From the “stories you’re not likely to see widely covered but probably should know about” department: the oldest and largest abortion clinic in New York City has closed after more than two decades of dedicated prayer, protest, and counseling outside its walls. And it’s not a case of property shuffling or doctors relocating: both sides acknowledge the sustained witness and hopeful perseverance of the mostly-lay volunteers caused this to happen; no replacement facility seems to be planned.
One man quoted in the Daily News article linked to above attributes this turn of events to “harassment.” What that means, of course, is that ordinary and law-abiding citizens praying the Rosary refused to stop exercising their freedom of assembly. But such a take also misses the essence of the victory, which flowed not from some fanatical political obsession but a far greater source. Thus the Tablet, the diocesan newspaper, tells a bit of a different story:
“This was the oldest and largest abortion clinic in New York City and for many years, in the United States,” said Msgr. Reilly. “I believe more than a quarter of a million unborn children lost their lives there.”
Msgr. Reilly and the Helpers were accompanied by then-newly appointed Bishop Thomas V. Daily in the summer of 1990 when they first prayed at the site. They were met by a vicious band of pro-abortion supporters who tried to drown out their prayers and hymns of praise. For years, the pro-aborts continued to harass the Helpers during their monthly Rosary vigils there. Mostly young, they would blow whistles and hurl obscenities at the Helpers who held their ground as they prayed. The N.Y.C. Police always were on hand to assure safety and maintain peace.
Bishop Daily would tell the Helpers to obey the law and not to respond to the hecklers. After the recitation of the Rosary, the Helpers would process back to St.Michael’s for benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.
If that doesn’t confirm the power of genuinely Catholic social justice in action, I’m not sure what does. And a reminder, too, that there are ways of advancing the pro-life cause that supplement the often-disappointing and mercurial realm of national politics.
Indeed, what’s telling about what happened in Brooklyn is that it’s not an isolated case: One of the quieter and more-remarkable ways the pro-life cause has turned the tide in recent years has come from its success in reducing the availability of abortion by reducing the number of physical locations where they may be obtained. This has been the result of several factors: In some states, incremental new laws have come into effect (in many cases, they simply involve holding these clinics to the same standards as other medical facilities and ending years of double-standards); in other cases, public witness has been enough. And then there’s another trend, alluded to in the Daily News piece—fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform or even be associated with abortions:
So far as many as 20 doctors have expressed interest in working at the new clinic—a stark difference from as recently as a month ago when Lazar struggled to find doctors willing to work there . . .
Julie Kashner, president of the Brooklyn and Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women, said she was shocked abortions were no longer offered at the medical center.
Kashner had never heard of a clinic closing under pressure, but added there are others dealing with the same problem. NOW has planned a rally in support of another medical center offering abortions in Jamaica, Queens also struggling to find doctors and patients.
All in all, a pretty incredible story, compounded by the fact that it happened in New York City. If you can make it here…
October 3rd, 2012 | 1:49 pm
If that doesn’t confirm the power of genuinely Catholic social justice in action, I’m not sure what does.
Without making a judgment as to whether the shutting down of this operation was a good thing or a bad thing, I think if the same tactics were used against something one approved of rather than disapproved of, they would be considered reprehensible. The same tactics could be used to drive almost any operation out of business.
October 3rd, 2012 | 2:43 pm
What a surprise, the tactics employed here are “reprehensible”.The same tactics employed to end segregation, support labor unions, oppose military action etc, etc but only when used against abortion does reprehensible raise it’s ugly head. But let me guess, the poster doesn’t really mean such common understanding only that a hypothetical person from some far away planet could find any such tactic so, depending on his or her point of view with respect to the object of said rosary recitation.
October 3rd, 2012 | 3:20 pm
Like death and taxes, it is comforting to know that this website can count on its resident pontificate of posturing profundity to weigh in with anther question-that-is-not-a-question.
Good news is good news.
October 3rd, 2012 | 3:24 pm
Good thing David wasn’t advising Ghandi not to mention MLK Jr.
