Sunday, May 24, 2009

Obama's Goals on Abortion has published an interesting first-hand take on what the Obama administration is really about when it comes to abortion:
Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about. About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.”


Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.


Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

The article goes on to ask all the questions that are obvious to pro-lifers: "Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?"

With people from Emily's List shaping Obama's domestic policy, you can bet that his administration will be completely out of step with the American people on abortion. Polls show a strong majority (about 60%) feel abortion should be illegal in all but a few circumstances.

I'm having flashbacks to November, when all my friends were telling me how Obama was so great. Remember what they were saying about his abortion views? Oh, don't worry, he'll work to reduce the number of abortions.

But what has he done? Nothing that would remotely contribute to accomplishing that. And now we have a top Obama official saying that's not even the goal at all. In fact, she can't say that's the goal, because saying we want to reduce the number of abortions implies there's something wrong with abortions.

I rarely appreciate Ann Coulter, but I must give her credit for an article she wrote the other day successfully summarizing the frustration of pro-lifers in this country:

Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

A good start would be letting us vote.

Liberals can be all sweet reason as long as their preference for abortion on demand is lyingly called a "constitutional right," immutable to the tiniest alteration by the voters.

In the minuscule areas where abortion policy can be affected, Obama has shown his passion for compromise by always taking the most extreme pro-abortion position.

For all my hopes that we can be more charitable and understanding toward one another on this issue, there are times when I can't help but get angry. All the evidence that I've seen suggests that what Obama says about compromise is just a politician's front. He looks so nice on camera, but I can't help but think there's something insidious about how his poise and confident demeanor serve to deceive everyone about his real beliefs.

People who really are radically pro-abortion will try to discourage us by saying that the rest of the country is on board with this, and that's why they voted for Obama. But the evidence just doesn't show that, and I find such bullying rather offensive.

There are other critical issues out there, and on many of those issues I very much respect the views of those who side with Obama. But if the abortion issue is important, and I think it is, then Obama needs to be held accountable for his repeated deception. Those who seek to defend him on the issue also need to wake up, because at this point it's really kind of offensive that anyone should call Obama anything but radically pro-abortion.

1 comment:

  1. The whole thing drives me crazy. Obama has taken his stance way back when he was in OH voting against the bill that would save the lives of the babies from botched abortions. How can anyone look at that and not see that he is radical? He is also quoted as saying that he doesn't want his daughters to suffer for a mistake by being pregnant.

    It's like the people talking about all the "good for women" that the abortionist who was killed did. I don't think it was right that he was killed, but really who else in HUMAN HISTORY can say they killed 60,000 people one by one with their bare hands?

    This guy wasn't someone who was "forced" by his commanding officer the drop a bomb on a city. This was a man who made a fortune snuffing out life one at a time day by day. It makes me want to throw up.


I love to hear feedback!