President Obama on Abortion | 04/13/2009 10:45 am
Anti-Abortion Activists Balk at Obama's Early Policies
© Getty Images
It may be taking a while for President Obama to get the economy moving again, but there is one area where he’s succeeded in kick-starting action: the anti-abortion movement.
Despite the fact that many abortion foes thought Obama would change the national conversation on abortion, only 84 days into his presidency, they are so far not convinced that’s going to happen.
In fact, Politico reports that many anti-abortion supporters are so put off by the personnel and policy changes he’s made so far — like repealing Bush rules protecting medical workers who have a moral objection to abortion and lifting some stem-cell restrictions — that they’re inundating pro-life groups like The American Life League and Susan B. Anthony List with petitions, e-mails and snail-mail, protesting his actions. That includes calling on the Catholic Notre Dame University to withdraw its invitation to Obama to give the commencement address May 17.
"A lot of activists are waking up," Joy Yearout, political director of the Susan B. Anthony List, told Politico. "For eight years we had President Bush and his veto pen to protect us — and we don’t have that anymore."
Read more about: Abortion, Anti-Abortion Movement, Moral Objection, News, Notre Dame University, Obama Administration, President Obama, Stem Cells, US
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- What's your viewpoint on a one-term presidency for Obama, no matter the reason?
- Could Mammograms Fall Victim to Obamacare? by Liz Peek
- Liz Smith: Sharon Stone, Steve Tyrell, Sarah (You Know Who), Glamour, Lesley Gore – and More!
- Liz Smith: In a Concert Hall Far, Far Away
- Queen Martha, by Cynthia McFadden
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- Remember shopping pre-Internet? What era/memory in the evolution of shopping do you think of most fondly?
- The Love Goddess: In Sickness and in Health ... But Hold the Sickness
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- Liz Smith: In a Concert Hall Far, Far Away
- Liz Smith: Sharon Stone, Steve Tyrell, Sarah (You Know Who), Glamour, Lesley Gore – and More!
- Queen Martha, by Cynthia McFadden
- The Love Goddess: In Sickness and in Health ... But Hold the Sickness
- Lily Tomlin Is Coming to NYC!
- Joan Ganz Cooney Still Shops the Way She Always Has
- Let Down and Felt Up? by E.D. Hill
- What's your viewpoint on a one-term presidency for Obama, no matter the reason?
- Could Mammograms Fall Victim to Obamacare? by Liz Peek
- Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
- Let Down and Felt Up? by E.D. Hill
- Remember shopping pre-Internet? What era/memory in the evolution of shopping do you think of most fondly?
- Did You Ever See a Book Cry? by Sheila Nevins
- Mr. wOw: Falling in Love Again With 'Marlene'
- LIZ SMITH FLASH! The Kennedy Conspiracy and the Mafia
- The Love Goddess: In Sickness and in Health ... But Hold the Sickness
- Queen Martha, by Cynthia McFadden
wOw Features
Reader Voices
Dear Margo: When Dad/Gramps Just Ain't Interested
The Palin Book, as Dear Margo Sees It
301 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Well Catherine…you should feel sorry for the unwanted babies that unprotected sex creates.
Then you should feel sorry for the youth of our country that think that having babies is the "cool" thing to do, thanks to our screwed up liberal media and glorified Hollywood.
Then you should feel sorry for the parents of these young mothers and fathers who have to help raise and support another child that was not planned for, either emotionally or financialy.
Last of all, but not least…you should be sorry for the taxpayers that are saddled with the bills that they rack up because they have no way to pay for their bad decisions.
The facts are that most abortions and unwanted pregnancies come from unprotected sex. Not to mention the STD’s.
During the 1980s, there was a court case in Ohio. Two brothers had become estranged over the years. One of them was stricken with a kidney failure and required ongoing dialysis in order to survive until a donor match could be found. It was determined that his estranged brother was an excellent match, but the brother refused to offer one of his kidneys. The ailing brother sued the healthy brother in court, claiming that Mr. Healthy did not need two kidneys to live, and had no right to deny Mr. Sick — a fully-endowed human person — the "right to life."