October 3rd, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Rob and Mike Melendez,
I didn’t say the tactics were reprehensible. I said, “I think if the same tactics were used against something one approved of rather than disapproved of, they would be considered reprehensible.”
Suppose a gay group used the same tactics to shut down a Chick-fil-A. You wouldn’t be comparing them to Martin Luther King, Jr., or Ghandi.
October 3rd, 2012 | 4:15 pm
“It’s a complete victory,” said [Monsignor Philip] Reilly. “The people who are doing it have evolved and their hearts have changed.”
This is certainly not the impression one gets in reading the article.
Also note the following:
October 3rd, 2012 | 4:20 pm
David:
The point of the article was to celebrate the existence of a fact, not to engage in affected chin-pulling “ifs.” If you want to talk about something else, which you clearly do, have the decency to write your own article and argue the point with evidence, rather than burdening the discussion with verbal remoras masquerading as thoughtful commentary.
October 3rd, 2012 | 4:42 pm
“Without making a judgment as to whether the shutting down of this operation was a good thing or a bad thing, I think if the same tactics were used against something one approved of rather than disapproved of, they would be considered reprehensible. The same tactics could be used to drive almost any operation out of business.”
This is why it is important to understand the intrinsic moral quality of the nature of commerce (yes, that’s cumbersome, but “good”, even used as a noun should never be associated with iatrogenic abortion).
Otherwise, you are in an epistemic nightmare-as how in New York City, abortion presents less moral outrage than a 16 ounch soft drink to the city government and our self-appointed first dietician.
As much as I would like to celebrate this, I wonder how much surgical abortion is merely being displaced by chemical abortion.
October 3rd, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Note the “tactics” employed by the Helpers, not the hecklers:
“For years, the pro-aborts continued to harass the Helpers during their monthly Rosary vigils there. Mostly young, they would blow whistles and hurl obscenities at the Helpers who held their ground as they prayed.
“Bishop Daily would tell the Helpers to obey the law and not to respond to the hecklers. After the recitation of the Rosary, the Helpers would process back to St.Michael’s for benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.”
So the tactics were:
“monthly rosary”
“obey the law”
“not respond to anyone who harassed them even those who blew whistles or hurled obscenities at them”
“process back to St.Michael’s for benediction of the Blessed Sacrament”
Note David Nickol’s 2 observations of the tactics:
“The same tactics could be used to drive almost any operation out of business.”
“Suppose a gay group used the same tactics to shut down a Chick-fil-A. You wouldn’t be comparing them to Martin Luther King, Jr., or Ghandi.”
Putting aside the fact neither MLK or Ghandi prayed the rosary, why would MLK or Ghandi want to shut down a Chick-fil-A?
Then there is the very ugly fact of how a Catholic priest *was* treated by a gay group this summer in Chicago when he tried to merely pray the Rosary outside a Chick-fil-A –a Chick-fil-A the gay group was trying to shut down.
October 3rd, 2012 | 5:19 pm
Oops -forgot the link to the video of the very real harassing of the Catholic priest in front of a Chick-fil-A:
October 3rd, 2012 | 5:21 pm
David Nickol,
“Without making a judgement” about whether shutting this operation down was a “good thing or a bad thing” — would you stop hiding behind your semantic word games and take a stance? Hiding behind precious ‘what if’ scenarios that have nothing to do with the taking of human life only detract from a discussion thread. And please spare us anymore Chick-Fil-A analogies….
October 4th, 2012 | 6:42 am
When I read the article I predicted to myself that we would have David Nickol commenting adversely on the actions of the Christians who prayed for the closure of the clinic. Sure enough, there he is with the first comment. David, do you believe that they were right to take the action they did? Are you glad, sad or indifferent about the closure of the clinic?
Your constant sniping on this board at your brothers and sisters in Christ who do not share your left wing views is tiresome.
