Posted on 01/23/2014 3:16:04 AM PST by markomalley
President Obama issued a statement today to mark the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. A mere paragraph long, it contains enough euphemism, evasion, and outright falsehood to serve simultaneously as a model of dissimulation and concision.
1. “We” — The statement begins by saying “as we reflect” on Roe “we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle.” But who is this we? Obama issues his statement in his official capacity as head of state, but America is sorely divided. By a generous measure, only 53 percent of Americans support Roe. When Obama pledges his rhetorical “we” to the principle of Roe, he elides one half of the nation he leads.
2. “Her body” — The President says that “every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.” This statement would certainly be true (given a few broad caveats) if he did not mean by it that one person should be able to dismantle the body and destroy the health of another.
3. “Safe, affordable health care” — For abortion to be safe, it would have to not be directed at the death of a child; for it to be affordable, it would have to not come at the cost of a life; for it to be health care, it would have to not violate the Hippocratic oath. This may be one lie or three—it’s hard to keep count.
4. “Right to privacy” — There can be no right to the taking of an innocent life. Nor can there be anything private about it for a society that believes securing rights to be a matter of the public good.
5. “Reproductive freedom” — There is no debate over the freedom of reproduction, only over the freedom of destruction.
6. “Unintended pregnancy” — What is meant here, of course, is an unintended child. But in any case, the idea that life is legitimate only when it is the product of our intentions—that everything should be perfectly “planned”—is at once impossible and perverse, a sociological error reflecting a theological mistake.
7. “Child health” — President Obama’s purported support for child health runs counter to his continuing, unrepented opposition to laws banning infanticide—an opposition that distinguishes him not only from abortion opponents but from most abortion supporters as well.
8. “This is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.” — This is indeed such a country, as is every other. Why then, Mr. President, do you continue to stand in the way of the very weakest realizing the equal freedom you so blithely invoke?
Here’s the statement in full:
Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
Deut 32:16-38 16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominable practices they provoked him to anger. 17 They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded. 18 You were unmindful of the Rock that begot you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. 19 "The LORD saw it, and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters. 20 And he said, `I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be, for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness.
21 They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their idols. So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people; I will provoke them with a foolish nation. 22 For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23 "`And I will heap evils upon them; I will spend my arrows upon them; 24 they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and poisonous pestilence; and I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with venom of crawling things of the dust. 25 In the open the sword shall bereave, and in the chambers shall be terror, destroying both young man and virgin, the sucking child with the man of gray hairs.
26 I would have said, "I will scatter them afar, I will make the remembrance of them cease from among men," 27 had I not feared provocation by the enemy, lest their adversaries should judge amiss, lest they should say, "Our hand is triumphant, the LORD has not wrought all this."' 28 "For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no understanding in them. 29 If they were wise, they would understand this, they would discern their latter end! 30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had given them up?
31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. 32 For their vine comes from the vine of Sodom, and from the fields of Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of poison, their clusters are bitter; 33 their wine is the poison of serpents, and the cruel venom of asps. 34 "Is not this laid up in store with me, sealed up in my treasuries? 35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.
36 For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, and there is none remaining, bond or free. 37 Then he will say, `Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge, 38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you, let them be your protection!
May God protect His own as He wreaks vengeance upon this perverse land.
Everything he said is completely and perfectly in line with the beliefs of someone who thinks that babies are “punishment” and that human collective decision is the only acceptable way in which events should unfold.
Only 8 lies?
Lazy SOB commie pig
Except when it comes to the choice of an insurance plan.
The hypocrisy of the Infanticide in Chief's words are mind numbing.
Only 8 lies?
Lazy SOB commie pig
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I found it hard to believe the headline as if there were only 8 lies in the statement that means there were only about 6 sentences or topics or less than 20 words.
I don’t believe he is capable of only that few words which is why I didn’t believe the headline...
1) obama is of satan
2) satan is the prince of lies
Once again, time to recall that if this were the 54th anniversary of Roe, this Barack Hussein Obama would never have existed
Obama lies in his sleep......and I do not mean the prone type of lieing.....
What an evil being. I do not think you can call him a person but just a being, a clump of mass without a soul.
Rather than pointing out lies in his statements, we should begin pointing to truths. Of course the paper would be blank on almost every one of his pronouncements.
This POS who says the Obamacare Act is settled law has the audacity to constantly state that Roe is settled too. I guess Dred Scott was also???
Back in 1973, the country was somewhat shocked by Harry Blackmun’s decision, which was written the summer before, before they even had a woman to sue for the right to an abortion. What this says is that a group of men had decided to push this issue ahead of time, to secure the vote to subvert opposition. They had planned to undo the opposition to abortion, and were going to do this come hell or high water.
Once the decision was made, they knew it would take an act of Congress to undo it. They knew all too well that it takes two thirds of the members to okay an amendment to the Constitution and that that would be almost impossible to get.
OBAMA’S CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY- THE TORTURE AND DISMEMBERMENT OF THE UNBORN CHILD
Ken Blackwell
Friday, May 15, 2009
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2009/05/15/obama_and_crimes_against_humanity/page/full
Note: Mr. Blackwell served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission from 1991 - 1993. Note: Mr. Blackwell served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission from 1991 - 1993.
“In my opinion, the Obama Administration’s abortion agenda is indeed a crime against humanity.”
This is a tale of two worldviews. It begins not unlike the opening paragraph of Dickens’ immortal work, A Tale of Two Cities. Schoolchildren once memorized these famous opening lines, back when schoolchildren memorized anything.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…
President Obama at his Hundred Day White House séance proclaimed waterboarding to be torture. His was a clear, unambiguous, declarative statement. In making that statement, he opened up former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney to criminal prosecutions, here and before an international criminal court. And not just these men, but possibly hundreds of others, including members of Congress from his own party.
