Opinion

President Obama’s video not just about Planned Parenthood; it’s personal

Blinded by Planned Parenthood's lies (Photo Credit)

There are people I am very close to who believe that a woman has the right to take away the life of her child. For the most part, I am able to engage in civil discourse with people who disagree with me. Currently, though, our nation’s top position–and perhaps the top position anywhere in the world–is held by a man who does not want to merely have a discussion. He wants no discussion at all, actually. He wants to enforce his agenda on every American. The president is not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion.

It is difficult for anyone not to know that Obama has taken a very pro-abortion stance. He has always been public with such a stance, claiming that abortion is a women’s rights issue and that a woman should be able to make decisions with her doctor about her “own health”. Obama is also known for being quite close with the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and he recently put forth a video in support of the organization.

It’s not just that President Obama is pro-abortion. Again, I am close with people who take the same stance. My pro-abort friends and family members usually manage not to offend me, though, because they don’t try to shove their beliefs down my throat; they agree to disagree and accept that I have my views and they have their own. The president does not operate this way.

In his video praising the “services” of Planned Parenthood, the president even implies that he believes that the organization provides mammograms! I am 21 years old and a student. And yet I know more than the president of the United States?! If you are fundamentally against an organization, it is important to do research, in order to know your enemy. But if you are as buddy-buddy as Obama is with Planned Parenthood, wouldn’t you also be doing research on them? On Facebook, someone once sarcastically asked if I claimed to know more about Planned Parenthood than the Democratic Party. While it may seem incredible, as a 21-year-old student, it looks like I do.

The president’s latest video of support is rather unpleasant to me. I still encourage all to at least read the article, which includes Executive Director of Students for Life of America Kristan Hawkins’s thoughts on the video. Her words eloquently and with focus address the issue on hand here, but I have my own issues with the president’s statements.

Pretty soon, your taxes will be going towards paying for abortions. And frighteningly enough, such a surcharge for insurance will likely be without your knowing, since it’s not exactly going to be advertised. That’s certainly not pro-life. That’s not even pro-choice. That is being pro-abortion and forcing everyone to subscribe to your set of beliefs.

I don’t know what version of the United States Obama is living in or wants to create, but it’s certainly not the United States I want to be a part of. I doubt that anyone looks forward to paying taxes, but law-abiding citizens still pay them. How dare the president force us to violate our consciences when it comes to paying our taxes and give us this unfair choice between obeying the law and obeying our God and consciences?

The president takes the offense even farther, though. I’m sure we’ve all gotten into a discussion that has turned ugly when one person becomes too offensive. Obama has done this. Unfortunately, it’s not just immature or obnoxious; it’s dangerous, because it is coming from the president of the United States of America!

And yet over the past year we’ve had to stand up to politicians who wanted to deny millions of women the care they rely on and inject themselves into the decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.

So when some professional politicians casually say that they’ll get rid of Planned Parenthood, don’t forget what they’re really talking about: eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on and leaving them to fend for themselves. That’s why last year when Republicans in Congress threatened to shut down the government unless we stopped funding Planned Parenthood, I had a simple answer: no.

I take those sets of statements, coming from my president, to mean that I am part of a group who are against women, since I support the type of politicians he is talking about. The president is making it sound like I want to force women to be without care and to fend for themselves. And I say to the president, how dare he? How dare he paint me to be such a person for the cause I believe in, simply because he disagrees with me? Moreover, how dare he lie to the American public? It’s one thing for ordinary citizens to buy into the lies that Planned Parenthood puts out there. It’s another when our nation’s president buys the lie and sells it.

The president is a mystery to me. If he truly believes the lies that Planned Parenthood puts out there, then I pray for him to have some sense; to wake up and face the truth! If he does know the truth and just doesn’t care, if he’s doing this just to get re-elected, then I still pray for him, and I ask that God have mercy on his soul.

With any hope, the American people will realize the lies of Planned Parenthood, even if the president will not.

 

Live Action on Facebook
  • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

    Im sure obama knows pp does not actually provide mammograms, but was referring to referrals for mammograms. Since he said this in a list with other services I’m betting he didn’t think it was that big of a deal to leave out the word referrals. Pp does provide mammogram services like he says, but he didn’t go into any specifics on what that service was, like he didn’t go into detail about the other services he said. This is probably one of those hindsight cases.

    • grdawg

      I find it funny when people feel the need to defend politicians that they like.  Why can’t we just say they were wrong?  If they’re a politician–or, in the president’s case a world leader–they should kinda have the ability to speak for and explain themselves.  When they mispeak or mislead with their comments, as Obama did, they should apologize.  

      • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

        I find it funny that because I “defended” someone that it automatically means I like them. I did not vote for obama, and I am currently undecided about who to vote for in this coming election. But just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean that I can’t see where they are coming from, and it doesn’t mean that I can’t stick up for them every now and again. And lastly, it doesn’t mean that I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

        • Maggie_McC

          I understand your intention. I just hope you don’t vote for Obama.

        • Mitchell

          Frankly I don’t think it matters all that much as to whether or not Pres. Obama knows they don’t provide mammograms, it’s not the issue at hand. The problem is that he’s defending an immoral organisation (Planned Parenthood), following an unjust cause (abortion), and trying to shove his opinion down the throats of Americans. 

        • Uneva

          Obama lost all right to benefit of the doubt some time ago!!  When your batting record is nothing but foul balls, and you continue to repeatedly stand in the exact same stance and swing the bat the exact same way, you can’t be expected to hit anything but more foul balls!!