Needless to say, the courts held that Mr. Healthy had the right to control his own body and could not be forced to have his body used to keep Mr. Sick alive if he did not agree. It would be a beautiful CHOICE if he were to voluntarily offer the gift of life, but as a legal matter it could not be FORCED.
Similarly, even if the embryo of a pregnant woman is human, it still would not have the right to force the mother to use her body to keep it alive against her will. If the decision to give birth is what she wants, then "life" is a "beautiful choice." But it is her choice; she cannot legally be forced into it.
Likewise, if a person with a rare genetic type needs a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant and finally finds that rare, perfect match, but the owner of the organs doesn’t want to donate, no reasonable person would say that the one who wants the organ has the right to demand that a specific person donate his/her organ, even to save the life of an ACTUAL human.
So, which is it? Only pregnant women are forced to hand over their bodily sovreignity to a fetus? If you believe a woman has to give her body over to a fetus, then you must also agree that every human has to be forced to give up any unneeded organs and blood to give to other humans who would otherwise die.
My body is mine. It is not yours, it is not my partners, it is not the governments, and it is certainly not the property of a fetus.
Pro-Choice is the Only Choice. Roe V. Wade!! WHOOOOOO!
Amanda, there are some important differences between the case of Mr. Sick vs. Mr. Healthy and abortion. First of all, except in the instance of rape, the woman makes a choice not to protect herself. Mr. Healthy did not make a choice that led to Mr. Sick’s existence, ill health, etc.; Mr. Sick was sick through no choice of Mr. Healthy. Conversely, a woman (and her partner) who gets pregnant made the *choice* not to use protection while having intercourse, which directly led to her pregnancy. Therefore the woman chose to "hand over" her "bodily sovereignty".
Secondly, Mr. Sick was asking Mr. Healthy to permanently give up a *part* of his body. This is not the case of the mom.
I’m not trying to make your body the property of anyone. I fully support your choice to control your body as you see fit; I just don’t think you (or anyone else) should have the "choice" to control someone else’s body.
Wrong. Birth control, condoms, pills, ect does not work all the time, mistakes are made, condoms break, hormones aren’t 100% effective. So you are wrong. You are obsessed with the idea that women who get pregnant when they don’t want to have had unprotected sex. Rachel F, many women become pregnant on birth control, and they aren’t stupid or lazy. Get that idea out of your head, it’s insulting. If condoms and birth control were 100% effective, unwanted pregnancy rates would PLUMMET.
Next idea?
So, if Mr. Healthy ran Mr. Sick over with a car, and Mr. Sick needed a kidney, Mr. Healthy should legally be forced to give his kidney to save Mr. Sick’s life?
Wrong. That is still her body. She does not give her body over to a fetus that grows - that is your delusion, not mine.
I’m not trying to make your body the property of anyone. I fully support your choice to control your body as you see fit; I just don’t think you (or anyone else) should have the "choice" to control someone else’s body.
By forcing women to go through with a pregnancy and/or birth, you are making a womans’ body the property of another person - the fetus is seen as more important and having more rights than the mother.
That’s not the point of the story. THe point is forcing someone to use their body to save the life of someone else.
"Wrong. Birth control, condoms, pills, ect does not work all the time, mistakes are made, condoms break, hormones aren’t 100% effective. So you are wrong. You are obsessed with the idea that women who get pregnant when they don’t want to have had unprotected sex. Rachel F, many women become pregnant on birth control, and they aren’t stupid or lazy."
The failure rates of birth control are very low. It’s not "obsession", it’s fact.
"Wrong. That is still her body. She does not give her body over to a fetus that grows - that is your delusion, not mine."
