Obama’s Goal Is To Reduce Abortions…..Or Is It?

Loading

First, check out this video: (h/t Hot Air)

Good video.

Now, remember these words spoken by Obama at Notre Dame?

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions

Nice and sweet eh? You would think this statement means that they want to REDUCE the number of abortions.

But if you thought that you would be wrong. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, met with Obama aides at the White House a few days before the speech with dozens of others who had different views of abortion.

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.”

Huh? If you reduce the need then the number of abortions are reduced. Just plain ole common sense. As Wendy asks in the article, is he ok then with unneeded abortions?

Wendy describes why this exchange came about. In a nutshell….abortion groups understood they needed to soften their no compromise stance on abortion after the 2004 election. What did they do? Changed the language, not their policy:

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.

As usual, Obama is all talk. Elequoent speeches with flowery language intended to say nothing but evoke emotion. And this is exactly what we are getting on the abortion issue…..same ole, same ole.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Eugenics, abort the young, kill the old — Instant super race with lots of health care savings.

It’s Always About Sex (And Babies)_

When and if we ever get honest about it, we will understand abortion and all of our “culture war issues” are always about sex! Until we get “sex right”, we can forget any chance of “reduced abortions.”

It comes up during every presidential election. Eight years ago, during the Bush-Gore “chad saga,” Francis Fukuyama, professor of public policy at George Mason University, summarized it well in his Wall Street Journal article entitled “What Divides America.” The real debate, he argued, is not over foreign policy or the economy. The real issues, he said, stem from our understanding of and approach to sex.

He wrote: “The single most important social change to have taken place in the United States over the past forty years concerns sex and the social role of women, and it is from this single source that virtually all of the ‘culture wars’ stem. Uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge this fact, the breakdown of the nuclear family, reflected in rising divorce rates, illegitimacy and cohabitation in place of marriage, stems from … the separation of sex from reproduction thanks to birth control and abortion” (Wall Street Journal; Nov 15, 2000, p. A26).

One need look no further than Obama’s actions (and Michelle who works it behind the scenes) to know how anti-life the Obamas are. Wasn’t it Emerson who said “Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you are saying?”

As for the Vatican, I’ve noticed myself how “south” that “official” paper has become. George Weigel clears up the confusion today in his piece.

The first thing one learns in Vaticanology 101 is that there is no such thing as “the Vatican.” The Holy See is as complex and confused a bureaucracy as one finds in national governments. Many points of view coexist within the Vatican walls, and there are more than a few curialists who like to talk to reporters. Very few if any of these chatty people count, in terms of expressing the settled judgment of the senior leadership of the Catholic Church
[…]
In the normal course of events, L’Osservatore Romano does not speak authoritatively for the Church in matters of faith, morals, or public-policy judgment. The exceptions are when a senior churchman offers a commentary on a recent papal document (an encyclical, for instance), or on those exceedingly rare occasions when an editorial in the paper is followed by three dots, or periods, a traditional convention signaling that the opinion being expressed is from “high authority.”
[…]
In the normal course of events, L’Osservatore Romano does not speak authoritatively for the Church in matters of faith, morals, or public-policy judgment. The exceptions are when a senior churchman offers a commentary on a recent papal document (an encyclical, for instance), or on those exceedingly rare occasions when an editorial in the paper is followed by three dots, or periods, a traditional convention signaling that the opinion being expressed is from “high authority.”

I never knew about the “dots”—cool!

Back to the “reduce abortions”, it never fails to astound me how much they play us for stupid. What reason, other than “it can’t be good”, would there be to “reduce the number of anything?” That would be like me saying, “You know, I’m not for slavery, but I’m sure glad they “reduced” the number of slaves over the years. C’mon! If there wasn’t anything evil about abortion we wouldn’t need to “reduce” anything.

Too bad most don’t even want to debate (at least honestly) these cultural issues, let alone make them a “burden” of the GOP platform. After all, that’s why Sarah Palin was so scary!

Just think, if we ever get sex right (fat chance), culture wars won’t even exist anymore. Then what will fight about? Imagine!

my post (#2) went to spamland; thanks.

That the stated goal and the real goal differ should surprise no one with regard to Obama.

This is ironic that this topic is here today, as I was discussing this with someone just last night. I was saying that the foster care system is so overburdened, from what I understand, and we wondered how many of those children in the system, went into the system as babies. My question then, was, why aren’t those babies adopted when so many responsible people want to adopt a newborn? We remembered how difficult it is for adoptions in the U.S. so parents have to go to another country to adopt. I’ve known a few acquaintances that have done that. Do you think that the adoption process being so difficult here in the U.S. would discourage those with an unwanted pregnancy so they think to themselves that an abortion is the easier route?? Why are adoptions made to be so difficult here?? Is it simply an agenda to encourage more abortions? If so, why?

I’m just thinking aloud here, so I’m probably not being super clear on my questions…it’s just a small revelation I just had last night, so still working through it. I’m open to others’ knowledge on the topic.

@SoCal Chris:

I’d assume that the reason there are strict adoption rules is because ideally we want the baby/child to go to a good home, not just to anyone who wants a baby/child.

Now, having not researched the adoption industry at all, I have no idea what are the requirements and rules for allowing a couple to adopt a baby/child. I imagine there must be

* proof of the parents being good people and a stable married couple,
* proof that the couple can afford the baby/child,
* proof that the couple has a good residence to care for the child,
* proof that the couple has a plan to raise the child as far as schooling and religion (or lack thereof), etc.,
* references from friends, relatives, etc that all the proof the couple has provided is legitimate

That’s just off the top of my head of what I would expect. I have no idea if those are the requirements or not. But, considering the family structure and culture in this country has been torn down for decades now, I imagine that not too many families would meet all the criteria to adopt, what with attitudes about marriage and staying married getting worse all the time, that would eliminate many couples right off the bat. Then, of course, there is the money issue, especially in today’s economy (which doesn’t look to be getting better anytime soon, with even married couples now deciding to put off having their own children for financial reasons).

The decision I guess that needs to be made is do adoption agencies lower their standards to allow more babies/children to be adopted, since that is obviously better than babies being killed in abortions. The problem is that I am sure all the restrictions for adoptions are in place for good reasons, for the best interests of the raising of the baby/child. A question we have to ask is… are the adoption restrictions too strict or has our culture and society just gone down in quality such that there are less qualified couples meeting the same standards as years ago?

I think it’s a good topic to discuss. No easy answers.

Actually, the easiest answer is for people to take the 100% proven action to prevent pregnancy, which is simply not have sex until one is ready to take on the emotional and financial responsibility of raising a baby and child. However, our culture seems to have devolved to the point where people today seem to not possess any self-discipline or self-control to keep themselves from having sex.

It simply boggles my mind how we have had 40+ MILLION completely preventable deaths (with the exception of rapes) in this nation over the past 4 decades, yet half of this nation doesn’t seem to have the slightest problem with that fact.

Some studies have concluded that religion (whether being a believer or being a non-believer) is somehow genetic. I sometimes wonder if the mentality of thinking that killing a developing baby in the womb out of purely convenience is a “choice” is also something genetic. Because, no matter how much I think about this issue, I can never come to the conclusion where I would think killing a developing human child in the womb was a decent or humane or “good” thing.

So Cal Chris, while I am no expert in adoptions, I do have some personal experience I can share.

For starters, it is VERY hard, albeit certainly not impossible, in America to adopt a healthy newborn baby at birth. I may be biased but the best way in America is via the Catholic adoption agencies, which as many know are now under attack (the one in MA had to close), from “equal rights for gays.”

Of course, once the baby is born, and found to be “imperfect”, it takes a special couple to adopt a special needs child, but thank God, they are out there. The hard part is having an arrangement with a SELFLESS unwed mother who, although is too young or incapable to properly care for a baby, takes responsibility for the life within her and finds good adoptive parents. Having two such extraordinary children in my own family, I tear up just thinking of the love our family has gained from these two selfless teenage women.

I can almost assure you hands down, that the 4000 aborted babies daily in America would easily find loving homes in America (one out of 6 couples in America are infertile). The problem isn’t the good and willing adoptive parents (BTW, the waiting list is usually several years; there really aren’t that many babies available), the problem is the selfishness of the women not willing to carry them to term. In saying that, I assure you money is not the issue. Much of the pro life movement (at least via the Catholic Church), is taking care of these women through the pregnancy and after, regardless if they want to put the child up for adoption. Years ago, Mother Theresa and one of the Cardinals from NYC made a public plea to “Find a good home for every child who was going to be aborted.” Mother Theresa said she would take all of them.

As for Foster care, that’s an entirely different ball game. Many of those poor kids are there because they have been badly abused (which is why they were taken from the parents in the first place). Despite good intentions, I watched a horror story play out with one of my dear friends, who was warned by our mutual Psychiatrist friend of the perils of adopting a badly abused child. As much as we might like to think, “Once they are loved, they will respond accordingly”, sadly that is not the case with badly abused children. I will spare the horrid details, but will only make the point that the reality is; badly abused American children often do better in the orphanages. That’s not to be confused with “taking in a foster child for a short period of time.” There’s a big difference between a foster child adoption and helping a foster child while their parents rehabilitate.

One more thing I can share is that different states have very different laws in how long the natural mother has to “take back” the child. One of my California friends had her adopted baby ripped from her arms on her birthday (after a year). From what I understand, I think Texas is the best state for rights for the adoptive parents; pretty sure it’s “final at the onset”, so no risk of losing the baby after bonding.

Again, I’m no expert, only that I know love. Our family, full of natural and adoptive kids, anxiously awaits our new 7 year old boy from China (yes, a boy from China!). IMO, there are few greater acts of love then the selfless women who chose adoption over abortion, and of course, the parents who adopt them.

@Michael in MI:
Thank you, Michael, for your thoughtful comment. I agree that there should be strict criteria in place for the adoptive parents, ones that each couple should think about before deciding to responsibly bring a child into the world, but I’m afraid all too often they do not think much! I’ve known people who have met those criteria, but still have to wait for long periods to adopt, so I’m sure that’s frustrating at best. It’s frustrating to me and I’m not even in that particular situation! It is a very good topic to discuss, I agree with you on that as well. The more we discuss it, possibly the closer we can get to some viable solutions.

@pdill:
pdill, since you have experienced this in such a personal way I truly appreciate hearing your viewpoint!! And, I consider you more of an expert simply because you are living it. I wanted to comment on some of what you’d said:

For starters, it is VERY hard, albeit certainly not impossible, in America to adopt a healthy newborn baby at birth.

This really confirms what I’d been thinking/wondering. And, are you saying indirectly that it’s easier to adopt babies with health issues, or just that it’s overall very, very hard to adopt here in the U.S. in general? I’m glad to hear about the Catholic adoption agencies and sorry to hear they are under attack. Why does that not surprise me.

Having two such extraordinary children in my own family, I tear up just thinking of the love our family has gained from these two selfless teenage women.

I’m so glad for your good experience, and how much love your family has received due to a responsible teenager being selfless enough to turn a difficult situation into a wonderful situation for someone else. Years ago I knew a teen gal who did this, and because she had the support of her parents and church, she made the right decision to adopt.

I can almost assure you hands down, that the 4000 aborted babies daily in America would easily find loving homes in America (one out of 6 couples in America are infertile). The problem isn’t the good and willing adoptive parents (BTW, the waiting list is usually several years; there really aren’t that many babies available), the problem is the selfishness of the women not willing to carry them to term.

This does make me sad indeed. And, I did not know the infertile rate was so high amongst couples. Perhaps you are correct that it is due to women’s selfishness primarily. I definitely agree with you on that. My sort of conspiracy theory in my original comment was that the groups like Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion groups, somehow have made it more difficult on adoption agencies because the pro-abortion groups really have an agenda. Is it to reduce the amount of carbon footprints, through population control? Is it about acquiring votes on the issue of abortion as the leftists are banking on people being irresponsible when it comes to sex knowing they’ll have an easy “out” if they have an accidental pregnancy? It seems to be more of a form of birth control now, which is the certainly the selfishness you spoke of. I wonder, too, how many have knowledge of the life that is in them, or have just believed the lie that it is simply a non-entity in their stomach. I’d also conjectured if the girls know or hear that it’s hard to adopt children, so are concerned that theirs won’t be adopted if they go through the pregnancy to term (another of my conspiracy theories)?

but will only make the point that the reality is; badly abused American children often do better in the orphanages. That’s not to be confused with “taking in a foster child for a short period of time.”

That is a perspective I hadn’t heard before either, and understand what you are saying. I had a close friend who was a foster parent, but just on temporary cases. She had her hands full, to be sure, and did a good job of trying to positively influence the child for the time she had them. If she went to a Bible study, for example, she’d bring the child with her, and they didn’t always like it, of course! 😉 But for her, it was a way to try to better someone else’s life. I haven’t known anyone who adopted an abused child, but believe you know what you’re talking about on that as well. Admittedly, it is hard for me to accept that an orphanage is the best place for them, but since I know nothing about orphanages and how they are run, I’m not one to comment on that. I guess there’s a common belief that we can love them out of their bad behavior! I do tend to be idealistic on such things.

One more thing I can share is that different states have very different laws in how long the natural mother has to “take back” the child. One of my California friends had her adopted baby ripped from her arms on her birthday (after a year).

That is horrific! I can’t believe there’s not legislation against that by now. That should be a crime. I don’t know if there should be any window of time for the birth mother to change her mind, (like 30 days?) but honestly I haven’t thought about it much. I’m sure even after 30 days the adoptive parents still would have bonded in a significant way, so it would be very painful for sure.

Again, I’m no expert, only that I know love. Our family, full of natural and adoptive kids, anxiously awaits our new 7 year old boy from China (yes, a boy from China!).

You are an expert in my book, and how exciting that you will have another child soon!! I had friends who adopted 2 young girls from China, and those girls are very loved! Thank you, pdill, for your selfless love to all of your children, and the example you set for many people around you. Especially those considering abortion! You have more influence on others than you may imagine just by you walking the walk, and not just talking the talk.

Chris, firstly I have to clarify that when I speak of adoptive kids within my family, I’m speaking in a general sense among my siblings. For clarity, all of the adoptive kids I speak of are my nieces and nephews. That said, I come from a family of 7 natural siblings and 2 adoptive cousins (after the early death of their mother). Needless to say, I “get” family, and have been more then well blessed to have been born into a close and loving one. Every kid, natural or adopted, is a welcomed and huge addition. While I don’t want to get all “braggy” about my family, I will say that the rewards of a big family are immense; from various talents to love, there is always abundance. I’m also convinced that it’s in those “family dynamics” that we really learn how to love, compromise, give, share, and most of all, accept. I see it as a sort of “roadmap” for future success; a trial run before we all have to go into the big scary world and make it on our own.

Back to adoption, I just want to assure anyone interested that for every “white Caucasian healthy American baby”, there are about 15-20 loving parents who would adopt him/her. It’s also my understanding that there is even a wait now for babies of special needs.

As for “Planned Parenthood” Chris, know that it never has and never will be much about “Parenthood.” Not only is a shill for child molesters, its bigger role is very much part of “Bring down America by bringing down the family.” As for the carbon footprint propaganda, that’s just new tricks for a new audience, easy to sell to those especially schooled in “Rewritten history.” (Not to be confused with the obvious responsibility/good care of the earth)

Little do most realize that in support of “Planned Parenthood”, abortion, same sex “marriage”, and even transgender bathrooms in college dorms, we are eating right out of the hands of Marx and Engles.

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

Click for a jaw dropping excerpt!

For any who thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim practicing Christian, at least admit that most of his actions, especially his radical pro abortion policies and related appointees, are “radically Communistic.” But then, where’s the surprise from someone who sat in Reverend Wrights “Liberation Theology” Church for 20 years? After all, Black Liberation Theology is nothing more than disguised Marxism.

Last but not least, how about Obama’s “secret” years at Columbia, home of (Princeton being one of the others; what a coincidence that Michelle went there!) the Frankfurt School.

‘Cultural Marxism’ and ‘critical theory’ are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [3]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war,’ during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.

Short of Obama having an Epiphany, “reduced abortions” is soooo not on the agenda. How could it be, when the necessary endgame (at least before we are taken to the final stages of communism), is the destruction of the family? Abortion on demand, nicely disguised and packaged as all “good evils” are, is the surest way to not only destroy the family, the most basic unit of society, but also the greatest destroyer of peace and in the end, America itself.

It’s bone chilling to think that we are ready to throw the social issues overboard, when in reality, abortion especially, is the greatest threat in all of American History.