    • narniagirl55

      Perhaps he is refering to the idea that after Obamacare goes into full effect, he will make PP do mammograms! (now that would be a winner..they will find a way to make get breast surgery by convincing me I have cancer when I don’t (just like they tell women they are pregnant and need an abortion to “fix it”.) I would not go into a PP if it was the only clinic in the country! Obama is dreaming that someday, PP will do mamograms..and get rich on abortions.the truth is, Obama really does “worship abortion”. He believes that sacrificing our children will save the country! Sounds like “child sacrifice” to me..or perhaps, he is trying to destroy our country by destroying mothers and children! He believes that if our society shrinks, there won’t be any America left to govern..then our gov’t will go bankrupt from lack of new taxpayers..sounds like a plan if I were an enemy of America! which I believe he really is! Obama is no dummy..and with the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House this weekend, I believe he is cooking up more ways to scare people into voting for him.

      Can’t wait to vote him out of office!

      • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

        Wow. You made more assumptions in that comment than I have seen here in quite some time.

    • Guest

      You could infer that from the video shown in the above blog post.  A reasonable person could believe that the president was leaving himself wiggle room with the “technically correct but still thoroughly misleading” approach.

      Unfortunately for your argument, he went all the way earlier today:

      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/06/obama-misleads-falsely-claims-planned-parenthood-does-mammograms/

      Either he’s lying, or he seriously believes that Planned Parenthood actually does them.  Out of touch.

  • Maggie_McC

    “care”, “preventive care”= Abortion??? No care spent on the baby.

  • TheGrouch4491

    You’re funny mister president… Planned Parenthood is one of the worst organizations I have ever laid eyes on… I went there to get an Implanon removed (that was put in wrong so that it was literally almost poking through my skin on the one side, yet deep in the other and was causing me so much pain).  I could not afford to go to a regular doctor so I went to PP because they say that “you will never be turned away due to your inability to pay” yet they made sure I could pay in full in cash before they removed it. Also, before I left, they made sure they gave me “educational” brochures about Plan B and abortion, basically telling me that they would provide one if I needed one, and that “no woman should have to have a baby she is not ready for”. Well guess what OBAMA and PLANNED PARENTHOOD, I had a daughter when I was 17, and a son at 19, and though I wasn’t ready for it, it was NOT my “choice” whether or not to let them live. An innocent life is not your choice to kill, shame on you who think it’s ok to kill just because you don’t want to take responsibility for your own actions.  And shame on you Obama, and PP… Seriously…

  • Ylpo8

    Obama’s words are lining up explicitly with his actions; both embody evil. Resisting evil is the duty of those who fear God.

    • http://twitter.com/DunganLarry Larry James Dungan

      Ylpo8 that is so true, I wish everyone would have the courage & conviction of their faith to stand up AGAINST this GREAT EVIL, A thought that came to me, (IF) we don’t stand united  against this evil, could we in effect (AS THE BIBLE SAYS) taking the “MARK” of the ” BEAST” (666) upon Ourselves, this might sound extreme but as evil as abortion is,I would think it is a possibility!

      • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

        That is not just a little extreme, that is extremely extreme.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

         Abortion has been legal for 40 years and was legal at the beginning of the country. There still hasn’t been any “rapture”.

        • Erplun1996

          Michelle what is this supposed to mean? “Abortion has been legal for 40 years and was legal at the beginning of the country.” ????  Also what does “There still hasn’t been any “rapture” ” mean? I am genuinely curious what you meant here. Thanks

  • Ajrryan2

    abortion is murder it is that simple you want a choice don’t have sex until you are ready to have a baby it only takes one time and that is the only way to be sure you are being safe

  • narniagirl55

    Go Rebecca! You are right! why is it soooo important to Obama that we share his views..why? Well, b/c he sees and knows that PP’s empire is crumbling! As abortions become less and less, he figures the only way to save PP is to have the government pay them to provide Health Care so they don’t fall in a hole, sprain their ankle and become disabled!  Obama sees the writing on the wall. I do not think he is THAT stupid…I think he made the mammogram statement on purpose hoping to reassurance women that PP still does something good..since lately, with the Komen fiasco, women now know they don’t…so, he probably appeased a few gullible women with that comment..but not very many. With deception to others comes deceiving yourself as well. Obama has managed to tell so many lies that he actually believes the ones he makes up! He is so decieved, that he doesn’t recognize the truth when he hears it! PP has him wrapped around their little finger…and of course, when they are charged with Medicaid fraud, he will try everything in his power to defend them using the media to shield the pain…but… what goes around, comes around and you can’t hide from the truth forever. When Sebilius is finally charged with contempt of court for the shredding of the Kansas PP case documents that were subpeoned and that “mysteriously” disappeared in teh shredder..Mr. Obama is going to go hiding in another country to avoid the embarrassment.

    Yes, I agree, he has no right to make us believe what he believes…Thankfully, we don’t need a law degree to figure out the truth.

    • http://twitter.com/DunganLarry Larry James Dungan

      A-MEN!

  • Guest

    I gave it a try, but I couldn’t finish the video without flipping him off.  That doesn’t make me a bad person, does it?

    Today, he said that “There’s been a lot of talk about women and women’s issues lately, as there should be.  But I do think that the conversation has been oversimplified.  Women are not some monolithic bloc.  Women are not an interest group.  You shouldn’t be treated that way.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/04/06/president-obama-speaks-white-house-forum-women-and-economy#transcript

    But then in this video, after again saying that “women are not an interest group”, he goes on to imply that Planned Parenthood represents all women and that all women support legal abortion (which is a “health decision between her and her doctor”).  Quite contradictory, not to mention arrogant.

