Obama advisor: “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions”
posted at 4:48 pm on May 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
Uttered at a meeting of abortion interest groups, pro and con, to discuss the sort of meaningless “common ground” to which Obama paid lip service at Notre Dame.
I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal. The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs — programs which began in the 1970s — and they’ve clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.
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.”…
Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion. Melody’s background as a board member of one of the most hard-core abortion groups in the country (Emily’s List even opposes bans on partial-birth abortion) sheds light on why she was irritated when that was stated as her boss’ goal.
What exactly is the policy difference between reducing abortions and reducing “the need for” abortions? In theory, they amount to the same thing: More funding for contraception, more economic incentives for pregnant women to make it financially viable for them to carry to term, etc. The author, Wendy Wright, takes this as a sign that Obama’s not planning to do anything differently on abortion except tweak the rhetoric, which is an eminently fair conclusion given his record but cuts against the logic of her piece. Sounds to me like the dopey rhetorical distinction (doesn’t the fact that they’re trying to reduce the practice sufficiently signal that it’s “bad or immoral”?) is meant to appease pro-choicers in advance of a baby step — no pun intended — towards providing more support for life. Although … that can’t possibly be true, can it?
While you mull, for your consideration, the latest ad from CatholicVote on this subject.
Update: I think the difference between reducing the number of abortions and the “need” for abortions is the same difference between creating jobs and “creating or saving” jobs.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
“And I am looking very closely at your Granny and Grand Uncle Louie too…”
kybowexar on May 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Safe, legal, and…however many we “need.”
Kensington on May 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
There is no need for abortion. What the hell is wrong with these people?
jimmy2shoes on May 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Interesting video, but how many of them were “adopted” by their step-parents? That’s a little different than the issue of adoption versus abortion.
calbear on May 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Yeah sure. In 10 years….
Randy
williars on May 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Obama declares Gitmo detainees to be ‘fetuses’
By: Scott Ott
Examiner Columnist | 5/22/09
News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher
In an effort to shut down the U.S. Naval Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, thereby restoring America’s moral standing in the world, President Barack Obama today declared some 240 enemy combatants held at Gitmo to be ‘human fetuses’.
In an executive order, the president said, “Since I ordered Gitmo shut down, and people don’t want us to bring the inmates here, the only way to extract them from the facility is to change their legal status to one that offers us more choices.”
While accused terrorists have access to attorneys, and nearly-limitless legal appeals, a fetus has no legal standing, cannot speak for itself, and is subject to the death penalty without regard to guilt or innocence.
Civil rights advocates have pressured Obama to follow through on campaign promises to shutter Gitmo, but even Democrats in Congress have resisted bringing the inmates to U.S. soil for trials and incarceration.
“We can debate whether enemy combatants have access to protections under the U.S. Constitution,” said Obama. “However, no serious person would grant such protection to an embryo or fetus. The loss of 240 fetuses wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in a nation where more than 3,000 of them hit the Dumpster daily.”
The president noted that America’s global reputation has been devastated by U.S. treatment of terror suspects, but that “our treatment of a million fetuses each year earns us nothing but admiration, and requests for clinic-funding from those who aspire to be like us.”
Sources acknowledged continuing White House debate about whether a terrorist who escapes from Gitmo alive can still be treated as a fetus.
Examiner columnist Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly news satire site, and anchor of ScrappleFace Network News (SNN), seen on YouTube.
platypus on May 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I’m not sure how Kmiec is going to spin this one.
Illinidiva on May 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Democrats: clubbing baby seals is bad.
Democrats: putting born alive aborted babies in closets to die is good.
lorien1973 on May 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Well, there is.
bnelson44 on May 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM
That’s his specialty………….
………….. I liked the video, by the way.
Seven Percent Solution on May 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
TheQuestion on May 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You’ve increased the deficit,spending,government, why not Abortion?
These people are insane. They are a suicide pact waiting for new members.
portlandon on May 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
That was a great ad, maybe the RNC could hire the firm responsible and get some messages that would resonate with young voters.
msmveritas on May 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
And my husband and my son. Adopted. It is a good thing.
petunia on May 22, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Tweaking rhetoric=Newspeak.
petunia on May 22, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Maybe if we can convince them that the saline injection is like waterboarding…
myrenovations on May 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Water boarding, masterminds, of mass murder? Bad.