Cliff May, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, takes a different approach to the question of whether waterboarding is torture or not. May was badgered by The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. May’s answer is not as yes/no, as on/off as President Obama’s. May said it depends. May’s answer was more nuanced. Liberals used to like nuance, but that was when John Kerry was nuancing. Here’s how it went:
Jon Stewart: But answer my question: Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?
Cliff May: Defining torture is not easy. A simple legal definition is that it “shocks the conscience.” Cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head on videotape — that shocks my conscience. Sending a child out as a suicide bomber — that shocks my conscience. People jumping off the World Trade Towers because they’d rather die that way than by burning — that shocks my conscience. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities, gagging for a few minutes and, as a result, providing information that saves lives, then going back to his cell for dinner and a movie — no, my conscience is not shocked by that.
Are our consciences shocked by subjecting KSM to waterboarding? Apparently, this enhanced interrogation technique didn’t shock the consciences of members of Congress who were briefed on its planned use. Some of us need to re-play those tapes of cell phone calls by people trapped in the World Trade Towers.
The question keeps coming back to whether we extend all the rights of American citizens to captured terrorists. And the question also comes back to whether the terrorists are to be accorded all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Increasingly, our courts are saying terrorists are to be given constitutional protections, here, in Afghanistan, and at Gitmo. Geneva is another matter. This treaty binds nations to humane treatment of prisoners of war. In order to be counted as a prisoner of war, you must be in uniform (John McCain was, Nathan Hale was not), you must be subject to military discipline, and you must be taking part in a war conducted by competent authority.
The Geneva Convention also governs respect for medical treatment of prisoners and wounded soldiers. Take Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example. When one of their IEDs went off in 2003 near Baghdad and killed and wounded a number of American soldiers, a U.S. Army medical HUMVEE raced to the scene. Waiting for the medics to arrive, the terrorists set off a second IED. It had been planted there specifically to target the medical help. Inside the HUMVEE, an American female nurse was burned beyond recognition.
The purpose of the Geneva Convention was to give warring nations a strong, positive incentive to behave according to international norms and not to engage in conduct that “shocks the conscience.” When we give Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists prisoner of war status and Geneva Convention coverage—without demanding anything of them in return—we abandon one of the great achievements of the Geneva Convention.
Of course, some humans are not accorded human rights. Our courts have seen to that. President Obama named Justice Stephen Breyer as his ideal jurist. In 2000, Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion in Carhart v. Stenberg. That was the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Nebraska’s law against partial-birth abortion. Justice Breyer’s opinion is worth quoting at length.
He described various techniques of late-term abortion that do not shock his conscience. Nor do these techniques—unlike waterboarding, unlike slapping, unlike sleep deprivation—shock President Obama’s conscience, or the consciences of our liberal rulers.
During a pregnancy’s second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus.
When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures).
A variation of D&E, known as “intact D&E,” is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix “intact,” i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as “dilation and extraction” (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term “partial birth abortion.”
A little translation may be required: “at least some fetal tissue” translates to the unborn child’s arm, a leg, or maybe her head. “Dismemberment of the fetus with nonvaccuum surgical instruments” means cutting off her arms or legs with razor-sharp implements while the child, still alive, is capable of feeling excruciating pain.
Rest assured, this is not torture. It doesn’t meet the legal definition of torture because under the rule of Roe v. Wade, the unborn child does not meet the legal definition of a person.
Terrorists were once defined—like pirates and slave traders—as hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind. As such, they received no due process rights. They had no right to counsel. They received no protections under international agreements. When seized on the high seas by the Royal Navy, they could be promptly hanged upon determination that they were engaged in the proscribed activities.
It would have shocked the consciences of our ancestors, however, to dismember even such low characters as pirates, to cut off their arms and legs, and to let them bleed profusely to death. The most inhuman of humans in the nineteenth century could not have been treated as the least of humans are treated in our enlightened United States, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our new president abhors torture, unless it is the torture of the unborn. In that case, it is not torture at all, but simply inducing fetal demise.
This great international uproar over what is and is not torture has been generated because of the treatment of three known mass murderers. The slaughter of innocents in their thousands elicits no international outrage. This is part of what Justice Breyer sees as evolving international standards of decency.
In my opinion, the Obama Administration’s abortion agenda is indeed a crime against humanity.
This weekend, President Obama will receive an honorary Doctor of Laws from the University of Notre Dame. There, he will be honored, among other things, for his brave stand against torture. He has appointed Kathleen Sebelius to head our nation’s health system. She is a disciple of the most notorious late-term abortionist in the county, a dismemberer, by his own count, of 60,000 fetuses. The President and Secretary Sebelius want to force us all to pay for abortion-on-demand. They want to force doctors and nurses to take part in killing unborn children. They will doubtless tell us our consciences should not be shocked. They’re only inducing fetal demise. Heaven help us all. And Heaven help Notre Dame.
Very good piece.
According to Obama, a person is only a person if it is wanted around. Why can’t we kill 18 year olds with paranoid schizophrenia? A 45 year old homeless man lying in his own urine? An obnoxious TV talk host?
Where did he get the idea that freedom and the right to life do not apply to the unwanted “burdens?”
Oh, never mind. His foster sister Lia, his choir director Andrew Young, his mom’s buddy Fuddy, and his own grandma just whispered in my ear: they were also all late victims of abortion.
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.