-The Barack Obama ... seeking to mislead religiously committed Americans into thinking that Obama has a middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote “abortion reduction.”
http://sooshisoo.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/obama-wants-to-increase-abortion-rate/
Obama: Wants to Increase Abortion Rate
Posted on October 7, 2008 by sooshisoo
Ads by Google
"Barack Obama Exposed"
A Free special report on the real Barack Obama - get your copy today!
www.HumanEvents.com
I am pro-choice. I do believe there are instances when a woman should be able to have an abortion. Just as I believe that there are instances that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion. I personally believe the whole abortion issue needs a major overhaul. But not like this:
Unholy Messaging
Obama’s faith-based try vs. his positions.
Snips from a very long, detailed article exploring Obama’s positions on abortion:
The Barack Obama “messaging machine” is now in full overdrive mode, seeking to mislead religiously committed Americans into thinking that Obama has a middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote “abortion reduction.”
But despite such efforts, more and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, could be expected to drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed.
One component of the Obama abortion agenda, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), is coming under increased scrutiny from many quarters. The FOCA is the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress. It is a bill that would establish a federal “abortion right” broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
In mid-September, every congressional office received a pointedly worded two-page letter on the FOCA from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), signed by Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-life Activities. Rigali notes, in his opening paragraph, “Pro-abortion groups and some of the bill’s congressional sponsors have said they want this legislation enacted soon.”
Personally, I am aware of only one congressional sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act” who has said anything publicly, in the past year or so, to indicate that he would like to see the bill enacted soon. That sponsor is the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama.
Obama is not “merely” a cosponsor of the bill, but someone who has declared enactment of the FOCA to be a top priority. In his too-little-noted speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
Rigali’s letter, and an accompanying six-page memorandum from the USCCB’s legal office, explain with great clarity the sweeping power of the language contained in the FOCA. Both the letter and the memorandum deserve a wide reading. Here, I will quote only briefly from Rigali’s letter: “First it [the FOCA] creates a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons. No government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this newly created federal right. Second, it forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.’ For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”
Rigali also wrote: “However, there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion. . . . We cannot reduce abortions by insisting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.”
Across the nation, crisis-pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. Some states have obtained a modest amount of federal funding for such programs. Late last year, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website, submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign (as part of a candidate questionnaire): “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?” The Obama campaign response was short, but it spoke volumes: “No.”
…no? So, those women that choose to not abort should not receive help or support, because Obama is a hard-core abortion proponent? Am I reading that right? Only liberal women have the right to…rights?
Yet, as soon as Obama had secured the Democratic presidential nomination, the Obama machine started sending out very different messages in an attempt to present Obama as a middle-of-the-roader on abortion, a moderate, someone with a “nuanced” position on abortion, someone committed to government programs that would result in “abortion reduction.”
http://fubarmedia.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/obama-for-partial-birth-abortion-and-infanticide/
Obama For Partial Birth Abortion and Infanticide
WHY HASN’T THE MOONBAT MEDIA EVEN TOUCHED THIS WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE? ANSWER: BECAUSE THEY ARE INFATUATED WITH OBAMA AND THEY KNOW AMERICA WILL REJECT A POLITICIAN WHO FIGHTS FOR INFANTICIDE.
Via http://www.jillstanek.com/
October 9, 2008
Media Research Center: “Media silence on abortion aids radical Obama”
By Rich Noyes and Matthew Balan of the Media Research Center, today:
Two of the 3 presidential debates have now passed without either candidate being asked about abortion, an issue that nearly four out of ten voters said was “very important” to them, according to an August Pew survey. What makes the abortion issue especially salient this campaign year is Barack Obama’s extremely liberal record - which may also explain why the big broadcast networks have practically avoided the subject.
TV reporters barely mentioned Obama’s pro-abortion stance during the primaries - from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just 6 out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail. It was thus unusual when ABC’s Terry Moran pointed out, in a February 25, 2008, story on World News, that Obama was “considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in IL… opposing efforts to ban so-called ‘partial birth abortions.’”Obama’s stance protecting partial birth abortions puts him to the left of many liberal Democrats - 17 out of 47 Democratic Senators, including Obama’s running-mate Joe Biden, voted to outlaw such abortions in 2003, a position backed by 75% of the public, according to a 2007 Pew survey. But besides the Moran story, only 2 other network evening news stories mentioned Obama’s support for the procedure, including an April 21, 2007, CBS Evening News story briefly noting Obama’s condemnation of the Supreme Court for upholding the federal law banning such abortions.
But Obama’s most extreme pro-abortion move came in IL, when he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive following unsuccessful abortions, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act….
