President Obama's statement:
Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Is he saying that government should not intrude in domestic violence cases, child abuse or abandonment, or elderly abuse and neglect?
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
It's in the constitution? He's leaving out a key part of the commitments that needs to be made. What about a commitment to the life of the unborn child?
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
This makes no sense. Oh, maybe Obama just became pro-life and he means the daughters and sons in the womb should have the same rights. No, that's not it. Maybe he means that daughters should have the same rights as sons to an abortion. That's it! Daughters should not have an abortion because sons can't have an abortion. He is pro-life! - On second thought ...
January 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



0 comments:
Post a Comment