Ripping apart the body of an unborn baby? Baby? What baby? It’s a clump of cells.
*sigh*
capejasmine on May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Great video, great message. There is NO need for abortion, although I am beginning to think that in a lot of cases, sterilization might be in order………”sigh”
clinker46 on May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM
C’mon Strangelet. Now is your chance to enlighten us, why waterboarding is torture, but this is not!
capejasmine on May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Man those CatholicVote ads are good.
BadgerHawk on May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I was adopted as a baby in 1973.
I feel fortunate every single day that the Roe decision didn’t come down a year or even a few months earlier.
myrenovations on May 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM
The rhetorical difference is that the abortion lobby does not see abortion as a problem, but as a solution to other problems. It is these other problems that must be attacked, not the “solution” of abortion. The focus cannot be on abortion, but on the “root causes” of abortion.
Karl on May 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Allah, I’m sorry but I don’t agree. To “reduce the number of abortions” is a VASTLY different policy than “reducing the need for abortions.” The “need” for abortion is an open ended, multifaceted issue ranging from poverty to misogyny – things that will never go away whereas actually reducing abortions is definable and measurable.
bloghooligan on May 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I thought their side of the argument was that abortion was about CHOICE, not NEED? So, now it’s NEED. Hmmmmm.
The left always gets their own idiotic arguments confused. That’s how emotional policies, without any intellectual backing, often end up.
progressoverpeace on May 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Obama should put his money where his mouth is and make it a law that every planned parenthood facility has to have an adoption counselor on premise. Stop sending money overseas for abortions and give that money to pregnant women here who choose the adoption route. Financial concerns have got to be one of the top three reasons women have abortions. He wants to reduce abortions, then start looking at life-saving options and throw some money at it.
sherry on May 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Barney Frank’s tongue = botched abortion
Geochelone on May 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Well, DUH!!!!!!!
ladyingray on May 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Hey Notre Dame… paying attention yet?
D2Boston on May 22, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Reduce the need for abortions, but not abortions.
So Obama wants the same number of abortions, but make them less of a difficult decision? Then he should pay women to have abortions. That way they can better afford the child, but kill it anyway.
hawksruleva on May 22, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Thank you for this excellent find AllahPundit.
.
Note also:
One would think that after four decades they’d have a clue. There is a substantial body of literature providing definitive answers to what puzzles this woman! These answers have been available for decades too…
.
and remember well:
when someone taunts social conservatives about not supporting more government funded sexual indoctrination of children.
.
And remember $ 2,000,000,000 x 40 = $ 80,000,000,000. We might be able to recapitalize BoA, GM and Chrysler for that princely sum.
Mike OMalley on May 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Obama’s common ground is for burials in unmarked graves.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Damn… I watched the video. I was expecting something kinda lame like “they weren’t aborted” at the end. very cool video. actually gave me chills at the end…
Ampersand on May 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Also see: dissonance, cognitive.
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Considering the poor are not even the majority of those who get an abortion (and few women alive today don’t know about contraception), there actually is a big difference between reducing the “need” for abortion versus actually reducing abortions.
Esthier on May 22, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I knew enough to sense where the ad was heading, but the end still brought some tears.
Was their first anti-abortion ad for 2009 ever discussed here? It was rejected by NBC & CNN. Also very well done, bu much more dramatic, and aimed directly at the one segment of the American population with the greatest power to actually reduce abortions.
Too bad the hypocrite won’t take it to heart.
Loxodonta on May 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Which is just where the mental weaklings like any topic to be, so they can go back and forth endlessly spewing pseudo intellectual word salad that impresses only the true believer cult members, but cost everyone in money and lives. These people make me sick.
Itchee Dryback on May 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Yeah, like “saving the planet” from the “population bomb”. Barack’s Science Advisor, John Holdren, is a Neo-Malthusian who believes that compulsory abortion is a legitimate means to that end. Coincidentally he also thinks that America is “the meanest of wealthy countries”. Sound like anyone we know?
Buy Danish on May 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM
You can argue it’s wrong, or it’s not wrong, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s something that should be encouraged. A prostate exam is necessary for good health, but nobody, except AP maybe, wants them just for the fun of it.
