrorists’. By registering your unborn baby you admit to bringing enemy combatants into the White House and opens pregnant women up to being arrested and held indefinitely as a terrorist.
2) On March 15th 2012 Obama signed HR347. This law grants the Secret Service (SS)
the right to arrest political protesters and charge them with a felony. Any pregnant woman who visits the White House and comes in close proximity to the president could be accused of ’protesting’ against abortion and arrested by the SS.
But what if, after the tour, you have an appointment for an abortion? The products of conception upon which personhood has not been conferred really doesn’t have to be registered, does it??
WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY???????????????
Who registers for a tour of the White House within a month of delivery? I for one would never trounce around DC with a four week old. If your trip is more than a month after delivery, why not wait until your baby is born and then arrange your visit? This is a weird situation and I wonder if it actually occurs. I smell Big Brother.
LisaC,
The point, as I see it, is that pro-choicers always tell us that the baby the mother carries is not a person, or it’s not a human being, or some such. And pro-choicers have successfully convinced millions of people that having an abortion is morally no different than clipping your fingernails. But sometimes reality seeps back into the picture and it becomes necessary to admit that yes, that bulge in your belly actually is a living, breathing baby and it’s going to be touring the White House soon.
The above is a different Doug than our regular pro-choice Doug commentator, BTW.
I like this Doug. :)
Better yet, if you’re pregnant don’t get within a mile of the White House, much less pass through it’s doors. Do you REALLY want to put your unborn child in close proximity to the most baby hating president we’ve ever had ?
Wow, I thought for a moment that pro-choice Doug had fallen off his own merry-go-round and bumped his head!
A comment from Douglas Johnson, legislative director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC):
I note that Molly Moorhead of PolitiFact.com (a leading vendor of ever-more pretentious, ever-more tendentious “fact checking”) has imposed on the National Right to Life press release a construction that goes well beyond the plain language of the release — and then she declared her own construction, attributed to NRLC, to be “mostly false.” Nice work if you can get it.
Moorhead wrote, “The National Right to Life Committee headline suggested that fetuses were being screened for security at the White House gate.” She also wrote, “But is the Right to Life Committee correct . . . In other words, does a pregnant woman count as two at the White House?” [italics added for emphasis] Yet these phrases, attributed to NRLC, appear nowhere in the NRLC statement, nor are they implied, nor do they reflect anything I said (or thought) during the short interview that Moorhead conducted with me. Our release says what it says, not what Moorhead imagines we “suggested.” You can read the entire NRLC release here: http://www.nrlc.org/050812releaseWHVisitor.pdf
How can it be “mostly false” for us to say that the White House is collecting the data on the “baby that has not yet been born” (the actual White House term) “for security purposes” (our term), when the White House newsletter itself says, “We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,” then goes on to instruct, “The baby’s security information should be entered as follows . . .,” and then requests various specifics, including the unborn baby’s sex when known. [italics added for emphasis] Since the White House twice said that the information on the baby is “security information,” how can it be false to say it is information “for . . . security purposes”?
We didn’t say that the White House Visitors office counted a pregnant visitor as two people, but rather, made the point that the White House recognizes the “baby” as a family member prior to birth, “for purposes of providing security within the White House,” but not for purposes of establishing abortion policy for the District of Columbia, an exclusively federal jurisdiction. Moorhead apparently went to all of that re-write work as part of a studied effort to miss our point. I wonder why?
While we said nothing whatever to suggest that “fetuses were being screened for security at the White House gate” (one of Malloy’s imaginative extrapolations, attributed to us), we were accurate in asserting that the bill mentioned in our release (H.R. 3803) would, as we understand it, “provide for the security of the unborn child immediately outside of the White House gates, as well as inside.” The White House is entirely within the District of Columbia, see?
Finally, Moorhead conflates NRLC’s statement with entirely independent commentaries on the White House newsletter by the Washington Times and Creative Minority Report. As a rhetorical tactic this is too shoddy to require any further commentary. As journalism . . . well, it is not journalism.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
512 10th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 626-8820
http://www.nrlc.org
Uhhh, I think there needs to be some context to this memo, since clearly the writer has chosen not to put this memo in context, and wants to throw red meat to her rather partisan audience.
This memo was sent with regard to how to address the issue of reservations made (by a pregnand woman for instance) for a tour that will happen AFTER the baby is born. All tour participants need to be registered, whether they are 8 days or 80 years. This simply addresses how to handle reservations that are made for a future participant that isn’t out of the oven yet.
Sorry folks, no moral flip flopping, no ill intent. Just a procedural issue. A simple internet search would have proved this post as false and inflamatory…shocking.
I think the implications are what we need to focus on, cathy. The fact that they are counted now is significant. They should always be counted, everywhere.
I am focusing on the implication xalisae. The implication being, if you are planning a Capitol tour and you will have given birth to, or finalized an adoption of a child prior to your reserved tour of the Capitol, you better register them as a tour participant, otherwise you will not be able to tour the Capitol.
Read into it what you will, if it makes you feel better, but there is nothing else going on here.
Umm…yeah, I guess basic biology does make me feel pretty good, or else I wouldn’t have spent so much time learning about it. The implication I’m speaking about is simply this:
Gestating children in utero deserve to be recognized as the living children they are. The fact that they are in this instance is just one more step towards justice.
Jill, glad you posted this story about the White House requiring their visitors to register their pre-born babies. I just made a video on this story. Hope you like it. Please check it out at: CleanTV
Thanks.
Jerry McGlothlin
The only thing that makes me wonder is why the parents would have to report back with further information after the birth of the baby. Why would the White House care? Does the child get their own Certificate of Touring the White House? That is a more positive thought.
The fact that they are counted now is significant.
No, they aren’t counted. Born children are counted, but people can make arrangements in anticipation of a child’s birth, before it happens. Kind of like how a pregnant couple might buy baby furniture in June even though the woman’s due date is in July.
So if you’re going to claim counterfactual victories, why limit yourself to this? Go for something big, like how significant it is that the Obama administration now mandates that a birth certificate be issued each time a woman has a positive pregnancy test. She gets to choose whether the certificate will be Hawaiian or Kenyan.