October 4th, 2012 | 9:00 am
David, Maybe you didn’t notice but gay activists did the use the same kind of tactic on Chick-Fil-A, i.e. non-violence. The original plans for a “Kiss-In”, though, were changed when Chick-Fil-A welcomed them saying they would served promptly and with a smile as are all customers. So the “Kiss-In” was held outside. No one harassed them that I know of. No zones of safety were lobbied for, let alone legislated. Not surprisingly, the protest fizzled, looking pretty sad even though the national media, in general, agreed with the activists. The gay activists were within their rights and Chick-Fil-A acknowledged it. Gay activists, being pretty smart, dropped the tactic.
Imagine where we would be today if Civil Rights sit-ins in the 1960s were promptly served instead of cold-shouldered.
October 4th, 2012 | 11:19 am
David, do you believe that they were right to take the action they did? Are you glad, sad or indifferent about the closure of the clinic?
Ian,
I believe they were right if their actions were as described in the Tablet. I believe they were wrong if their actions were as described in the Daily News. Peaceful protest and prayers outside an abortion clinic are fine with me. Harassing or intimidating doctors, and particularly patients, on their way in an out of an abortion clinic, strikes me as crossing a line that I don’t think should be crossed. Pro-life advocates claim great sympathy for women who have abortions. I don’t think shouting “baby killers” at them when they enter or leave a clinic is consistent with that claim of sympathy.
There’s a passage from the Declaration on Procured Abortion that I have quoted many times and will quote again here:
I don’t believe that is being done. I know that many in the pro-life movement do a lot of good work in crisis pregnancy centers. But when it comes to the legal approach to abortion, it seem to me that on the one hand, the pro-life movement pretty much as a whole claims great sympathy for women who have abortions, but on the other hand, their approach is simply to make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion. I see a contradiction there. If a woman is in such a difficult situation that she deserves sympathy for procuring an abortion, and the only approach is to try to prevent her from having an abortion, that is just leaving her in the difficult situation for which the pro-life advocates claim to be sympathetic.
Regarding this particular story, we have three accounts that cannot be reconciled. We have a story of the anti-abortion protestors being innocent, peaceful demonstrators harassed by others. We have a story of them harassing doctors and patients to the extent they drive the clinic out of business. And then we have the owner of the clinic say the demonstrators didn’t drive the clinic out of business. We also have what seems to be a reliable report that there is another abortion provider just a block away who will take on the former clinic’s patients. We also have a quote from Monsignor Philip Reilly that appears to me not to be true, “It’s a complete victory. The people who are doing it have evolved and their hearts have changed.” It doesn’t sound to me like any hearts were changed. Certainly the owner of the clinic showed no sign of changing his mind about abortions.
Your constant sniping on this board at your brothers and sisters in Christ who do not share your left wing views is tiresome.
If I ever engage in “sniping,” I hope the moderator will not let my messages pass. In this case, and in other cases, I made a comment that was actually neutral but apparently was, for that very reason, irritating to some people. I very frequently disagree with people here, but rarely do I engage in sarcasm or otherwise comment in an uncivil manner, and when I do, I usually regret it.
One of the reasons I read the First Thoughts blog and participate here is because I find it very interesting and thought provoking to read views that are often at odds with my own. I don’t know why the rather small number of us who read First Thoughts but very frequently respond critically should be upsetting.
If you truly do believe I am sniping or being uncivil in the manner in which I express disagreement, please feel free to call me out on it. But don’t accuse me of it merely because I write something you disagree with. I really don’t see how it is possible to disagree with my initial message, actually. Nonviolent means and perfectly legal means can be used for good or ill—for example, to try to prevent a mosque from being built in a particular area.
October 4th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
David N,
Does it occur to you that drawing a parallel between protesting the right to end the life of a child in utero and protesting the right to eat a chicken sandwich (or build a mosque) might in itself be viewed as “reprehensible”? Your treatment of questions like these seems always to come down to a variant of “whose ox….”. It fails, in my view, to take into account any sort of religious or moral gradation.
