Obama, on 38th Anniversary of Roe, re-re-recommits himself to abortion … again

With brutal predictability, President Obama re-re-recommitted himself to unconditional abortion rights over this past weekend which witnessed the 38th anniversary or Roe v. Wade (emphasis mine):

“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.  I am committed to protecting this constitutional right.  I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.  And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” [WhiteHouse.gov]

Remember the context in which the President has chosen to re-re-recommit himself to unlimited abortion-on-demand:

In the wake of the findings that 41% of pregnancies in New York City now end in abortion.

In the wake of 53+ million children having been legally killed since Roe v. Wade.

In the wake of promising Catholics across the country that he was committed to “dialogue” on the abortion issue, when he clearly never intends to change his views.

In the wake of the unspeakable horrors committed by late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, an extreme method of killing the unborn (and in the case of Dr. Kermit, the born alive) which the President has previously defended unambiguously.

As hundreds of thousands of young people brave some of DC’s worst winter cold today on the national mall, we need to get serious about democratically removing those who are sitting in the warmth of the Oval Office and continue to carry on Roe’s lethal legacy.

On this topic, Dr. Morse writes today at the Public Discourse that pro-lifers are “Marching on the Right Side of History” and Bishop Finn preaches that “Law Should Protect Life.”

1,178 views

Categories:Uncategorized

24 thoughts on “Obama, on 38th Anniversary of Roe, re-re-recommits himself to abortion … again

  1. greg smith says:

    Sharkman: I agree with all your points. My concern is that it appears to me that the vast majority of prolife resources are going into a “Reverse Roe” legal strategy and very few resources (peoples time, money, public exposure).
    are going into convincing women to not have abortions. Thomas knows I sound like a broken record, constantly pushing for the Pregnant Woman’s Support Act and a national second collection for Birthright and similar groups, but both seem like a logical start. I’m bouyed by seeing Archbishop Dolan taking action to address the 41% (!) abortion rate in his city. If he can show a dramatic reduction in a year or three, his USCCB coleagues may be inclined to put some energy into folowing his lead.

  2. Brian English says:

    ” I believe the USCCB’s and in fact the prolife movement’s focus on Roe v Wade and other strategies using the criminal sanction of the State has been tragically misguided. Reversal of Roe would return the matter to the states.”

    You cannot separate the two aspects of the prolife movement. Yes, we have to try to persuade women to have their babies, but at the same time we cannot tolerate the enshrining of a right to abortion in the Constitution.

    Getting the abortion issue back to the states will create accountability. The voters of each state will get their say on this issue. Some will choose to retain liberal abortion laws (which was also the case before Roe), while others (hopefully most) will reject that great evil.

    The voters of states that become meccas for those seeking abortions will have no one to blame but themselves. They will have chosen to tolerate evil.

    1. GREG SMITH says:

      Brian: Marine Corps Management Principle #13 says “Manage to an end state and intent.” My desired end state is a drastic reduction in the number of abortions as quickly as possible. BTW – I’m wondering what % of pro-life resources have gone into political advocacy (Something the American Church IMHO isn’t very good at) vs. Social Services for women in so called “crisis pregnancies” (something it IS very good at) Finally, state lines mean very little in this discussion. See my hypothetical girl in Mississippi. Sadly, most voters on the East and West coasts will see becoming an abortion “mecca” as boost for the economy.

      1. Brian English says:

        ” Finally, state lines mean very little in this discussion. See my hypothetical girl in Mississippi. Sadly, most voters on the East and West coasts will see becoming an abortion “mecca” as boost for the economy.”

        Actually, I think they mean a great deal.

        First, as I point out in my original post, I think it is very important that states will have to go on record on this issue. I think most states will ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest (less than 1% of the total) and situations where the mother’s life is legitimately in danger (virtually non-existant today). If the coasts want to retain barbarism, that is far better than the whole country being subjected to the morality of the coasts.

        Second, ease of travel between states and access to information actually moot one of the pro-abortion crowds favorite arguments — if abortion is banned women will be forced into back-alley abortions. If a woman is adamant that she wants to destroy her unborn child, taking a short trip to accomplish that goal hardly appears to be an undue burden.

        Third, while I understand that a direct “hearts and minds” campaign is faster than overturning Roe, I think such a campaign has been underway for years. The problem I see is that the legal sanction for abortion has degraded morality. The existence of Roe has changed the culture. A vital step in reversing that decline is to have a majority of states declare that abortion is an evil they will not tolerate.

        1. GREG SMITH says:

          Brian : My argument is NOT that a hearts and minds compaign hasn’t been tried. Simply that it has been under resourced and subordinate to our fixation on Roe v. Wade. Please recall that there have been long periods when we had a Republican Majority in both houses AND five Catholics, nominated by Republican Presidents on the s Supreme Court. While I doubt,that a majority of the states (i.e. 26) might re crinminalize, the states with the majority of the populace would almost surely be among the ones that woulden’t. Your objective seems to have a morally nice culture. If, and it’s a big if, which won’t come soon, Roe is overturned, we’ll still have a country where thousands of babies are aborted each day. Time to change strategy!

          1. Brian English says:

            “My argument is NOT that a hearts and minds compaign hasn’t been tried. Simply that it has been under resourced and subordinate to our fixation on Roe v. Wade.”

            What do you base that on?

            “Please recall that there have been long periods when we had a Republican Majority in both houses AND five Catholics, nominated by Republican Presidents on the s Supreme Court.”

            Unfortunately, one of the five was Anthony Kennedy. Ironically, if a then-atheist Robert Bork had been confirmed to the Court instead of Kennedy, Roe likely would have been overturned almost 20 years ago. The real issue is judicial theory, not religion. Sotomayor is Catholic but I am not counting on her for anything.

            Having a majority in the Senate is not enough. You need at least 55 so that strong Original Intent Justices like Roberts and Alito can be confirmed, instead of reeds like Kennedy.

            “Your objective seems to have a morally nice culture.”

            Well, what would you approach achieve?

          2. Greg Smith says:

            ” …what would you approach achieve?” If done right, a 90%
            reduction in the abortions in the United States within ten years.

          3. Greg Smith says:

            To my Dislikes: You don’t want a 90% reduction in US abortions in 10 years? You don’t believe it’s possible? You believe recriminalization will cause a greater drop, faster? Do tell.

  3. debrr says:

    We must remember who we are dealing with here. Our president told us before he was elected that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished” by a bad choice. In other words he would want his daughters to kill his own grandchildren if it wasn’t a convient time to have a baby. Of course murdering your own family members is a “private family matter”, I guess we should make it legal for there to be “honor killing” because that is a private family matter as well. This is the man who thinks that it is okay to let a baby who survives a botched abortion lie on a table or in a trash can and die without giving it any medical attention. After all the end is the same, a dead baby, so what does it matter how you get there. Isn’t interesting that there has been no comment from the White House about the abortionist in PA. The silence is speaking for itself.

  4. Tom says:

    …In the mean time, the National Catholic Reporter posted a longwinded interview with a “philosopher” arguing that babies in the womb are not really “persons”

    http://ncronline.org/news/abortion-policys-legal-and-moral-realities

    Combox comments, as expected, are mostly for this.
    Please take the time to counter these arguments (chances are that the NCRep will “delay” or censor such comments, but please try anyway).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.