    This guy needs his butt kicked.

    • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

      Even if I profoundly disagree with someone I can still resist the urge to give them the figer and wish them bodily harm. Gaining some maturity, respect, and compassion all helped me out with that.

      • Guest

         I meant it in a metaphorical sense.  No need to be overly literal.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        You seriously aren’t aware that “kick his butt” is virtually NEVER a literal call for physical violence in ANY context?

        • 12angry_men

          Looks like someone’s getting overly defensive now aren’t we

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            I notice absurdity. Sue me.

          • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

            People seem to sue at the drop of a hat these days.

        • 12angry_men

          Looks like someone’s getting overly defensive now aren’t we

  • http://www.facebook.com/crazzeto Carlo Razzeto

    I agree with what you have written, this video is one more bizzar misstep made by the President. I have found it shocking how readily he expends political capitcal in this way, particuarly in an election year. Of course there’s one more lie he’s bought, that all women everywhere support Planned Parenthood. Little does he know that it is intellegent, young women like your self leading the pro-life cultural change.

  • Erplun1996

    I do not understand why so much emphasis is placed on the belief that MILLIONS of women will die if Planned Parenthood is extinguished. I’m sorry but last time I checked there are thousands of gynecologists, oncologists and family doctors that provide the same services for woman. They say that low income women cannot afford to go anywhere but Planned Parenthood. I have personal knowledge that Medicaid as well as Medicare (and Medicare supplements) pay for preventative care, i.e. breast health education,annual pap smears and mammograms. There is only one way to do a pap smear. There is only one way to do a mammogram. Planned Parenthood does not possess magical speculums. Planned Parenthood does not even offer mammograms. They offer “referrals”. Referrals are a little piece of paper telling you to go to another doctor. Referrals do not allow you to walk in and have a mammogram done anywhere. No the referral sends you to another doctor, who may or may not serve low-income women. (Meaning he/she does not accept Medicaid patients).  If you believe that you have an STD, GUESS WHAT!!!! Your family doctor, immediate care center physician, minute clinic NP or county health department can diagnose, treat or refer you for care to another physician. There are also other not for profit organizations that provide free screenings for HIV and AIDS. The local major health provider in my city has a branch of their organization that provides portable mammogram stations, pap smears, STD checks, PSA tests for men (because their lives matter too), dental exams (because untreated dental issues can lead to major infections), eye exams, homeless outreach, prenatal care, teen sex education, mental health counseling, the list goes on and on. Oh and yes contraceptives (not something I agree with of course). What they do not provide is abortions. They operate on a sliding scale. Huh, so does Planned Parenthood. That organization also is grant funded. They have to work very hard every year to make sure they stay afloat. They are constantly having to reapply for grants, let staff go and cut their programs. They do not have millions of dollars pouring into them like Planned Parenthood does. Clinics and local programs that provide this vast array of care to anyone based upon their income are a dying breed. Planned Parenthood has not only set out to destroy life it has set out to conquer those “competitors”. If Planned Parenthood is the only clinic left standing then they will have free reign to spread their hatred. Back in my younger years I went to Planned Parenthood for exams and testing. Honestly I stopped going there because I didn’t have the $10-$20 that they required for the exam and testing. Instead I went to the county health department. Guess what? The exam and tests were exactly the same. County health departments also provide immunizations for children and adults at a low or no fee. This came in handy for my family when our health insurance did not cover well baby checks and immunizations. Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide those services. Yet, once again, our county health departments are dealing with a funding crisis. They are having to cut programs while Planned Parenthood is building newer and bigger death houses in low income areas in YOUR city. Where are the children they help? Where are the men that they help? They aren’t around because they don’t help them. They either want to kill the children or tell the men that they do not matter and they have no choices when it comes to their Parenthood. Does Planned Parenthood provide PSA tests? Untreated prostate cancer is a killer just like breast cancer if not detected early. The tests are simple but yet not provided by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a corrupt “government” agency. They seek to destroy all life and all of those that defend it. I do not care who is backing them. I will not sit down and shut up and watch this evil descend upon all of us. 

    • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

      Just to correct you on some things, pp does offer services to men. I mean its not like they turn men down for std testing. And a year ago I went with my friend to a clinic, she was getting checked for stds, and they gave her the test free and had brochures on the wall for a myriad of things, and adoption was one of them. Granted, people usually go to pp if they are pregnant for abortions, I’m just pointing out that they do have info in their clinic about adoption, and they do give it out.

      • Erplun1996

        Of course they offer STD testing for men. The CDC demands that those testing positive for STD be logged as a statistic in order to track/monitor. Also when you test positive you are asked to inform your previous sexual partners that need to be tested and/or receive treatment.  I am very familiar with Planned Parenthood. 
        Do you really think that a pamphlet on a wall is going to catch your eye when you’ve just been thrown into an emotional whirlpool? More than likely not. Pamphlets aren’t handed out. They are also not suggested reading material. Do you feel that Planned Parenthood is an organization worth keeping around? 

        • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

          I feel like spreading lies is not a justifiable way to go about changing things. Especially when you’re supposed to be above their level.