Can you understand how that might be taken amiss? The standard “if it offends me or my ilk” is purely subjective and your ongoing inference seems to be that this is finally what all protests (and the reactions to them) are about. Do you see how for many of the regulars here the drawing of these sorts of equivalencies without regard to the moral/political/ social/religious content can come across as an exercise in “tu quoque” or false equivalency?
Finally, given your propensity for constantly (in my view) caviling on almost any post having to do with abortion are we really to believe the “..without making a judgment as to whether the shutting down of this operation was a good thing or a bad thing” portion of your post as being in good faith. Your view on matters of this sort has been made abundantly clear.
October 4th, 2012 | 5:40 pm
David N
Your comment that “the pro-life movement pretty much as a whole claims great sympathy for women who have abortions, but on the other hand, their approach is simply to make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion” is unworthy. Undoubtedly some women need help and sympathy though my sympathy is to help them with their pregnancy and to support them in bringing up a child or arranging adoption if they are unable to. I don’t have sympathy for “women who have abortions” in the same way as I don’t have sympathy for parents who kill their infant children.
Yes, the pro-life movement can and should do more but we are fighting spiritual warfare and millions of innocent are killed every year. As the Declaration on Procure Abortion says three paragraphs earlier:
“It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.”
David, I think you don’t have nay inkling how you come across to other people. Comments such as “Without making a judgment as to whether the shutting down of this operation was a good thing or a bad thing…” seem to treat a matter of life and death as a sort of intellectual game. The clinic is no longer carrying out abortions. In my book that is a good thing.
October 4th, 2012 | 8:11 pm
Ian,
I was referring to the unwillingness of any pro-life advocate I have ever had a discussion with to say that women who have abortions should be held in any way legally accountable—and I don’t mean prison time—if Roe is overturned and abortion is criminalized. The last time around I proposed a token fine to be waived for the first two offenses (abortions). People seem to believe that I don’t take abortion seriously, but I simply can’t fathom why anyone who believes that abortion is murder would not want there to be at least some legal ramification for a woman who pays a “hired killer” to “murder” her baby. I always quote Mother Teresa:
If pro-life advocates seriously believe that abortion is “murder by the mother herself,” I am simply baffled by their insistence that, should abortion be criminalized, a woman who procures an abortion should be totally exempt from any legal consequences. Again, I am not talking about prison. I am talking about at least a token penalty—probation, counseling, community service at a crisis pregnancy center. Just something! I can’t even begin to imagine how someone can claim abortion is murder, demand large fines and prison for abortionists, and feel that women who pay to have abortions should go scott free. It sometimes makes me doubt that they really believe what they say they do.
October 5th, 2012 | 12:38 am
Dear David,
The following is from the Priests for Life website. It at least addresses your puzzlement. Whether or not you find it convincing, of course, is your issue:
“Some pro-choicers have attacked politicians who oppose abortion. They complain that legislation restricting abortion would cause women to be jailed for having abortions.
“The only people who propose prison sentences for abortive women are pro-choicers. The goal of pro-lifers was always to put abortionists in jail, where they belong. Pro-choicers don’t think this is fair. They want abortionists to be able to injure and kill women, free of fear of prosecution. But if abortionists are going to jail for injuring women, pro-choicers want the women to go to jail, too.
“Laws against abortion have always targeted the abortionist. The injured woman is the best source of information and evidence. If the woman faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion. The butcher would be free to harm others. It’s like granting immunity to drug users in exchange for information on the big-time drug dealers. It doesn’t excuse the woman from criminal behavior–it just recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society. It is a matter of priorities. Why jail one woman if she will kill once in her lifetime if we can instead jail one abortionist who may kill tens of thousands of babies and maim and kill thousands of women?
“If pro-choicers want women to go to jail for having abortions, they can write legislation requiring it. But pro-lifers are interested in going after the career criminal.”
Best regards.
V.