Amanda, allow me to ask you a question. Why is it necessary to respond condescendingly when I was not being condescending to you? If you are so intellectually superior and I am so "deluded" that you feel that you can not condescend to respond in a respectful fashion, I don’t see why you "waste" your time talking to a mere mortal like me at all…
"By forcing women to go through with a pregnancy and/or birth, you are making a womans’ body the property of another person - the fetus is seen as more important and having more rights than the mother."
Not at all. But I don’t think that, when a woman and man choose to create a life, either of them should then have the right to take that life away. The simple fact of the matter is that, when a man and a woman create a baby, the mother carries it for 9 months. If the mother doesn’t want to sacrifice her "bodily sovereignty", she doesn’t have to make the baby in the first place! If she does, though, she’s already chosen to sacrifice her "bodily sovereignty"; changing her mind later on, and killing a human being in the process, is wrong!
Low doesn’t mean 100% fail-proof. That means you were wrong in your past posts that women who get pregnant accidentally have "made a choice not to protect herself." You yourself have just proved your statements wrong and insensitive to women who use birth control.
I feel you are condescending, towards women who get pregnant accidentally. You have repeated over and over that: "Conversely, a woman (and her partner) who gets pregnant made the *choice* not to use protection while having intercourse, which directly led to her pregnancy. Therefore the woman chose to "hand over" her "bodily sovereignty"."
The fact remains that when using birth control, there is a chance that you will get pregnant even with perfect use. There are millions of women in America, and even if each and every sexually active one used birth control perfectly, a percentage of them WOULD and WILL get pregnant. A woman who has sex does not give up any of her rights simply because she has sex - as i said, that is your delusion and I will not entertain such insensitive, sexist ideas.
Not at all. But I don’t think that, when a woman and man choose to create a life, either of them should then have the right to take that life away.
Having sex does not mean they are choosing to create a life - once again, that is you injecting your beliefs into the lives of millions of other Americans who do not agree with you. The chance of consequence does not mean there is an intent in the minds of two people having sex.
If the mother doesn’t want to sacrifice her "bodily sovereignty", she doesn’t have to make the baby in the first place!
Wrong. The mother never has to sacrifice her bodily sovreignity - that’s what it MEANS, Rachel!!!! Jeez.
Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. It just means you’re repeating yourself rather than thinking and adding to the dialogue.
Amanda, the majority of abortions in this country are "convenience" abortions. Allowing that a small number of those abortions are from failed protection, my point still holds true for the majority of abortions in this country!
"Wrong. The mother never has to sacrifice her bodily sovreignity - that’s what it MEANS, Rachel!!!! Jeez."
Umm, did I say she did? You say the woman shouldn’t have to sacrifice her bodily sovereignty (by getting pregnant and not terminating the pregnancy); I agree. But I say she shouldn’t get pregnant (and "sacrifice her bodily sovereignty") if she doesn’t want to be pregnant; you say she should kill the child if she doesn’t want to be pregnant.
"I feel you are condescending, towards women who get pregnant accidentally."
I see…so, of course, you’re perfectly justified in being condescending to me. Forgive me, Great One…henceforth, whenever I speak of the tremendous majority of women who choose abortion for convenience’s sake after not protecting against pregnancy, would you prefer that I include a disclaimer, specifying that I’m not in fact talking about the tiny minority who use birth control/preventative measures that fail?
"Having sex does not mean they are choosing to create a life - once again, that is you injecting your beliefs into the lives of millions of other Americans who do not agree with you."
It’s not a "belief", Amanda, but scientific fact; when you have unprotected sex, a child may be conceived. If you’re willing to take that risk, I don’t think you have the right to kill the child that may result!
"Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. It just means you’re repeating yourself rather than thinking and adding to the dialogue."
Interesting, coming from you…
What’s the difference between an abortion of convenience, and an abortion from failed protection?
Also, where are you getting your information on which pregnancies come from unprotected sex, and which ones come from protected sex? Please give me a source, thank you.
Actually yes, you did: If the mother doesn’t want to sacrifice her "bodily sovereignty", she doesn’t have to make the baby in the first place! If she does, though, she’s already chosen to sacrifice her "bodily sovereignty";
Bodily sovreignity means you have control over your body 100% of the time, no one else does. By forcing a woman to give birth, you are effectively saying that a womans body is not hers - it is the laws, it is the fetuses, it is someone elses… but not hers.
henever I speak of the tremendous majority of women who choose abortion for convenience’s sake after not protecting against pregnancy,
There you go again. As if having a child is so easy and everyone can afford the medical bills, the cost of raising a child, the time it takes, ect. And, also, assuming once again that every woman who aborts had unprotected sex. Condescending, judgemental and uninformed.
specifying that I’m not in fact talking about the tiny minority who use birth control/preventative measures that fail?
What is your source that only a small minority of women who have abortions used birth control? Please give it to me. Or are you assuming everything?
when you have unprotected sex, a child may be conceived.
When you have ANY SEX, a child may be conceived. What is your obsession with believing that pregnant women are all sluts who didn’t use protection and who deserve to be forced to give birth? It’s disgusting hearing this vile poison come from a fellow female.
Then that is YOUR think, that is YOUR belief, and you cannot control MY body, thank God.
Interesting, coming from you…
I have facts and evidence and statistics, which don’t stick even if i repeat them. You, on the other hand, only assume what you want and repeat it without evidence to back it up.
So back it up.
Amanda, you say you have "facts and evidence and statistics" and that I "only assume". That’s an amazing contradiction, since you’ve done nothing but assume that I was being "judgemental" about women who don’t use protection, etc., etc.,
You say "What is your obsession with believing that pregnant women are all sluts who didn’t use protection and who deserve to be forced to give birth? It’s disgusting hearing this vile poison come from a fellow female. "
The poison doesn’t spring from me, it springs from you. I never insulted pregnant women nor said that they were "all sluts who didn’t use protection". If you care to recall, I took issue with you for sarcastically attributing such sentiments to me before. Not only have I never attempted to put any "moral judgement" or "judgement" of any kind on women for being/getting pregnant when they did not want to be, I have stated that this happens to women in all sorts of circumstances — so that, whatever your "moral stance" is, it’s not an issue of "morality" or "judgement" or whatever you’re attempting to imply. In other words, whatever your definition of "immoral" or, to use your favorite term, "slut", it’s hardly just the "immoral" or "sluts" (however you define that…) who end up pregnant or getting abortions. Single or married, long term relationship or one night stand…as I’ve previously stated, it doesn’t matter — unwanted pregnancies and abortion happen with all of them. To assert that only "sluts" get pregnant without wanting to be is uninformed and, frankly, stupid; but *I* never said it. In your efforts to avoid reading what I’ve actually written and dismiss my argument without listening to it, you somehow missed that little fact…
I have one question ladies…where does it end?
If, somehow, abortions were outlawed, where does the fetus’ rights end and the mothers’ begin? Will we start arresting women for drinking or smoking during pregnancy? After all, its the fetus’ right to live correct? So, the mother smoking or drinking, which you would NEVER give to a child after its born, would therefore be illegal because it would be damaging the fetus itself and that fetus has no choice, but it sure has the right to stop the mother from doing ANYTHING that would cause damage to the fetus because it is now considered a person. Where does it end? The mother can’t drink, can’t smoke (I’m only talking legal drugs here) - even though they are advised not to, many women still do, so shall this become a crime? How about we go a step further and say the woman carrying the child cannot engage in ANY dangerous activities. Anything that even slightly puts that child at a risk, lets tell them mother she has NO right to do because the fetus’ life is more important than the mothers rights.
Problem is, once you allow one thing, it compiles a whole new list of problems and it becomes a slippery slope with no correct answer. So how far do you think anyone wants to take it? Once you say "no abortion", then what? No drinking, no smoking, no doing anything we don’t approve of beforehand?