          • Erplun1996

            You are right I was recently forwarded a link that shows that they do offer men’s services at selected branches. By no means am I “spreading lies”. I have yet to go into a PP where they offered pregnant women a pamphlet on adoption. I too am speaking out about an issue I feel very passionate about. I have not lied once. Your sentence, “Especially when you’re supposed to be above their level.” puzzles me. Have I ever said that I am above someone else? I’ve reread my statements and I did not catch that. Could you point out that sentence to me please? The issues that we are discussing often get thrown to the side because many decide to make it a personal attack on one another. “Jesus Freaks” “Christian Hypocrites” etc. etc. We aren’t talking about my faith or your faith. We’re talking about an organization and their practices. The practices that I disagree with at the very core of my being. I am not “an idiot” just because of my beliefs and I do not feel that you are an “idiot” because of yours. Lets keep it to the topic. 

          • 12angry_men

            Where did you get the word “idiot” from? And I think the meaning was that if you want to fight an organization that you believe is lying, then you shouldn’t go around spreading false information as well. Hence, stooping to their level. That was my interpretation. 

          • Erplun1996

            Again I apologize for putting misinformation out there. If you notice I did update my original comment. I believe that Planned Parenthood misinforms young mother’s about the stages of development of their unborn child. I also feel that the overall loss of Planned Parenthood as an organization will NOT (capitalized for emphasis only) result in the death of any woman or man for that matter. I feel that the continuation of Planned Parenthood and other clinics that perform abortion services should be closed down. Granted there are services that both Planned Parenthood as well as other abortion clinics provide that are necessary for women and men. However, those services are provided by other organizations that do not perform abortions. I would like to see the money that is being funneled toward Planned Parenthood directed to more community based clinics that provide more necessary and a larger array of services. I am a strong supporter of education programs for children, teens and parents about abstinence. We are not dogs. We can resist the urge to “mate”. Abortion in any form is not and should not be treated as a form of birth control. Teen pregnancy is glamorized. We have young women in high school making pacts to get pregnant. Then when reality hits abortion is brought into the equation. Sex is so casual. Marriage has become disposable. Children are devalued. Christianity is something to be mocked, any faith for that matter. Entitlement programs are something that is expected. The “I’m gonna get you back.” Mentality is every where. Families are fewer. Drive-thrus are the new dinner table. Dulling our senses with medication after medication is the norm. Abortion is birth control. Where are we headed? What is there to be proud of? It saddens me that our president has made the public statement, “No woman should have to have a baby she is not ready for.” If there is a single man or woman that is not ready for a child then do not engage in the activity, sex, that will create that life. Simple. You may find that hilarious. Abstinence, what a joke right. We have a right to have sex. You also have the ability to reason and make choices. Those choices should never involve the taking of a life because that life doesn’t fit into your plan. There are men and women that are in prison because another person in their life did not fit into their plan so they murdered them. Somehow that is a terrible and heinous crime. Yet pulling a baby’s body out of the mother’s feet first and placing an instrument into its skull before delivering the head is not a heinous offense. When someone poisons another person and that poison terminates the life that didn’t fit into their plan, they too go to prison. Because you cannot see something, feel it or touch it does not mean that it does not exist. The beating four chamber heart that I heard when my daughter was 6 weeks is the same beating four chambered heart that I can hear when I snuggle with her. She was not just a clump of cells, she was life. Beautiful and unmistakable life. How can you take a pill that will poison your body enough to cause your uterus to flush its self out and the life you carry along with it? Because you’re scared, because you fear your future, because you feel that you couldn’t be the mother a child needs. Sometimes we do not know our own strength. Should we kill every two year old that may get beaten by their mother’s boyfriend? Should we kill the little 5 year old girl that doesn’t have enough food to eat? Should we kill a little boy that was just diagnosed with cancer? He may die anyway might as well finish him off right? Should we kill a child that may be in a car accident that will leave them with severe brain damage? Of course not, that would be murder. What if that same four chambered heart that they carry inside them after their birth was still inside their mother, should we kill them then? I do not think so. What do you think? Because we cannot gaze upon the face of a child or hear them scream and cry does not mean that they don’t feel pain. That goes back to the if a trees falls in the forest does it make a sound? Yes, Does a child that gets stabbed make a sound? Yes,. Again, just because you physically cannot see it, touch it or hear it does not mean that a child does not exist  I feel that we were meant for so much more then to just go around humping each other indiscriminately and creating a life that is meaningless to us. We do not know what that child’s future holds. We cannot predict with any certainty what will happen based solely on the mother of that child. That child may be exactly what she needed in her life but she will never know because Planned Parenthood has given her the impression that she doesn’t need that child. So this huge, long and very wordy post is now finished. But, all in all this is why I’m Pro-Life in any form life takes. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

       Not everyone has health insurance and not everyone qualifies for medicare.

      • MoonChild02

        That’s fine. Community clinics accept people who don’t have insurance and don’t qualify for medicare/medicaid, as well. I should know, I’m one of those people.