October 5th, 2012 | 2:04 am
And I’m sorry. I point out that the quoted passage is not necessarily the position of Priests for Life on this issue. It seems they were collecting letters in answer to this issue and posting them. I guess one can reasonably infer from the posting (without rebuttal) that they do not disagree with the post, but that’s an inference.
V.
October 5th, 2012 | 8:00 am
David
I am not sure what your point is: that you would be happier if pro-life people raised the stakes by demanding severe sanctions in most or all cases?
In fact not everyone is against criminal sanctions in appropriate cases. In a recent case in the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9548293/Mother-who-aborted-baby-in-final-week-of-pregnancy-jailed-for-eight-years.html
a woman received a sentence of 8 years for procuring a late-term abortion. (I note in passing that in some parts of the USA her action would not have been illegal.) It has been interesting to note an absence of criticism of the decision, at least in the mainstream UK press.
Straight question, David: Do you agree with Mother Teresa’s point that abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace today?
October 5th, 2012 | 9:34 am
“I can’t even begin to imagine how someone can claim abortion is murder, demand large fines and prison for abortionists, and feel that women who pay to have abortions should go scott free.”
It is not the pro-lifer who is inconsistent here. It is the pro-abort for whom this is nothing more than a discussion to grip about those they disagree with, not an actual reality.
What woman *wants* an abortion?
Frederica Mathewes Green said it best:
“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
Pro-lifers *get* this reality about women who “pay to have abortions”.
Clearly David you don’t.
October 5th, 2012 | 9:46 am
V,
Thanks for the response, but I am not suggesting that women should go to prison for procuring an abortion. I am suggesting that if abortion is murder, and if abortion is criminalized, a woman who procures an abortion should have some legal responsibility. As I said above, make it a token fine and waive it on the first two offenses. Or require counseling. Just something!
October 5th, 2012 | 10:33 am
I am not sure what your point is: that you would be happier if pro-life people raised the stakes by demanding severe sanctions in most or all cases?
Ian,
I said nothing about severe sanctions. Please respond to what I wrote:
The woman in the UK did not procure an abortion. She induced it with drugs in her last month of pregnancy. Abortions after 24-weeks are illegal (with exceptions) in the UK. I know that self-induced abortion is legal in many places, including in New York. A woman was arrested in New York City very late in 2011 for drinking an herbal potion and having a miscarriage. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Straight question, David: Do you agree with Mother Teresa’s point that abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace today?
No, because I don’t think abortion sends people on a slippery slope to other killing. I do, however, think Mother Teresa accurately reflects the Catholic view that abortion is the murder of children by their mothers. Pope John Paul II said something similar. And yet the arguments continue that women not only should not be legally responsible for abortion, but they should not be morally responsible. Mrs. Jackson provides us with this quote:
Aside from psychopaths, few people commit first-degree murder because they want to kill the way they want to own a Porsche or eat an ice cream cone. They do it because they are in a tough situation and they want to get out of it. Are they not responsible?
Note this chart:
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can’t afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn’t mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
I think it is time for pro-lifers to be realistic about why many women procure abortions. It is not because they can't cope with a baby. It is because they don't want the baby or the pregnancy.
Why does the Catholic Church excommunicate a woman who procures abortions if “she wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg”?
The message it seems to me the pro-life movement wants to send is that it is not wrong to procure an abortion, only to perform one. Under any laws I have seen proposed by pro-lifers, women in the United States will continue to have a right to abortion. If the laws are successful, it will just be more difficult for them to procure abortion.
October 5th, 2012 | 10:53 am
“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
Pro-lifers *get* this reality about women who “pay to have abortions”.
Clearly David you don’t.
