Posted on 05/24/2009 8:05:43 AM PDT by markomalley
Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about. About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.” But the most important point that came from the meeting was perhaps a slip from an Obama aide.
It revealed that what many people believe -- including high-profile pro-life leaders who support Obama -- is sorely wrong.
Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They'll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.
But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.
Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.
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.”
Well, this raises a lot of questions.
If you reduce the need, doesn't it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you've reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?
Note what Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame:
“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking 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.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that Democrats, after losing the presidential election, began rethinking their harsh, no compromise stance on abortion. Their solution?
Change their language but not their position.
The LA Times interviewed me on this strategy and reported: “Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that ‘it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing -- really, to trick people.’”
Howard Dean, then head of the Democratic National Committee, validated my concern. He told NBC's Tim Russert: "We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles."
By all his actions so far, Obama is following this plan.
Obama needs to be honest with Americans. Is it true that it is not his goal to reduce the number of abortions?
More importantly, will he do anything that will reduce abortions? Actions are far more important than words.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Obama, the grown-up baby, is a punishment on all of us.
Delivered on us by a bare majority intent on teaching us
a “lesson”.
And old people better start watching their backs as well. This man is “an agent of death”. From the unborn, to the handicapped, to the elderly, to the political dissident.
People don't "need" abortions.... they "want" abortions. This is just another way to duck accountability. Focus on policy that isn't tangible, and use propaganda to win the debate. It's too bad that Notre Dame has become Obama's crown jewel in propaganda on this issue.
I am reading 1984 and Doublespeak is what 0 is doing. He calls it Abortionspeak
Since abortion is murder it seems like reducing abortions is an admirable goal.
If your looking for common ground it seems like parsing over phraseology is accomplishing about as much as two baboons picking at fleas.
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a graduation ceremony at an Ivy league Med School. The commencement speaker was a female doctor who's an expert in aging. She serves on one of Obama's health care panels. The entire speech was an Obama propaganda campaign speech. The way she addressed dealing with issues of aging sent chills throughout the members of my family who got it.
Yeah, O is the master at ducking accountability... and double speak is the main tool in his box.
>> Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”
>> The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”
To emphasize the idiocy of Melody’s remarks, replace the word ‘abortion’ with some other depraved form of behavior. For example, try substituting each of the following words in place of the word ‘abortion’ above in Melody’s statements: robbery, child abuse, racism, murder, rape.
Don’t like those choices? Try: discrimination, ‘hate speech’, ‘carbon emissions’.
He should have replied, "Well why didn't Obama just say that at Notre Dame?"
It's the best way to save Medicare and Social Security. (/s)
Imagine that!
Who would’ve thought?
/sarc
In February 2004, US Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law (prohibiting doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls).
Michelle Obama called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure. " She urged supporters to pay $150 to attend a fund-raising luncheon for her husband, who she promised would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it.
BACKGROUND Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted. BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote.
Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery. The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. Obama worried aloud that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
BAIPA passed in 2005.........after Obama left.
I don’t know if you have seen the big picture yet. These animals have decided (on their own), that the world can only sustain one to two billion people. What to do about the other 5 billion? Get rid of them by various methods—one is to abort future generations. All of this is related to the Eugenics program that was designed in the 1850’s—and adopted as Hitler’s New World Order.
The list, ping
Reducing the need for abortions is easy ,Sterilisation. Lets start that program tomorrow.
People here are still scratching their heads wondering how Hitler could have come to power with his intentions unrecognized.
Yeah, just mark me down as one of those “domestic terrorists” who can see right through this thug and his various minions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.