      • Erplun1996

        I understand not having health insurance. My family and I are what is commonly referred to in the world of entitlement programs as “crack people”. Sounds funny I know. What it means is that there are thousands and thousands of families that cannot afford private health insurance when it is not offered by their workplace. They also make just a hair too much to qualify for Medicaid. (I assume you meant Medicaid when you said “Medicare” Medicaid is also referred to as MediCal in California.) Anyway, guess what we have to do? Pay for our medical expenses out of pocket. A primary care physician visit is $65. Primary care doctors can provide PAP smears, pelvic exams, breast exams, etc. etc. (I’ve gone through this already). Do not assume for a minute that I do not know what it is like to be poor. I’ve run out of gas at a food pantry before. I’ve lived in places where there was grass growing up through the cracks in the flood. Anyway, as I mentioned in my original post there are thousands of low income and sliding scale clinics in every state. Contact any local Non-Profit organization and they can direct you to where you can receive care at low or no cost to you.  There are physicians that agree to take jobs in areas deemed under served in order to have a portion of their student loans paid.  Those clinics also provide care on a sliding scale. There are alternatives to Planned Parenthood. No woman is going to die if Planned Parenthood folds. That is just more lies and propaganda that is being spoon fed to our young and impressionable women and men. If you are truly a feminist and truly wanting to stand up for women’s rights then back an organization that works toward the good for women. Planned Parenthood shatters lives. If they didn’t then there would not be organizations like Silent No More and Rachel’s Vineyards. You go to a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat and stand there and convince all of those women and men how “awesome” Planned Parenthood is. I bet you’ll see more pain and hurt then you ever imagined possible. Talk to the mother’s and father’s of young men and women that have killed themselves because of the emotional pain and guilt they had after an abortion. Tell them how many women’s lives Planned Parenthood is saving. Women are dying BECAUSE of Planned Parenthood. In some states the physicians that perform abortions are no legally obligated to maintain “rights” (meaning they can see patients inside a particular hospital which costs the physician money) at a hospital in the vicinity of the clinic where they perform abortions. This is because the hospital emergency rooms had several women that had come in post-abortion and were having difficulties. The physicians that performed the surgical abortions accepted no responsibility and refused further care after the abortion. In one instance that I know of a young woman after her abortion died when she became septic due to the remaining fetal tissue inside her uterus. Read, study, listen! Make an informed choice about what you believe in. 
         

    • 12angry_men
      • Erplun1996

        Thank you for the link. I stand corrected. 

    • Erplun1996

      Per Planned Parenthood’s website they do offer men’s health services. It is only at selected clinics. I will be calling a clinic tomorrow to find out if they offer those services in house or if they only offer referrals. I’m curious. Thank you 12angry_men for your link. 

      • Erplun1996

        The local Planned Parenthood in my area, again this is just the 1 clinic that I called in my area, only offers referrals to physicians that can perform any and all cancer screenings for men. They will set up an appointment to discuss with the NP the problems that the man is having and decide then if they need the referral. I asked twice if there was a fee for that appointment and she either did not hear me each time or she was avoiding the question. It sounded busy in the background. I did make it clear I was just calling for information so she may have been suspicious of my questioning as well. Who knows? 

  • Halerit

    Abortion is a terrible thing and I won’t take part in thinkin it’s ok just cuz some ignorant jerk is in high power. It just gives me one more reason to dislike him even more.

  • Nobody

    Meh. I’d rather be “pro-abortion” than “anti-choice”.

    Re: taxation.  Disagreement with the use of tax funds is not justification for not paying taxes.  Ask any of the anti-war liberals if choosing to not pay taxes worked out well for them.

    • scragsma

      “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” are in themselves meaningless terms. They gain substance only when put into context, i.e., once you define what “choice” you’re talking about. If the “choice” is to save a human life or to kill it, both natural law and stated law require that saving it is right, and killing it is wrong. Abortion is, by definition, the taking of a human life. Yet you prefer to be “pro-abortion”?? I pray you will evolve and become truly human some day.

      • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

        And I pray that some day you will see the light and not condemn your fellow human beings who disagree with you as less than human.

        • Nobody

          Well said!

        • Erplun1996

          I’m inclined to agree with you. The issue is not with each other as individuals. The issue is life. We cannot condemn each other and expect to get anything accomplished. Personal attacks are useless and non-productive. 

      • Nobody

        Mwuhahahaha!!!!!!!

        Seriously though – we disagree about what techniques are appropriate to control reproduction.  You needn’t get worked up into a tizzy – and calling people sub-human – because someone disagrees that destroying a zygote is totally the same as killing a fully-formed human.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

          “…because someone disagrees that destroying a zygote is totally the same as killing a fully-formed human.”

          Unless the abortion is miraculously being performed at around 5 days after conception, it is not a zygote that is being destroyed. Generally, the correct medical term is fetus, unless the abortion is done before about the 8th week, when it would still, technically, be an embryo.

          To those of us who value it as a life, no matter the stage of development, it is a baby. Destroying that life, no matter what you chose to call the life, is terrible.

          Just for fun:
          “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Dr. Seuss (Horton Hears A Who)

          • Nobody

            For the purposes of the argument: zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in early stages of development are all strongly distinct from fully-formed humans.  (Yes, I understand they share increasing similarity as development proceeds).

            We simply disagree about when the value of that life outweighs the value of the mother’s will.  I do not accept as axiomatic that destroying life before birth is always terrible.

            If you can present a logical argument as to why I should believe that, then I may be inclined to change my view.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

            Enlighten me. How are they “strongly distinct” from “fully-formed” humans? And how would you define fully-formed. A human does not reach their full developmental potential until adolescence or later, so what is your justification for ending their life before birth as opposed to after? Do they somehow become more fully-formed by traveling down the birth canal?

            Just curious as to your views.

            We do, clearly, disagree about the value of life. I value a life from its beginning, regardless of its developmental stage. If you do not share my views on life as precious and valuable at any stage, then nothing I can say will change your mind.

            I only hope that your heart may be softened toward the most precious and helpless lives so that you may at least see where we are coming from. A life is a life, there should be no need to qualify the termination of any such life at any stage.

          • Erplun1996

            In order to present a logical argument can you tell me at what stage you believe that life has value? I would simply like to know where you stand first. Can you also give me an idea of you feelings toward partial-birth abortion? Thank you. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

          “…because someone disagrees that destroying a zygote is totally the same as killing a fully-formed human.”

          Unless the abortion is miraculously being performed at around 5 days after conception, it is not a zygote that is being destroyed. Generally, the correct medical term is fetus, unless the abortion is done before about the 8th week, when it would still, technically, be an embryo.

          To those of us who value it as a life, no matter the stage of development, it is a baby. Destroying that life, no matter what you chose to call the life, is terrible.

          Just for fun:
          “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Dr. Seuss (Horton Hears A Who)

  • Oedipa Mossmoon

    “The president is a mystery to me”

    I suggest you try a little harder. Maybe you’re not old enough to remember the Clinton presidency, but he supported abortion rights, too. It’s kind of what Democrats do. It’s kind of what some Republicans do, too (Olympia Snowe, Christie Todd Whitman, Matt Kirk, Susan Collins, Chris Shays, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Lisa Murkowski, to name a few). George W. Bush, his dad, Ronald Reagan, Gerry ford, Richard Nixon and every Republican candidate for president (until Willard “it’s gone” Romney) has supported funding Planned Parenthood.

    So this issue shouldn’t be such a “mystery”. Methinks this puts you in the crowd of Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers who can’t recognize a thoroughly moderate politician when you see one, because you’ve gotten so used to suckling of the ideolgical teet of a party that has gone off the rails. If you put Obama in a time machine and punched in 1972, he could run *to the right* of the aforementioned Richard Nixon. Get some context.

    • Oedipa Mossmoon

      Every Republican *nominee* for President since 1970, up to and until Romney, I should clarify, before the literalists get their panties in a twist,

    • Guest

      Please refresh my memory, as I don’t remember all of those presidencies (though I’m interested in this topic).  Do you have links to the promo videos that each of these presidents and candidates made for Planned Parenthood?  Surely they would exist if they were tied to Planned Parenthood as tightly as Obama is.  After all, Planned Parenthood was far less controversial then.  It’s not like they had been caught on tape aiding and abetting child exploitation.  Making a video for Planned Parenthood would be just like making a video for the Red Cross.  And if I recall correctly, there were tighter restrictions on how Title X funds could be designated prior to the Clinton presidency.  There’s also this thing called the “Mexico City Policy”, which stopped the International Planned Parenthood Federation from receiving taxpayer funds.  It was introduced by Reagan and renewed by Bush 41 and 43.

      The time, and relative state of the pro-life movement, are also important context (as is the sometimes hostile congress that the president has to work through).  The major legislative goals of the pro-life movement were quite different during each of those presidencies.  To say that the Republican Party has “gone off the rails” for supporting bolder pro-life legislation would be like saying the Democratic Party has “gone off the rails” for starting to embrace same-sex marriage (unthinkable during the 20th Century).  Additionally, some Democrats don’t support abortion rights.  Remember Robert P. Casey?  I think it’s disingenuous for people on either side of the issue to portray it as a strictly partisan matter.  You seem to like framing the pro-life side as something that only the nuttiest Republicans would support, not something that’s fairly mainstream across the political spectrum.

      Obama opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, parental notification for minors, and even (state level) legislation to protect infants born alive after a failed late-term abortion.  The latter was identical to a bill that the Senate passed unanimously.  Even the dreaded Barbara Boxer voted for it.

      http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/national-right-life-committee/2003-legislation-had-neutrality-clause/

      Obama is unquestionably more extreme on the abortion issue than the presumed GOP nominee.  There are nine “common ground” policies identified by Gallup.  These are policies that a majority of self-described pro-life adults support as well as a majority of self-described pro-choice adults.  Obama opposes many of them (which could be considered an “extreme” position).  As far as I know, Romney supports all of them.  Romney also supports policies that only pro-life adults favour (and likewise for Obama and pro-choice Americans), but these are not extremist positions:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx

      If Obama is what you would consider a thoroughly moderate abortion-rights politician, I shudder to think about what an extremely pro-abortion politician would look like.

      • Oedipa

        Thanks for making my own point for me (Obama *could* run to the Right of Nixon). I mean, Nixon’d get the paranoid racist vote, sure. But the guy gave birth to the EPA, Title X, brought Planned Parenthood into the federal bosom, fostered OSHA and the Clean Air Act and damn near got together with Teddy Kennedy to implement single-payer National Health Insurance. He’d be tarred and feathered by the Republican Party today.

        Which, I guess, is the point of your post below. I acknowledge things have changed over time and that there’s been an ideological drift to the right for both parties. That, again, just undergirds my point. If the right has moved to the right and the left has moved to the right, that puts the left closer to moderation, no matter what you may think of one given politician in that party.

        Speaking of that one given politician … beyond the ACA minimum standard of care that has contraceptive opponents pulling their hair out, Obama has largely left the abortion status quo in place (making an internet video, while it may offend your sensibilities, doesn’t really effect policy). Who, oh who, is out there *not* leaving the abortion status quo in place? Let me count the state legislatures: Virginia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, and Utah. It’s that pattern of retrograde policies that lead me to say their party has gone off the rails. And the Gallup poll I’ve been pointing people to confirms this. If the 19th amendment were never adopted, Romney would have a slim lead right now. But, alas, womenfolk can vote. And he’s behind by 18 points among women in general and by 30 points among 50-and-under women. The Gallup poll link you’re pointing people to, I’m afraid, is being mis-interpreted by you. It doesn’t seek to define “extremism” as you’d suggest, it seeks to define “common ground” between polar positions. Not easy to overlay that onto a single political career and come up with your conclusion.

        Lastly, that Illinois state-house vote that’s in every right-winger’s craw. It’s also mis-interpreted (or mis-used). There was language in it he identified as deliberately confrontational to Roe. He’s been clear that he would have supported the federal version, which was cleaner, and free of the activist-born booby traps in it that taint a lot of the laws in the statehouses I listed above.

