"It is not [the Obama Administration] goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

From Human Events:

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.”

Well, this raises a lot of questions.

If you reduce the need, doesn’t it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you’ve reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?

Note what Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame:

“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. …”

Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion. Melody’s background as a board member of one of the most hard-core abortion groups in the country (Emily’s List even opposes bans on partial-birth abortion) sheds light on why she was irritated when that was stated as her boss’ goal. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Paul Gordon said...

Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion..

There's a great big elephant in the room here, and it's the word "KILL".

If you dare to associate it with the word "abortion", then you're considered guilty of hate speech, trying make people uncomfortable when making what should NEVER be a comfortable decision.

Obama asked for a dialogue on abortion.

Would he dare to ask for a dialogue on KILLING the unborn?

Sometimes, circumstances may make necessary some very nasty things, but covering them over with euphemisms does not change what they are.


5/24/2009 11:47 AM  
Blogger pops1911 said...

I still think a retroactive abortion is called for - starting with this administration at the top. He believes in it & I would support one - his!!

5/24/2009 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home