Mrs. Jackson,
Interestingly, this is the pro-choice argument, as articulated by people like Barack Obama. It is interesting to see you two on the same page. I believe it is true some of the time and not true most of the time. I think most women who have abortions in the United States for one of the reasons I mentioned in a chart in an earlier message could carry the babies to term and give them up for adoption without drastically impacting their lives. Pregnancy is not a minor matter, but over the years I have worked with many pregnant women who have done their jobs until they were almost ready to deliver. In fact, one went into labor on the job, and another had the baby the day after she left for maternity leave. Say a woman is pregnant and does not want the baby. If she carries it to term and gives it up for adoption, she may miss work or school from perhaps six to eight weeks. It is not a small thing, but for a great many women, it is not like being caught in a trap and needing to chew off a leg. It is not enough of a burden to justify murder.
October 5th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
“Interestingly, this is the pro-choice argument, as articulated by people like Barack Obama. It is interesting to see you two on the same page.”
David, Barack Obama believes women who have unplanned pregnancies are being “punished by a baby.”
I do not.
Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this. He voted against it. Don’t try to blame the pro-lifers for his inability to be able to support the Illinois law. As president he could’ve crafted a law helped children who survived abortions. He chose not to.
I would have.
My view is there are at least 2 if not 3 victims with every abortion. The child first and foremost, the mother and yes, even the father.
Barack Obama does not hold this view.
Deciding if women should be prosecuted for having an illegal abortion is not even a real argument because abortion is not only completely legal in the country it is now free.
Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted.
I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you.
“I think most women who have abortions in the United States for one of the reasons I mentioned in a chart in an earlier message could carry the babies to term and give them up for adoption without drastically impacting their lives.”
This is the reality of pregnancy. It is 40 weeks. A woman recovers in 2 weeks – she’s given 6 weeks to cope with adjusting her life to care for the baby and at 6 weeks most babies are sleeping through at least 5 hours. Mentally she can focus at work.
If a woman is giving up her child, she can return to work after 2 weeks. It will be hard, just the hormone rush is horrible. But she can comfort herself by knowing she did the right thing, her baby is being loved and cared for and she will not carrying the horrible burden knowing she ended the life of her child to her own grave.
October 5th, 2012 | 8:30 pm
David,
“I said nothing about severe sanctions. Please respond to what I wrote: Again, I am not talking about prison. I am talking about at least a token penalty—probation, counseling, community service at a crisis pregnancy center.”
I think you’re right about two things. First, all women who seek or succeed at abortion should receive at least counseling and intervention and at most felony convictions, depending on the circumstances.
Second, most pro-lifers are inconsistent in not seeking sanctions against women, evidence that, once again, the culture war has driven people to stand odd stands.
What sanctions would you recommend since you “don’t condone abortion”?
“No, because I don’t think abortion sends people on a slippery slope to other killing.”
Except for other abortions, of course. I don’t know many women who admit to having had an abortion, but that one close friend who has is adamant in denying that she did anything wrong. Otherwise, she is one of the more righteous people I know.
“I think it is time for pro-lifers to be realistic about why many women procure abortions. It is not because they can’t cope with a baby. It is because they don’t want the baby or the pregnancy”
I’m not sure what you make out of these facts. Can you be more explicit?
What I see is women and men who are seeking a little pleasure and intimacy from sex and have ended up with a baby, too. Wishing they could undo their mistake, they kill the baby.
When abortion was legalized, I don’t think anyone believed that women would kill this many babies.
October 5th, 2012 | 9:25 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
“Barack Obama believes women who have unplanned pregnancies are being “punished by a baby. Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this.”
It does the pro-life cause no credit when you persist in spreading lies like these two. Every fair reading of Obama’s record agrees that his words have been taken out of context and distorted.
Obama sees every abortion question as an issue of women’s choice. He’s wrong to frame these questions in this way, and the result of his blindness has been more dead babies. Lies like the ones you’re spreading turn Obama into monster when in fact he exhibits a more run-of-the-mill sort of blindness.
When the loudest pro-life voices trumpet evident falsehoods, the whole cause suffers.
“My view is there are at least 2 if not 3 victims with every abortion. The child first and foremost, the mother and yes, even the father. Barack Obama does not hold this view”
The problem with Obama is that he thinks of women as the chief victim and believes that the remedy is abortion. He has such low expectations of women that he believes he can’t hold them to the higher standard of commitment before sex.
“Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted. I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you”
This is a crazy argument. Who do you think is electing the legislature that will make abortion laws if it isn’t citizens like you and David?
October 6th, 2012 | 12:12 pm
David Nichol, as much as I agree with many of the criticisms directed at you I must say that I do appreciate your contributions to many of the articles to which you comment. Not because I agree with you, though sometimes I do, but because often your comments stir things up and help us to hone our understandings of the issues at hand. Keep up the good work as one of the sticks that stir the pot. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed.
October 7th, 2012 | 12:29 pm
“’Barack Obama believes women who have unplanned pregnancies are being “punished by a baby. Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this.’
“It does the pro-life cause no credit when you persist in spreading lies like these two. Every fair reading of Obama’s record agrees that his words have been taken out of context and distorted.”
*Sigh* Lies? Taken out of context and distorted? Really? Really? Alright, let’s go over this yet again.
“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Admittedly, Obama was off-teleprompter when he spoke of needing an abortion for a hypothetical grandchild of his. In college we were all taught such window to the soul fits the textbook definition of a classic Freudian slip. Was Freud wrong? Well, the only way one cannot believe Obama’s off-the-cuff remarks about aborting his hypothetical grandchild, is to look carefully at Obama’s legislative record with pregnancy and abortion. Now we can go down the rat hole of Obama’s record in Illinois or we can go down the rat hole of the HHS mandate, but First Things does that almost every day. We just witnessed a stellar empty chair performance by that great champion of the unborn — Barack Obama, let’s revisit an earlier empty chair perfromance that pretty much makes the cut and dry case that what I said was about the great champion of the unborn Barack Obama not anywhere close to being a lie. Again, what I said,
“Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this. Obama does not.”
From NRO Above My Pay Grade Four Years Later:
“Four years ago yesterday, on August 16, 2008, then-senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain joined Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., for the ‘Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.’
“The most memorable moment of the evening, by far, came when Pastor Warren asked Senator Obama about his views on human life.
“Coming only a few days after his notorious remarks about bitter midwesterners clinging to their guns and religion, Obama’s now infamous response was but one in a long line of comments and gestures that have come to exemplify that galling blend of condescension and nonchalance that, for many, define this president.
“Yet the flippancy of Obama’s response — that answers to such questions are, ‘above my pay grade’ — overshadowed a very important and revealing aspect of his answer. Or rather, lost in the controversy about the tone of Obama’s response was the question that was actually asked.
“Everyone seems to remember Warren’s question as ‘When does human life begin?’ This is probably because that is the question Obama (flippantly) answered. But that wasn’t the question. What Pastor Warren did ask was a much more direct question, a question much less easily obfuscated by the supposed vagaries of science or theology: ‘At what point does a baby get human rights?’
“Taken at face value, that’s not even a question about abortion — unless there’s some reason to assume a ‘baby’ is unborn. As Warren asked it, the question was not a matter of science or religion. It was (and is) a question about the legal and moral status of certain acknowledged members of the human community.
“In other words, it is a fundamentally political question and points directly to the fundamental political question: Who is, and who is not, a member of the community? No serious politician, still less a president, can be indifferent to such a question.
“Moreover, it is a question that has actual legal significance — beginning with the Constitution which, while it may be silent on the status of unborn persons, speaks explicitly about ‘born’ persons. Ignoring or dodging the question of when life begins is one thing; ignoring or dodging the question of who has protected rights under the lawas it actually exists right now is something else entirely.
“So when does a human baby get rights? When she’s born? When she turns one? When she gets tenure?
“Most people who aren’t Peter Singer would agree that, whatever the biological, moral, or legal status of the unborn child, a live newborn human has human rights and is deserving of protection. Heck, that’s something about which even NARAL agrees.
