Last night the only question President Abortion took on the issue was a well-crafted one by CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry that combined current events with a call to accountability on a campaign promise and a dig couched with humor:
In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at that it was above - quote, "above my pay grade."
Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
Obama's answer surely riled abortion activists, because he came close, as he has done before, to saying what they abhor and deny: Abortion kills children....
And it riled pro-lifers like me on 3 points: 1) Obama admitted "abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue" without saying (or being pressed to say) what exactly makes it so; 2) If what makes abortion a moral and ethical issue is that it kills children, why does Obama condone it? 3) If Obama still isn't sure abortion kills children, why does he condone it?
Obama also totally ignored the question on Notre Dame.
And Obama verbally renegged on a campaign promise, which was: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" to "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority."
I say "verbally" because Obama is trying to give pro-aborts what they wanted in FOCA without having to say so. As the Susan B. Anthony List stated in a press release yesterday on the occasion of Obama's 100th day in office, "[T]he Obama Administration [has] fulfill[ed] 10 of 15 agenda items outlined in a December report from over 50 abortion-rights organizations submitted to the Obama-Biden transition team...."
Here is a CNN transcript of the Q&A, and there is a funny and Freudian typo, noticed by Twitter's godandculture. The transcriber typed "unwanted presidencies" instead of "unwanted pregnancies." Ain't that the truth! Click to enlarge:
[HT: Dan McConchie of Americans United for Life]
I'm not surprised. He didn't answer any part of the question just like during his campaign.Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2009 8:08 AM
I haven't seen any pro-choicers "riled" by Obama's comments. He's said that abortion is a "moral and ethical issue" many times before. There's nothing new there. What you don't seem to understand is that by saying that, he means that it is an issue for individuals to decide for themselves. We don't have the Congress dictating our morals when it comes to which religion we practice, what movies and TV shows we watch, what clothes we wear, what books we read, what cars we drive, whether or not we recycle, and so on. Moral and ethical decisions like whether or not to have children should be made by individuals, not the Congress.
Like it or not, Jill, most Americans do not believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, and after 35 years of anti-abortion activism, that hasn't changed, and it isn't going to. Religious liberty and personal freedom are two of America's most cherished ideals, and anti-choice activism goes against those ideals.Posted by: reality at April 30, 2009 8:15 AM
***Latest Experience Given to Christina by Our Lady (March 29, 2009)***
It is now over 20 years since Our Blessed Mother's first apparition to Christina Gallagher. Our Lady's call was not new. It was simply the call of Her Son in the Gospel - a call to come back to God, a call to repentance. It was a call to prayer from the heart through Her Most beautiful Rosary. In the course of the past 20 years, God has powerfully upheld everything in Our Lady's message as announced by Christina. She was frequently shown world events before they took place and all events shown to Christina have invariably been fulfilled including....
Earthquake in Iran, War in Rwanda, War in Chechnya, Attack on Twin Towers/New York, Tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Weather changes throughout the World, Collapse of the Stock Market, One World Currency/One World Bank/One World Government/One World Church, Message Upheld by Healings and Message upheld by the Gift of Knowledge of Souls.
Please read the latest experience given to Christina by Our Lady Queen of Peace on March 29, 2009...
The birth-pangs are over. The world is handed over to the anti- Christ.
Civil war will break out in the United States and many will fight and kill each other. 'Nests' of foreigners have already been placed in the U.S. Christina was shown a scene of what will take place, the weapons being used and the blood flowing. The horror was over powering for her. Christina was then allowed to witness the explosion of a bomb which will be dropped on America. Its impact was horrific. She was shown that an earthquake will follow some time later. (She, herself believes that the earthquake will be a direct consequence of the bomb.)
The events in the U.S. will also filter throughout Europe and then throughout the world. A great suppression will come about…
Many, including Church authorities will go willingly in union with the anti-Christ because of the control he wields. Christina was shown how God desires to protect the handing on of the faith throughout the times that are to follow. Christina was shown how the Holy Father is suffering. There is much rebellion and hatred against him even within the Church. She was then shown the global Church descending into a great blackness and exuding misty vapour. This scene was surrounded by a multitude of angry demons wanting to get rid of the Church and Christianity.
Christina was then shown Blessed Michael, clad in red and gold and holding his sword upright. Behind him could be seen Our Blessed Lady and a multitude of angels in red, in haste to do battle with the adversary.
Pestilence will accompany the civil war and the suppression. Mosquitoes will carry all kinds of new diseases. Locusts such as have never been seen before will form a plague; it will seem as those themselves have an evil intent, almost as if they have an awareness that they are to wreak destruction.
Christina understands that if people in the US wish to gain the graces of protection as invited by Our Blessed Lady, they should be in the state of grace and draw from God's graces through Her promise by going to pray frequently in Her Chain Houses and upholding them -now, beforehand- as it will be too late for them when these events have begun to happen.
As messenger, Christina says it is heartbreaking for her to give this message and yet she has no option but to do so. She gives it in response to Our Blessed Lady despite her knowing that she will be mocked and ridiculed for doing so. However, it is up to each one to choose whether they accept or reject it.
Posted by: Mike
at April 30, 2009 8:39 AM
Let me help you translate his answer. We all really know from science and visual aids etc that abortion kills another human being. You cannot hear the screams but watch the video.
But as long as we feel bad about it, we are still okay. The main point is to feel bad about the choice. Like cheating on your spouse, at least I feel bad about it so I must still be an okay person.
Why do we need legislators to get involved in this. Well we don't but then don't get involved with child abuse/child homicide either. If a parent chooses to kill their minor child you should not interfere with their private decision and judge them. It is their child, their privacy that is paramount here. As long as they feel bad about their decision and do not take it lightly, they are still decent people who made their own choice. We should respect that because big people with power have the right to exercise that over small vulnerable and powerless people. After all the quality of my life trumps the right of someone elses to live. This is especially true if it can be done without anyone knowing and I don't have to do the act myself or dispose of the remains.
But getting back to POTUS, he does not have an deeply held beliefs other than his narcissistic ones; but will say or do whatever it takes to get elected, stay elected. He is the consummate politician. It is all about ME.
Religious liberty and personal freedom are two of America's most cherished ideals, and anti-choice activism goes against those ideals.
Oh, it's the prolifers who are for rescinding conscience protection enforcements for health care workers? It's the prolifers who want legislation to force faith-based institutions to provide or refer for abortions? Thanks for clearing up how much you proaborts value my religious liberty and personal freedom **rolls eyes**Posted by: Fed Up at April 30, 2009 9:20 AM
Careful there, Mike. While I respect the possibility that what you have shared with us may be an apparition, I don't know if it is Church approved and as such would be hesitant to accept it. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 30, 2009 9:43 AM
Is murder a "moral and ethical" issue as well?
If so, why does the Congress make all kinds of diverse laws against it?
I mean, if I want to off someone, because let's say, they're wearing pink that day, why can't that just be my choice?
How dare the government tell me that I can't just do somebody in without consequence. How dare they impose their morality on me. How dare any conservative telling me I can't off my mother-in-law just when I feel like it.
Your comments are absurd and twisted. They sound reasonable on the surface but when some one actually "THINKS" more deeply about them, they are rendered foolish, asinine, ridiculous and downright demonic.Posted by: HisMan at April 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Are Obama's long list of tax cheats covered by the moral ethical dilema? They have freedom of choice in being tax cheats? Sebelious is a confirmed tax cheat.Posted by: xppc at April 30, 2009 9:55 AM
I'm not surprised. He didn't answer any part of the question just like during his campaign.
Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2009 8:08 AM
If you read Bishop George's statements about talking with Obama about abortion he had this to say:
"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion)....."
so Obama is the consummate politician - never answering questions but appearing to do so. And always trying to agree with everyone.
and unwanted "presidencies"? Wow, what a freudian slip! It's apparent to me that he's way below the pay grade of a US President. (where's a teleprompter when you need one?)Posted by: angel at April 30, 2009 9:57 AM
To Reality. I think you are wrong on several points. Most Americans don't even know what an abortion really is, to be able to make an informed choice. Most can't even tell you who their representatives in Congress, and Americans are notoriously bad at science. They have bought the lie that it is a clump of cells and only that. I think if most Americans knew that scientists know it is a human being from conception, you would see a change in attitude about abortion. Especially in those that say I would never get one but don’t want to tell others they can't. Do you think abortion groups fight legislation designed to inform women of the facts, for no reason at all. Why wouldn't they want women to see a sonogram of the baby? Could it be that then the woman would know that it was more than just a clump of cells? They know an informed woman is less likely to kill her child.
If Americans knew that what is being killed is a human being they would know that it was wrong. Why do you think PP decided to close their clinic in SD when the law was passed that they had to tell these women they were terminating the life of a human. They know it makes a huge difference when something is called a human being over a blob of tissue.
Regardless of what you might think, the law does dictate moral issues. We do not live in a society that bases its laws on the evolutionary premise of survival of the fittest.
I fail to see how you link religious freedom to being pro-life. Religious liberty has nothing to do with being pro-life. The pro-life community does not work against religious liberty, and you don't have to be religious to believe that life is important to our society.
so Obama is the consummate politician - never answering questions but appearing to do so. And always trying to agree with everyone.
Posted by: angel at April 30, 2009 9:57 AM
I have to agree, except that he only "appears" to answer the question to those dumb enough not to know the difference. Happily Cardinal George is not one of those people.Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2009 11:20 AM
He actually SAID that abortion kills children? Well, I guess I can agree with Obama on THAT one!Posted by: heather at April 30, 2009 2:25 PM
CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry better watch out, he's going get fired asking those types of questions...Posted by: Jasper at April 30, 2009 3:31 PM
As to what constitutes America's "most cherished ideals and freedoms," (reality; 8:15 AM) we need look no further than our country's founding documents: "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Quite understandably, it never suits the needs of anti-"anti-choice" activists to quote this.
What of the proposition that "religious liberty and personal freedom" as two of our most cherished ideals and freedoms? If a group were to claim under the guise of "religious liberty" the notion that women could be stoned for adultery--would that be acceptable in our country? Of course not. Well, why not, after all it is permitted under some religions.
And what of "personal freedom?" What are the limits to "personal freedom?" Actually, there are innumerable limitations and controls of our freedoms. Why? Because it is precisely by limiting one's freedom that others are then allowed to enjoy their own freedoms. Imagine driving without rules of the road.
Is "personal freedom" a constitutional principle that permits horrors such as sticking a pair of scissors into the head of a baby half-way out of the birth canal and collapsing the skull? Of course not. But yet there are those who try to say it is a right that is guaranteed in our constitution.
Furthermore, what of the rights of the unborn? Do they have "personal freedom." Do they have rights? If not, why not? Why would a baby, unborn at 11:59 PM not have rights, but born a minute later at midnight, now have rights? The answer to this is one of two things. The first has to do with common sense and reason. The other has to do with a desparate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.Posted by: Jerry at April 30, 2009 5:09 PM
jasper, good point!Posted by: heather at May 1, 2009 7:08 AM