As for the broadcast networks, none have yet mentioned this radical aspect of Obama’s record. That silence helps the Democrat cast himself as more centrist than he really is, but shows how hopeless the media’s “watchdogs” are when it comes to their liberal friends.
http://sooshisoo.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/obama-wants-to-increase-abortion-rate/
Obama: Wants to Increase Abortion Rate
Posted on October 7, 2008 by sooshisoo
Ads by Google
"Barack Obama Exposed"
A Free special report on the real Barack Obama - get your copy today!
www.HumanEvents.com
I am pro-choice. I do believe there are instances when a woman should be able to have an abortion. Just as I believe that there are instances that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion. I personally believe the whole abortion issue needs a major overhaul. But not like this:
Unholy Messaging
Obama’s faith-based try vs. his positions.
Snips from a very long, detailed article exploring Obama’s positions on abortion:
The Barack Obama “messaging machine” is now in full overdrive mode, seeking to mislead religiously committed Americans into thinking that Obama has a middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote “abortion reduction.”
But despite such efforts, more and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, could be expected to drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed.
One component of the Obama abortion agenda, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), is coming under increased scrutiny from many quarters. The FOCA is the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress. It is a bill that would establish a federal “abortion right” broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
In mid-September, every congressional office received a pointedly worded two-page letter on the FOCA from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), signed by Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-life Activities. Rigali notes, in his opening paragraph, “Pro-abortion groups and some of the bill’s congressional sponsors have said they want this legislation enacted soon.”
Personally, I am aware of only one congressional sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act” who has said anything publicly, in the past year or so, to indicate that he would like to see the bill enacted soon. That sponsor is the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama.
Obama is not “merely” a cosponsor of the bill, but someone who has declared enactment of the FOCA to be a top priority. In his too-little-noted speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
Rigali’s letter, and an accompanying six-page memorandum from the USCCB’s legal office, explain with great clarity the sweeping power of the language contained in the FOCA. Both the letter and the memorandum deserve a wide reading. Here, I will quote only briefly from Rigali’s letter: “First it [the FOCA] creates a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons. No government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this newly created federal right. Second, it forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.’ For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”
Rigali also wrote: “However, there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion. . . . We cannot reduce abortions by insisting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.”
Across the nation, crisis-pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. Some states have obtained a modest amount of federal funding for such programs. Late last year, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website, submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign (as part of a candidate questionnaire): “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?” The Obama campaign response was short, but it spoke volumes: “No.”
…no? So, those women that choose to not abort should not receive help or support, because Obama is a hard-core abortion proponent? Am I reading that right? Only liberal women have the right to…rights?
Yet, as soon as Obama had secured the Democratic presidential nomination, the Obama machine started sending out very different messages in an attempt to present Obama as a middle-of-the-roader on abortion, a moderate, someone with a “nuanced” position on abortion, someone committed to government programs that would result in “abortion reduction.”
http://fubarmedia.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/obama-for-partial-birth-abortion-and-infanticide/
Obama For Partial Birth Abortion and Infanticide
WHY HASN’T THE MOONBAT MEDIA EVEN TOUCHED THIS WITH A TEN-FOOT POLE? ANSWER: BECAUSE THEY ARE INFATUATED WITH OBAMA AND THEY KNOW AMERICA WILL REJECT A POLITICIAN WHO FIGHTS FOR INFANTICIDE.
Via http://www.jillstanek.com/
October 9, 2008
Media Research Center: “Media silence on abortion aids radical Obama”
By Rich Noyes and Matthew Balan of the Media Research Center, today:
Two of the 3 presidential debates have now passed without either candidate being asked about abortion, an issue that nearly four out of ten voters said was “very important” to them, according to an August Pew survey. What makes the abortion issue especially salient this campaign year is Barack Obama’s extremely liberal record - which may also explain why the big broadcast networks have practically avoided the subject.
TV reporters barely mentioned Obama’s pro-abortion stance during the primaries - from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just 6 out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail. It was thus unusual when ABC’s Terry Moran pointed out, in a February 25, 2008, story on World News, that Obama was “considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in IL… opposing efforts to ban so-called ‘partial birth abortions.’”Obama’s stance protecting partial birth abortions puts him to the left of many liberal Democrats - 17 out of 47 Democratic Senators, including Obama’s running-mate Joe Biden, voted to outlaw such abortions in 2003, a position backed by 75% of the public, according to a 2007 Pew survey. But besides the Moran story, only 2 other network evening news stories mentioned Obama’s support for the procedure, including an April 21, 2007, CBS Evening News story briefly noting Obama’s condemnation of the Supreme Court for upholding the federal law banning such abortions.
But Obama’s most extreme pro-abortion move came in IL, when he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive following unsuccessful abortions, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act….
As for the broadcast networks, none have yet mentioned this radical aspect of Obama’s record. That silence helps the Democrat cast himself as more centrist than he really is, but shows how hopeless the media’s “watchdogs” are when it comes to their liberal friends.
Comments