First, check out this video: (h/t Hot Air)
Good video.
Now, remember these words spoken by Obama at Notre Dame?
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions
Nice and sweet eh? You would think this statement means that they want to REDUCE the number of abortions.
But if you thought that you would be wrong. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, met with Obama aides at the White House a few days before the speech with dozens of others who had different views of abortion.
Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They’ll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.
But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.
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.”
Huh? If you reduce the need then the number of abortions are reduced. Just plain ole common sense. As Wendy asks in the article, is he ok then with unneeded abortions?
Wendy describes why this exchange came about. In a nutshell….abortion groups understood they needed to soften their no compromise stance on abortion after the 2004 election. What did they do? Changed the language, not their policy:
The LA Times interviewed me on this strategy and reported: “Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that ‘it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing — really, to trick people.’”
Howard Dean, then head of the Democratic National Committee, validated my concern. He told NBC’s Tim Russert: “We can change our vocabulary, but I don’t think we ought to change our principles.”
By all his actions so far, Obama is following this plan.
As usual, Obama is all talk. Elequoent speeches with flowery language intended to say nothing but evoke emotion. And this is exactly what we are getting on the abortion issue…..same ole, same ole.
See author page