“So the ‘easy’ pro-choice answer to Warren’s question is that a baby gets human rights ‘at birth.’ While many (myself included) find that answer deeply inadequate and even arbitrary with respect to what the baby actually is — i.e., a living member of the human species — such an answer at least pertains to a significant event; one traditionally weighted with immense spiritual, moral, and social significance.
“’Birth’ is also an answer that more or less accords with current U.S. law, including the Roe regime. In this country, life’s consistent legal protection begins at birth. So unless one wants to concede that the United States’s defense of basic human rights falls short by failing to protect the human rights of unborn humans — an awkward admission for someone who favors abortion rights — ‘birth’ is a nice, safe answer.
“Of course, even if he had wanted to answer Rick Warren’s actual question, ‘birth’ wasn’t an answer Barack Obama could have given without putting himself in a very tricky spot.
“If a baby gets human rights at birth, then Barack Obama has voted to deny human rights. As a state senator, Obama actively opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, refusing to grant legal protections to living, breathing, post-birth babies — regardless of whether they were born as the result of labor (premature or otherwise) or induced abortion. In other words, Obama explicitly denied the extension of legal protection for basic human rights to babies who have already been born.
“As Peter Kirsanow wrote four years ago (before Saddleback, I might add):
‘If there was ever a question that goes directly to a candidate’s capacity for compassion, it’s “At what point is a baby entitled to be treated as a human being?’…”
As President, Obama has authored the most sweeping reforms of abortion since 1973.
What has he done to protect those who survive abortion?
““Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted. I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you”
This is a crazy argument.”
Crazy?
Try Federalism.
October 7th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
Obama is in every way a member of the pro-choice movement. His only thought is for the so-called right of women over their bodies. This makes him wrong, but it doesn’t mean that he thinks of babies as punishment or that he wants children to die after an attempted abortion. Your attempts to distort his statements are transparent.
October 8th, 2012 | 11:04 am
Michael, I’m delighted my lies are so transparent. Why don’t I spread a new one. Obama is not a member of the pro-choice movement. As President of the United States, he has become the leader of the pro-choice movement.
To become the leader of the pro-choice movement, in July of 2008, he went before NARAL (With whom Obama had earned with his votes in Illinois to deny babies who survived medical attention a 100% approval rating–but that must just be little old me lying yet again because a guy who wanted to help those who survived abortions would never, ever have a 100% approval rating with NARAL would they?)- Obama promised,
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,”
This, thankfully, was one of Obama’s first broken promises as President. But look at FOCA -from WIKI and see what Obama was promising NARAL he was going to do to the unborn on behalf of reproductive justice:
The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which “declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.”
It prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman’s right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.
It also authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.”
October 8th, 2012 | 9:32 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
The culture warrior thinks he is battling against a dangerous foe that has nothing but evil intent and utter destruction in mind. He sees everything in the starkest terms possible, exaggerating every piece of news into a battlefield of light and darkness.
Culture warriors on the left claim that the religious right is waging a “war on women.” Perhaps you’ll agree with me that that idea is laughable, but I suspect it’s the only thing you’ll agree with.
On the right, you’ve got people who find it possible to claim both that Obama is “the leader of the pro-choice movement” and also that he immediately broke his promise to pass FOCA. Such culture warriors are adept at ignoring contradictions in their thinking.
The truth is that Obama deals with abortion the way almost every national leader does. It’s a nice way to fire up the party’s base when popularity is flagging. Presidents don’t harbor fiery ambitions about abortion one way or another. They want military victories and landmark legislation. They want to make lasting marks on history.
I doubt Obama has given much thought to abortion except to feel good about “empowering” women by recognizing their “right” to choose. It’s nonsense, but a lot of people on the left believe it. Like most liberals, I doubt he’s allowed himself to really see how horrific abortion is and horrific its death toll has been.
But Obama’s blindness still doesn’t mean that he thinks babies are punishment or that they should die unattended. Thinking that Obama is coldblooded may make you feel even more righteous, but the truth matters. It matters what Obama actually said, and it matters that most evil comes out of blindness rather than out of malevolence.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact