ABC
GOP bill that would ban sex-selective abortions opposed by Obama
The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.
White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
Blowback
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So, Obama supports gender-selective abortions?
blink on May 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM
War on Women!
Mitoch55 on May 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM
I find it rather interesting that the conventional wisdom amongst the Republican establishmentarians is that candidates should NEVER discuss cultural issues.
And yet we see before us a president, a party and a political movement that seeks to subjugate us via these very same issues and, ironically, which always galvanizes the conservative base.
Mitt, I hope you are listening.
Rixon on May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Of course…
But, really, we’re supposed to sit by and shrug when a “genderless” “parasite” is terminated, but propose legislation to stop gender selection?
MeatHeadinCA on May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM
So you have to allow occasional targeted killing of girls, or you’re on the wrong side of the “war on women?” Do I have that right? And if so, will someone please let me off this planet?
jwolf on May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM
A DOMA thread and an abortion thread… HA is going to be troll ground zero today
Achele175 on May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM
The guy who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is opposed to preventing sex selective abortions? Now there’s a shocker.
Kataklysmic on May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Thomas Friedman and the Chi-Coms approve this message!
Rixon on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM
“If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby… of the wrong gender.”
de rigueur on May 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Aptly put.
derecho on May 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM
So there are women who don’t know why they’re getting abortions? Am I reading that right?
Goldenavatar on May 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Let me guess. Obama understands people who favor having kids who “look like them”? That sounds awful, doesn’t it? But that’s the logical consequence of him saying crap like “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”.
By the way here is a picture of Charlize Theron’s newly adopted baby. Is that what Obama’s son would look like? WHO CARES what a child looks like?
Why didn’t anyone call Obama out on his focus on physical, racial characteristics? George H. W. Bush got called out for pointing at his mixed-race grandchildren playing on the beach, saying “that brown one over there is mine”, to someone who asked. Double standard?
Paul-Cincy on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM
In India, abortions for sex-selection are common, even though there’s a law against it. There are little Mom and Pop ultrasound storefronts popping up all over the place so people can learn the sex of their unborn child. I guess doing it at the hospital is a no-no.
Paul-Cincy on May 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM
True, Obama is one of the very few politicians to go on the record with support for 4th trimester abortions. Still, the cognitive dissonance of the “war on women” along with female infanticide is a bit much — or so I thought.
jwolf on May 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Funny how abortion is about the only medical decision that the Dems don’t feel should have government intrusion into.
teke184 on May 31, 2012 at 11:36 AM
It is interesting that the President and his ilk are all for prosecuting motivation when it comes to “hate crimes”, but when it comes to specific motivations of abortion, they fall silent.
jmangini on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Punishments
Paul-Cincy on May 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Nice gesture, but all people will have to do is not mention that the abortion is for gender selection. PP will train its staff to “suggest” other reasons (financial, mental hardship, Jesse Jackson’s reputation, etc.).
mankai on May 31, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Honey, the 3 and 5 year old are becoming quite a burden… could you help me take care of this “private family matter”?
/butchers
mankai on May 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Yep. This won’t do anything but create more ways to go about this.
Yep
MeatHeadinCA on May 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM
I oppose the bill too but only because there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to act. Let’s try to be consistent in our constitutionalism.
Charlemagne on May 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Thank you! I’ve been wondering how the right to privacy that brought us Roe v. Wade doesn’t relate to Obamacare in any way in their minds.
emz35 on May 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Of course the commie murderer in chief would oppose this. With his political donations on a downwad slide he can’t afford to lose donations from Planned Infanticide.
bgibbs1000 on May 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Capitalist Hog on May 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Planned Parenthood just gave President Choom Gang 1.4 million.
Little Boomer on May 31, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Says the administration that brought us Obamacare….
HardwoodBottom on May 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Nice work giving Obama a primo campaign tool. You never learn.
If Romney wins, it will be in spite of backwards socons.
Moesart on May 31, 2012 at 1:11 PM
If there is nothing wrong with aborting babies, then there is nothing wrong with aborting them because of their sex. There is no way the left can concede this issue without acknowledging the personhood of those they abort.
DrMagnolias on May 31, 2012 at 2:13 PM