        • Guest

          I disagree that both parties have “moved to the right”.  Introducing Obamacare and becoming more supportive of same-sex marriage are not right-wing positions, nor are they status-quo.  Yet the Democratic Party is moving in this direction.  I also don’t see them giving up anything on the abortion issue (hence both parties can’t really be moving to the right if one of them is virtually stationary).  Jimmy Carter and even a pro-choice Catholic group recommended it, but to date it hasn’t happened.  A more reasonable explanation is that politicians are actually listening to the constituents that put them there, and are living up to their promises instead of just talking about them.  Public opinion also changes, which politicians hopefully take into account when passing laws.  This involves moving to the “left” on some issues, and the “right” on others.

          Obama has changed abortion policy more than you think.  This includes repealing the Mexico City Policy and mandating taxpayer funded abortions in DC:

          http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

          The “status quo” on abortion was introduced by seven unelected judges, resulting in the USA being one of the few nations with virtually no legal restrictions on abortion.  “Status quo” does not equal “moderate”, especially when the voters have no say in writing the policy.

          Isn’t “common ground” the opposite of extremism?  Thus opposing common ground means supporting extreme policies?  An opinion poll would logically be the best way of determining which positions are moderate (exceptions for rape and incest, parental consent), which are extreme (partial-birth and late-term abortions), and which are merely controversial (first trimester abortions, Planned Parenthood funding, compulsory ultrasounds).  I’m not saying that “moderate” is the same as “correct”.  I would oppose one of the common ground policies (abortion legal in cases of rape or incest), but I wouldn’t try to call this a moderate stance.  That would be dishonest.

          Yes, repeating the “War on Women” rhetoric ad-nauseum has certainly created at least a short-term gender gap.  But I personally find it highly unlikely that this will be the deciding issue in the long run.  As Gallup reported, birth control (despite the extensive media coverage) isn’t voters’ most important concern:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/153689/Voters-Top-Election-Issues-Don-Include-Birth-Control.aspx

          Women aren’t much more likely than men to support the Obama Administration’s position on contraception:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/152963/Contraception-Debate-Divides-Americans-Including-Women.aspx

          Gender differences are also trivial regarding opinion on abortion:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx

          The 2010 elections also involved women coming to the polls and getting rid of a very abortion-friendly Speaker of the House (the first woman ever to be handed the gavel).  Maybe Nikki Haley (who Democrats once compared to Snooki) had a point when she said that women actually care about things other than contraception.  I don’t think the 683000 jobs lost by women (vs 740000 total jobs) is something for Obama’s campaign to be looking forward to (especially given the rather dismal jobs report from last month).  Whining about an imaginary “War on Women” isn’t going to put these women back to work.

          You’re particularly fond of the term “retrograde policies”.  Lila Rose said it better than I can:

          “We don’t wish to take the country back in time; rather, we aspire to
          move it forward, beyond a time when women are treated as objects and
          pitted against their children and their religious institution”
          Lastly, those Illinois state-house votes (plural) every Obama backer would like everyone to forget.  The 2001 and 2002 versions were different.  He could make a reasonable case that he would sooner allow an abortionist to throw a born infant in a closet to die than allow a distant, hypothetical challenge to abortion on demand.  However, the 2003 version was different.  He voted against something virtually identical to the federal version.  Please review the two links I gave you.  What he says he supports is quite different from how he actually voted.

          • Oedipa

            I can’t unpack all of that, but here’s some bullet points:

            Obamacare: actually a conservative idea. Heritage Foundation. Insurance-friendly. Republicans adopted it because Hillarycare freaked them out.

            Gay Marriage: you’re correct. But D’s have learned standing up for social liberalism is inexpensive. The party has pretty much abandoned economic liberalism for a center-right, corporate-friendly stance.

            Mexico City policy: Reagan instituted it, Clinton repealed it, Bush instituted it, Obama repealed it. Expect to see more of the same going forward. Shouldn’t be a “mystery”, nor proof of extremism.

            Status quo: isn’t just by it’s nature “moderation”, you’re right. But I’ll tell you what is. The concept of stare decisis.

            Common ground: no, lack of it does not equal extremism. You’re trying to make that poll do things it doesn’t want to do.

            War on women: is just “whining”? Kiss-offs like that (or like Mr. Priebus’s) will not turn the tide for you. Neither will Romney’s highly misleading jobs numbers you regurgitate. PolitiFact called them “mostly false”.

            Nikki Haley: Oh! We’re holding individual local party operatives accountable for what they say? Can I use the MT judge who joked about Obama being the offspring of a dog? Or the CA mayor who created a postcard with watermelons growing on the WH lawn? Or the lady at the Santorum event (at a shooting range) who, whilst Rick was aiming at a target, suggested he “pretend it’s Obama”? I’ve got more …

            Illinois: always going unsaid is that there were already laws on the books that should have satisfied people who cared about the issue. Ms. Stanek rode that hobby horse as far as she could in Illinois. Maybe she should have rode it to Alabama or Mississippi.

          • Guest

            Obamacare: Maybe not the best example then.  Though if it’s a conservative idea and Republicans stopped liking it, doesn’t that mean that they’re moving to the left?

            Mexico City policy: I was using it as an example of Obama changing the status quo (a necessary requirement to repealing it), which you left out of your description.  I didn’t say that this was an extreme position (though it certainly could be, looking at the poll numbers).

            Status quo: The concept of stare decisis could have been used to leave racial segregation intact.  But judicial restraint is a different issue.  You’ve conceded that adhering to the status quo isn’t always a moderate position, which is good enough for me.

            Common ground: Interestingly enough, Obama spent a large amount of time talking about “common ground” (probably to hide his rather extreme voting record).  I don’t know how else to define moderate vs. radical.  If someone opposes several positions taken by huge majorities on both sides of a controversial issue, they are not a moderate.

            War on women: “Whining” is actually a pretty nice way of putting it given some of the tasteless behaviour abortion proponents have displayed.  No, nothing I say is likely to turn the tide.  As far as you know, I’m not Oprah Winfrey or Rush Limbaugh.  I don’t have a massive media platform to use to try to change minds.  The job numbers are not misleading.  Politifact took issue with Romney linking them to Obama’s policies.  Notice that I didn’t do this.  I simply stated that lots of women lost their jobs, something that is in fact going to be a major issue for women voters (as shown by Gallup) whether or not it’s actually Obama’s fault.

            Nikki Haley: I was simply pointing out that Democratic politicians have also made some rather misogynistic comments (which means that Republicans can’t be the only ones waging a “war on women”, if there actually is a war to begin with).  I have plenty of stupid quotes from politicians on both sides of the aisle (ie equating rape with getting a flat tire).

            Illinois: There were laws on the books, but apparently they had enough loopholes to keep a form of infanticide legal and practiced in the state.  And I might not be the most objective person on this issue, but I would think that a “thoroughly moderate politician” would at least err on the side of protecting a born infant.

          • Oedipa

            I just want to say this about Romney’s job numbers. Men were the bleeding edge of the recession (they usually are, as they make up a lot of construction and intensive labor). They also had the most severe dip if you look at the charts. Women suffered later because the industries they represent were lagging indicators. Now that the economy is on the mend, men’s employment is a leading indicator, and they’ve damn near got back to level employment compared to where the recession began. Women are behind that by a wide margin.

            So Romney is taking the slice he wants to take out of that chart, which is with men almost back to neutral, and women behind, and TA!DA! you get his bogus number, when men actually, overall, had a worse recession (what ever happened to that phrase “mancession”, anyway?).

          • Guest

            I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that.  But whatever the reason, women voters aren’t going to be happy about returning an incumbent president when they’re out of work.

    • Guest

      By the way, you would probably do well to avoid talking about Nixon’s views on abortion and Planned Parenthood, especially when comparing him to Obama:

      http://www.jillstanek.com/2009/06/nixon-would-have-aborted-obama/

      • Oedipa

        Thanks for making my own point for me (Obama *could* run to the Right of Nixon). I mean, Nixon’d get the paranoid racist vote, sure. But the guy gave birth to the EPA, Title X, brought Planned Parenthood into the federal bosom, fostered OSHA and the Clean Air Act and damn near got together with Teddy Kennedy to implement single-payer National Health Insurance. He’d be tarred and feathered by the Republican Party today.

        Which, I guess, is the point of your post below. I acknowledge things have changed over time and that there’s been an ideological drift to the right for both parties. That, again, just undergirds my point. If the right has moved to the right and the left has moved to the right, that puts the left closer to moderation, no matter what you may think of one given politician in that party.

        Speaking of that one given politician … beyond the ACA minimum standard of care that has contraceptive opponents pulling their hair out, Obama has largely left the abortion status quo in place (making an internet video, while it may offend your sensibilities, doesn’t really effect policy). Who, oh who, is out there *not* leaving the abortion status quo in place? Let me count the state legislatures: Virginia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, and Utah. It’s that pattern of retrograde policies that lead me to say their party has gone off the rails. And the Gallup poll I’ve been pointing people to confirms this. If the 19th amendment were never adopted, Romney would have a slim lead right now. But, alas, womenfolk can vote. And he’s behind by 18 points among women in general and by 30 points among 50-and-under women. The Gallup poll link you’re pointing people to, I’m afraid, is being mis-interpreted by you. It doesn’t seek to define “extremism” as you’d suggest, it seeks to define “common ground” between polar positions. Not easy to overlay that onto a single political career and come up with your conclusion.

        Lastly, that Illinois state-house vote that’s in every right-winger’s craw. It’s also mis-interpreted (or mis-used). There was language in it he identified as deliberately confrontational to Roe. He’s been clear that he would have supported the federal version, which was cleaner, and free of the activist-born booby traps in it that taint a lot of the laws in the statehouses I listed above.

    • MoonChild02

      Maybe you’re not old enough to remember the Clinton presidency, but he supported abortion rights, too. It’s kind of what Democrats do.

      Maybe Clinton, and maybe most Democrats in power, but not all Democrats are for abortion. My family and I certainly are not. We’re for immigration reform, green living, local small business support, and against the death penalty, unjust war, and Reaganomics, etc. We just happen to believe in religious rights and the right to life.

      Also see http://www.democratsforlife.org/

      • Oedipa

        Understood. But I don’t know how pointing out pro-life Democrats undermines my larger point. That Obama isn’t a mystery. Nor a marxist, nor a radical. He is what he campaigned as. A moderate Democrat.

  • Pingback: Have you heard? Cecile Richards and NARAL “have the President’s back.”

  • Pingback: Have you heard? Cecile Richards and NARAL “have the president’s back.” | Live Action News & Opinion « A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Pingback: A Message to Pro-Choicers about Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood

  • Pingback: President Obama Makes False Claim That Planned Parenthood Provides Mammograms in Glamour Magazine

  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood Does Not Provide Mammograms, No Matter What Obama Says | The Lonely Conservative