DFCtomm on May 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM
How sick and immoral are these people that they would feel like this? Who can argue a pro abortion position as pro choice and not pro murder? Women have plenty of choice in the matter. They can choose not to have sex without contraception, they can choose not to have sex with a man they aren’t married to or choose not to have sex with a man they don’t want to be a parent with, they can choose to give the child up for adoption and they can choose from about 10 very effective contraceptives…Women have plenty of choice…
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM
what a fantastic commercial! i am speechless…
homesickamerican on May 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM
This issue is never going to be solved. Humanity will not survive long enough to come to a sane solution. Ain’t going to happend.
You cannot successfully legislate morality, and that’s what abortion comes down to. At the same time wanton killing of fetuses is unacceptable, especially since most abortions are done because of lazyness, inconvenience, and a complete lack of perspective regarding the value of life.
That being said, I cannot get over the hypocrisy of BOTH parties regarding issues of life.
Conservative hard liners refuse a womans right to her sovereign body, liberals don’t think killing babies is a big deal at all.
Conservatives love the death penalty, liberals prefer to set murders free or try to rehabilitate them somehow. Guantanimo will be another example here.
So we have this:
Conservatives
Against abortion
Against sovereign rights of a woman to her body
For the death penalty
Liberals
Happy to kill babies, but set the murders free with a hug and a promise.
What truly amazes me is how the liberals try to justify their position at the same time the conservatives try to play both sides of a triangular fence.
I’m independent and unaffiliated. I have morals, and don’t need laws to enforce the way I live my life. Why can’t more do the same?
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM
That’s actually not inconsistent.
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Putting a caterpillar in a box with a known terrorist is “torture”, but, sucking out the brain of a born-alive BABY (not a *clump of cells*) isn’t? Geebus
Video was awesome, nice find.
sybilll on May 22, 2009 at 5:48 PM
What about when there’s a body inside that body? Shouldn’t it have rights, too? This isn’t difficult to parse.
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 5:49 PM
It’s inconsistent if you value life at all. Those who take a life with intent have basically forfeit their right to live. Setting them free, saving them from the death penalty by paroling them after commuting their sentence…or even letting them live forever in prison just doesn’t square with the same mentality it takes to say “ok, lets murder this fetus”.
Maybe I’m just crazy….
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Sovereign rights to kill someone? Rights are not without boundaries when it inflicts harm on another. I think you took one too many Women’s Studies classes.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Eventually the American people get hip to the word games.
This doesn’t work in the age of Internet and Talk Radio – both mediums will help the public “get hip”.
HondaV65 on May 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM
“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.”
Poor man’s nuance…
ladyingray on May 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The woman has no right to kill the human being she is carrying. Period.
This is the most ridiculous debate ever. Reduce the need?? What does that mean? Sterilization? I would not be surprised, because that is the only thing that will reduce the need and it fits in nicely with PP founding.
ORconservative on May 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Seriously when I see people argue about sovereign rights of a woman to a body I really think they are frigging stupid and full of the Kool Aid. That type of talk is put out there by radical feminists. We have laws against prostitution, drug abuse, and suicide and those things harm no one but the person doing it to themselves. So please get real get off the aid and think for yourself idiot.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Call it what it is BLACK GENOCIDE
Bicyea on May 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Like this word game:
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM
This, to me is one huge reason why you cannot legislate this issue away. The woman was there first, but at what point does the baby have rights? How can you decide that? Can you say a woman no longer has the right to her body because she’s carrying a baby? It’s wrong to legislate at all for or against this.
This issue won’t be solved until 99.99% of the people believe life is more important that getting laid bareback or less inconvenient than not being able to party down till the kid can take care of itself. What it’s going to take is an evolution of society AND mankind in general toward the preservation and management of life. (By management, I mean not overpopulating the globe further, or controlling it using abortion)
Again, I don’t think humanity will even survive long enough to get to this point. Instead we get to suffer this topic as a political distraction and a legal tug of war till we all disappear through our own stupidity.
Yay for optimism?
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Wrong. It’s the spread-the-wealth alternative. The idea that Obama will take enough money from those that have it and give it to those who have less so that they can raise children in the standard to which Obama directs.
But recently, Laura cited a 2004 survey saying that only 23% of those seeking abortions do so because of money.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/21/faux-moderation-on-abortion-and-sex-ed/
But Obama will just take more and more money on the theory that it’s, in part, an effort to reduce the need for abortions.
Nuance = lying under the guise of moral relativism.
