Skip to comments.Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons
Posted on 01/23/2012 10:09:17 AM PST by Sopater
President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the fundamental constitutional right to abortion and to continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
The 1974 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter. In his written statement, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been a divisive political issue.
Obama, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature and as president of the United States, has taken a hard line on abortion rights.
In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a womans health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters, Obama said. I remain committed to protecting a womans right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue -- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption, Obama said.
And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
The 2003 bill was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time. It mirrored a law passed by Congress, which said nothing in federal law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade ruling.
As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which would appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.
On Friday, the Obama administration finalized regulations that order Americans unless they work directly at a church to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
Planned Parenthood also marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling by setting up a Web site "to show the world exactly what Roe has meant in the past and still means today."
The "Since Roe" Web site invites women to add their own comments about "how Roe v. Wade has made a difference in your life."
You wanna fulfill your dreams?
Don’t have unprotected sex!
Don’t have sex at all if you are a teenager!
Just watch ‘Maury’.
I’ve always found abortion to abhorrent, but somehow I wonder why Stanley didn’t have one ...
Exactly. And more likely to be dependent on the government for everything, i.e., Democratic voters.
Because abortion was still illegal then. BHO should be celebrating that Roe v. Wade didn’t get handed down in 1960.
To "celebrate" this most evil and hideous SC ruling is nothing short of pure evil.
I'll help him out - I loathe him too!
...continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Well, taken to its logical conclusion, does this mean Obama wants to also help the biological father of the fetus to force an abortion as child support might keep the sperm donor from buying those hot new Jordan Reeboks? Either way it is termination of an unborn life and should not be done for selfish or immoral reasons.
What 0 is alluding to is the view that males are never burdened by a pregnancy when it comes to pursuing a career or lifestyle. Abortion gives females the same so called freedom.
Our sons don’t have any right (yet) to kill their children.
If our daughters are not responsible enough to keep from getting pregnant and instead opt for murder, they have not deserved a chance.
Like faggots and dykes interference, you mean?
Like forcing me to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices, such as baby-killing, drug-using, education for illegals, where it takes food off MY table from MY family, so you can buy votes?
How about vote fraud, that affects MY family because my vote is offset by an illegal one, and I can't thereby vote for MY FAMILY's best interest, because YOU want to dictate our lives?
Really? So Obama has issued another executive order making it legal for men to kill their children?
continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams
Huh? I realize abortions are most popular amongst the upwardly mobile young woman. However, what do rights, freedom, and opportunity have to do with it? Women are perfectly free to not get pregnant, except in the limited case of rape. If they are less free than men, and they are, that is a matter of nature, not law.
Nevermind the appropriateness of counteracting nature to equalize the sexes, and nevermind the relevance of any of this to rights and the constitution. I don’t care how far they go; I don’t even care if we live in the Brave New World. Women will never be as free as men in matters of the womb and the heart. Abortion helps them better to use, women, when you get right down to it. Joke’s on you, feminists.
Why not affirm in law a father's natural right to prevent the abortion of his pre-born baby daughter or son in the first place?
Why not have the father simply raise his own child, with the full legal right to do so?
Referring to fathers as “donors” is pure misandry, and demeans biological fatherhood.
Demeaning biological fatherhood empowers the de facto parthenogenesis ideology of feminism...that the baby is the woman’s only...and thus is pro-abortion.
Only when Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion is banned will sons have the same chance as daughters to have their children protected from death by abortion.
No, he means to walk away from the consequences for their behavioral choices. Liberalism is all about making others pay for the consequences of your behavior.
Pure sophistry (ie, bovine excrement).
How about families' choices of education? How about families' choices of discipline? Religious upbringing? Protecting them from pornography? Teaching them the Christian view of homosexuality? Do you support the UN Rights of the Child Treaty, Obama?
How about not intruding if a family wants to buy raw milk?
No, you DO believe in deep government involvement in private family matters, and are using this false argument to justify this penultimate transfer of responsibility to the most innocent being imaginable.
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.