Sunday, May 20, 2012

Obama a Hypocrite on Abortion... Oh, the Irony

By Heather Mathews

In a story dated May 8, 2012 in the Washington Times, it is revealed that the White House, under Obama, REQUIRES pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of Der F├╝hrer’s palace.

How’s THAT for Obama talking out both sides of his mouth?

In an email sent by Ellie Schafer, director of the White House’s visitors office, to a congressional staffer, she instructs the staffer to collect information on all visitors, even those NOT YET BORN.  She requires that staffers collect:

“LAST NAME: The family’s last name.
FIRST NAME: ‘Baby’ as a first name.
MIDDLE NAME: NMN as in No Middle Name.
DOB: Use the date you are submitting the request to us as their birthday.
GENDER: If the parents know put the gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we’ll ask you to update it at the time of birth.
SOCIAL: As they will not have a SSN and are under 18, you will not need to enter this field. Again if the spreadsheet asked for a social enter 9 zero’s (not the word nine zeros but 000000000 and yes it happens!)
CITIZEN/CITY/STATE: The citizen, city and state should be entered the same as the parents.”

According to Secret Service spokesman Max Milien (yes, that is the name he gave in the story,) all visitors are required to provide identification “regardless of age.”  (Will they require photo I.D. of a 4th grader, or will a birth certificate suffice?  Then again, who’s to say it wouldn’t be a forgery… eh, they’ll let him in anyway- that’s not a major concern for them.)  Supposedly this is meant to serve as a placeholder in case the baby is born between the time the reservation is made and the actual tour- or perhaps even on the tour.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, had this to say:

“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” and that the email “provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted.” [I can only assume he is also referring to a spontaneous abortion a.k.a miscarriage.]

Mr. Johnson also noted that a House Judiciary subcommittee would hold a hearing on May 17 regarding legislation that would prohibit abortion in the sixth month and later in the District.  [Obviously that has now passed- the bill is The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) and it still not up for vote.  More info on this bill at]

So, just to make it clear: Obama is pro-life (i.e. he believes an unborn child at any gestational age is a person) when it helps to meet his quota of supporters, but pro-choice (or rather, death-indifferent,) when it comes to an individual’s personal responsibility: financially, socially, and morally.  Yep, I think we can see where his priorities lie.

Main source:

No comments:

Post a Comment