Obama’s turning us into a society patterned after The Lord of the Flies.
BuckeyeSam on May 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Hmmm there was this lady that the libs and some foolish cons love named Sanger. She did not like blacks and her work lives on through PP>
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Well, “bad” as in undesirable in ideal circumstances, yes. Not immoral though.
radiofreevillage on May 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM
If you read the Bible yu’ll see plenty of examples of when God said to kill certain people or groups. There was justification based on those groups actions against God.
Abortion is the taking of a life unjustifiably…the child has done nothing but exist…
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Spiritk9 said:
What are you talking about?..put the koolaid down. Again we already limit what people can do to their own bodies even if they are only harming themselves.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You must be one of these folks that are ready to kick anyone out (or keep them out) of the GOP if they don’t believe Roe V Wade should be overturned.
Don’t worry, I’m not a Koolaid drinking liberal, but I AM of the opinion that we have individual rights and are personally responsible for ourselves and our actions.
I just don’t think this issue can be solved adequately in any law that doesn’t favor one end of the scale or the other. It just ain’t gonna work. It’s one of the few things that needs to be decided by society as a whole at some point.
You know….sort of like it was in the ’50s for example, when being an unwed mother was a horrible taboo thing and would be tantamount to getting a red letter burned in your forehead.
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Look for the Planned Parenthood clinics and other abortion providers. Typically they are in minority areas. Hmmmm
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:03 PM
That’s the price you pay. You create a life you take care of the life. Until that inconvenient truth is taught in the sex ed classes, you have a problem.
Sanger would be all for the steriliztion solution I mentioned earlier and that would create or save jobs.
ORconservative on May 22, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 6:03 PM
How does carrying a child take away a woman’s right over her body?
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:07 PM
S
I have no kool aid, but perhaps you need to understand that this issue isn’t the only one that’s screwed up by tampering with individuals rights.
Perhaps you need to put down the hard liquor…maybe we’ll illegalize that too.
Kool aid….screw you. It’s attitudes like this that will continue to drive people from “your” party.
We definitely need a third party. One that understands the constitution and is willing to uphold it instead of twist it around to suit their needs. The two parties we have clearly are teh suckage.
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Don’t bother the pitcher empty and SpiritDog drank it all.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Don’t bother the pitcher is empty and SpiritDog drank it all.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:08 PM
“screw you”
Wow– nothing that addresses the fact that someone else is impacted by abortion. Not surprised . What flavor was it ? Grape?
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Just like Darwin was trying to prove the inferiority of black people and the Hatefilled Left won’t mention that part in their push for evolution as how we got here…the Hatefilled Left won’t tell you that Sanger’s goal was to eliminate many black babies…I just don’t get why Black people are Democrats
Conservatives we’ll teach you to fish and give you a small business loan or grant to buy the pole…Liberals say vote for us and we’ll bring you the fish every day and destroy your dignity and self reliance…
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM
The salient question, which someone may already have asked, is this: if there is nothing wrong with abortion, and there is no reason to seek a reduction in the number of abortions, then what reason can there be to “reduce the need for abortions”?
Why do we want to reduce the need for something that is not a problem, and that we don’t have too much of?
J.E. Dyer on May 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I understand some distinction there, but it’s not one you’d really concern yourself with, unless you were the type to oppose asserting double homicide charges when a pregnant woman is murdered for fear that her unborn baby suddenly be seen as human. GASP the horror!
cackcon on May 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Got to run after this attempt….
Inserting anti abortion laws into the lawbooks basically takes away a womans right to decide what happens to her body.
AT THE SAME TIME, she IS at least 50% responsible for the fetus being there in the first place. (assuming it wasn’t rape, incest, etc)
What I’m saying is that you can’t come up with a proper way to legislate this. It has to be addressed through personal responsibility while paying close attention to personal rights. Writing a law against or for abortion will not solve this issue.
It’s everyone’s responsibility to consider their actions before the fetus is made. Laws won’t fix the problem once the deed is done, no matter which way the law points. That is, unless you can manage to craft a law that pisses 100% of the people off, then you know it’s a good law, right?
Lol.
Spiritk9 on May 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I think you quoted me by accident?
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 6:14 PM
So where did dog spirit go?
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM
How?
I will concede that it is better to change hearts than to change minds buthte problem with laws are is that they give th impression that if it’s not against the law then it must be okay… and thus te reason for 45 million abortions since 1973
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM
So a baby inside the mom has no rights. So rights are based on location? Gitmo rights are the same as everywhere else?
seven on May 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Spiritk9 I think you are a little confused.
Conservatives feel that the taking of INNOCENT life is wrong. They may be for or against the death penalty, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion as a convicted criminal is not INNOCENT.
All rights end at the individual. A woman has sovereign rights over her own body right up to the point that exercising her rights deprives someone else of theirs. She can choose of have sex or not, use birth-control or not, raise her child or give it up for abortion, but she can not in deprive her child of his or her very life because she was too foolish to realize that having sex carries with it the risk of procreation. When you have sex you obligate yourself to care for the child you might produce (as any man who is paying child support after a brief fling will tell you).
When our laws and country allow the indiscriminate murder of millions of unborn children something is certainly wrong. I too have morals and I don’t feel the need to have laws enforcing my personal views on anyone else. But I also recognize that laws are needed. Laws exist to protect the weak from the strong. I am sure you wouldn’t advocate rape, theft, infanticide or child abuse being legal – abortion should also be illegal as it is the taking of an innocent life — usually in a horribly cruel way.
If born infants were being pulled apart limb from limb or drowned in caustic chemicals the world would be rightly horrified. Since these crimes are hidden in the very wombs that should be protecting and nourishing these children their suffering and death becomes the stuff of rhetoric. People who claim to have morals sit silently by and say that we shouldn’t worry too much about it. They wonder aloud about society’s right to force a woman to be sensible and responsible for the actions that invited this child into the world and into her womb. And yet the murders go on day after day and woman or told over and over that it is ok to do. Abortion is an atrocity and it needs to end.
darcee on May 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM
fixed it…
CCRWM on May 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM
I liked your response so I included it. Sorry for the confusion.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM
The world is changing . Look at what SpiritDog posts. Look at what Obama did and did not do to stop the deaths of babies who survived abortion. Open infanticide is not that far off.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Jamson64, I can not believe that. I think it is exactly those sorts of things that help wake people up to the reality of abortion. It isn’t like having a tooth pulled or a mole excised; it is the violent death of a human being. I can only hope an pray that sooner than later the enough people in this country will see what is right and protect all children no matter what developmental stage they happen to be in.
darcee on May 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM
No need to apologize. I’m an idiot.
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 6:38 PM
I hope you are right. My glass was half empty today.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Eugenics, abort the young, kill the aged.
tarpon on May 22, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Wait, I thought the Pope said he wasn’t pro Abortion or something. I guess it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys these days.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Think about the things the Rats have desperately wanted to gett heir hands on for at least the last 100 years:
1) Health care
2) Banking
3) Energy
4) Autos
He got them all in the first 100 days.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM
#5 would be guns and that’s coming….
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM
In both cases, you are valuing murder. It’s not inconsistent in the least.
LibTired on May 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Now, that would have been something I think many Americans would be happy with.
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Meaning more welfare mothers, more illiterate citizens, more crime.
Thank you enlightened liberals.
peacenprosperity on May 22, 2009 at 7:46 PM
No, it’s like the difference between recreational drug use and drug addiction.
Time for “recreational abortions!”
An abortion in every pot!
/sarc
Y-not on May 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Obama solves the Gitmo crisis by declaring enemy combatants to be fetuses.
win win
Mr. Joe on May 22, 2009 at 7:56 PM
What type of fetus are they? There are 5 categories still, right?
Upstater85 on May 22, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Tho Obama goal is to increase abortions. I hear he wants to declare 2010 the “Year of the Abortionist.” Just as a show of solidarity.
Mojave Mark on May 22, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I declare fetuses enemy combatants. Then the liberals would love them.
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM
You mean like in the “V” where we find out that our benevolent overlords are eating us?
are you saying Obama eats Babies? heh, would NOT surprise me at this point …no really…
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on May 22, 2009 at 8:14 PM
That’s a very good commercial. I’m glad to see that out of the Catholic church. Maybe they’ll finally kick hypocrites like Pelosi and Kerry and the rest out of the church. It simply makes me want to vomit when I see the church giving these two-talking liars a pass, letting them have it both ways.
PersonalLiberty on May 22, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Barry Ovomit, the “Infanticide president.”
Water boarding bad – Killing babies good!
byteshredder on May 22, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »