President Obama takes no position on protecting the lives of live-born children

In today’s press briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney took a series of questions about the Kermit Gosnell case (see above). One reporter had the temerity to ask Carney some tough questions about President Obama’s repeated opposition to laws that would protect the lives of children who survive an attempted abortion.

Carney’s answers were baffling. Carney repeated the President’s support for a woman’s right to choose. When the reporter pressed him on whether or not the President would support “common sense reform” to protect the lives of live-born children, Carney refused to give an answer.

Is it really that hard simply to say, “The President supports protecting the lives of all live-born babies”?

(HT: Daniel Halper)

33 Responses to President Obama takes no position on protecting the lives of live-born children

  1. Paula Bolyard (@pbolyard) April 16, 2013 at 12:45 am #

    There’s an awful lot of squirming and eye-averting in that press pool, isn’t there? Props to Ed Henry for asking the tough questions.

  2. Louis Cook April 16, 2013 at 1:18 am #

    It is not only hard to say, “The President supports protecting the lives of all live-born babies.” It is impossible as it would be a lie. He voted against such protection repeatedly as an Illinois State Senator. He has stated that he views unwanted pregnancies as punishments. He can’t even bring himself to call a live-born baby a baby.

  3. Eric Wallace April 16, 2013 at 1:30 am #

    It’s extremely difficult to see that because he clearly doesn’t believe in protecting life. Obama might be the most anti-life President we’ve seen. Remember this track record? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

    • Barry Woodward April 16, 2013 at 8:22 am #

      Right – I was going to make the same point. The awful things that went on in that clinic are the kinds of things that he coud not bring himself to vote against when he was an Illinois state senator. So it’s not at all surprising that he won’t speak out against this.

  4. Griffin Gulledge April 16, 2013 at 1:38 am #

    Carney told the truth: Obama’s position on abortion is very clear. He’s for it, in every case and in every way.

  5. Kyle Howard April 16, 2013 at 7:55 am #

    Very Interesting, Obama had no problem personally commenting on Trayvon Martin right after the shooting. He also had no problem commenting on the altercation that occurred between that white police officer and that belligerent black professor who turned out to be in the wrong. Both of those cases were very novel and unclear on details and yet he found it his place to make a comment. Yet he says “No Comment” for Gosnell? Wow.

  6. Adam Ford (@Adam4d) April 16, 2013 at 8:41 am #

    While I was vehemently opposed to Obama during the election, he’s now my president and as such I try to respect him. But it hurts my heart that our first African-American president is so blatantly discriminating against a specific group of people who are no less human than he or I. Hurts my heart.

  7. Paul Jacobs April 16, 2013 at 10:44 am #

    The moral midgets who inhabit Washington are a stain on the conscience of good people in this country.

    • Tom Parker April 16, 2013 at 11:40 am #

      Paul: Does that include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents? When the Republicans were in the majority-Bush, etc, what did they do to stop abortion?

  8. James Harold Thomas April 16, 2013 at 11:53 am #

    Infanticide is the new abortion. I don’t want to even think about what’s coming next. Yeah, yeah I know, slippery slope arguments aren’t valid. I remember learning that from the pro-aborts when I suggested that abortion could lead to infanticide.

    • James Harold Thomas April 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

      And along the same lines, it looks like polygamy is gaining traction as well.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

      Slipperly slope arguments don’t work because some folks just say “You know, why not indeed?” And same thing for those arguments (do they have a name?) that go “How can you believe THIS and deny THAT?” The idea is to get them to deny THIS as well as THAT, but instead, they just might affirm THAT as well as THIS.

      • Lauren Bertrand April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am #

        While I agree with you that polygamy will at some point become a legitimate point of discussion, I don’t believe this article is a lodestar for anything. Judging from the tone, the source online publication (Slate), and the slew of respondents, that article is clearly intended (though not very successful IMO) to be tongue-in-cheek.

  9. Ian Shaw April 16, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    Denny,

    The coverage (or lack of) for the Gosnell trial just became the victim to circumstance. The bombing of the Boston Marathon (which in and of itself is horrible) will be the only thing you’ll see on the national news or cable networks. Gosnell’s horrors only get further pushed to the background.

    As far as President Obama’s stance…well, no surprise. He’s publicly said a pregnancy on his own daughters would be a burden. A wise man once said: “A man does not call a line crooked, unless he has some idea of a straight line.” One’s morals could be extrapolated from that.

  10. Bridget Platt April 16, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    Can somebody tell me how partial- (and now total) birth abortion is different morally from abortion in general? People are all up in arms over what this man had done (and they should be!) but tell me how reaching inside a woman and snipping a baby’s spinal cord one second before he/she is born is different than waiting till one second after? I’m afraid some of us have bought into the lie that it is. I have read documentation that a baby inside the womb is actually more suceptible to pain than at full gestation because their nerves are not fully developed. This should be headline news every single day of the year.

    • James Harold Thomas April 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

      They are no different morally. What’s different is that Gosnell’s clinic and others like PP of Delaware show in graphic detail the reality of abortion. Most pro-choicers aren’t swayed by logical arguments, but these stories about the trauma experienced by baby and mother alike cut deep, and it’s good for us to keep it in front of their faces. Things like this are what God often uses to turn peoples’ hearts.

      In addition to exposing the horrible realities that go on at these human butcher shops, we need to emphasize that for the baby, they are all alike, from Gosnell’s to the cleanest, state-of-the-art facility.

  11. Larry Geiger April 16, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    “Is it really that hard simply to say, “The President supports protecting the lives of all live-born babies”?” Yes.

  12. Ian Shaw April 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    Bridget-No you’re probably getting frustrated with the logic that pro-choicers use to differentiate partial abortion from abortion. They try and use the viability argument, which has been logically disproven. They try to say that it’s not “human” but just a collection of cells until a certain week# or trimester. The hoops they try to create to justify murder is wilfully ignorant (IMHO). I cannot fathom someone trying to justify when something is “more human at X time” than other times.

    There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate. It is insane to think that at any other timeframe in the womb is the developing child more human than the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism’s existence.

    Just my argument/opinion. Also that God’s righteous judgement gives those that are un-repentant time to accept Him into their hearts and lives.

  13. Bridget Platt April 16, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

    Well said Ian. I guess I’m just wondering why we are not always as up in arms about abortion in general as we are about the Gosnell trial. Maybe it’s God’s way of waking us up to the fact that it’s still there..going on every single day. Sometimes I feel like I think the German citizens must have felt when they went about their everyday life while a short distance away a whole people group were being tortured and slaughtered.

  14. Ian shaw April 16, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    We will in fact become a peculiar people. Ostracized for what we believe. We must not compromise our witness for Christ to be culturally accepted. There’s ways to preach the truth in love, and then there’s people that just preach love with no truth. We must be the former.

  15. Paul Reed April 16, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

    I don’t know how many times I can say this. REPEAT UNTIL THIS SETS IN: The pro-abortion argument is not necessarily that the fetus isn’t a person (although pro-aborts certainly believe this for early-term babies). Their argument is that you can’t force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want.

    • Tom Parker April 17, 2013 at 7:03 am #

      Paul: I wish their would never be even one abortion. But as you correctly point out “we” can not force a woman to have a baby she does not want.

      For some they would allow a woman no option for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

      • Paul Reed April 17, 2013 at 8:32 am #

        I can’t understand while we never challenge pro-aborts on this. They routinely mock our arguments, and we never hit back on their main premise. “A woman doesn’t have to stay pregnant if she doesn’t want to” Why don’t we challenge that asinine statement?

  16. Tom Parker April 17, 2013 at 11:36 am #

    Paul:

    Would you force a woman to have a baby that occurred from a rape or incest or if the life of the mother is in danger?

    • Bridget Platt April 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

      Tom, the bottom line is that there is no justification for murdering babies. period. It makes no sense whatsoever to kill the baby because a man raped a woman. You make it sound like it’s compassionate toward the woman to murder the child. A 2nd act of evil after the 1st may make the woman feel a little better in the short run. Maybe. But it is an act of evil nonetheless.

      • Tom Parker April 17, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

        Thanks for nothing Bridget. Your response to me is exactly why there can be no discussion about abortion. It is all black and white for you.

        • Bridget Platt April 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

          Tom, I’m sorry that you’re disappointed that I won’t compromise and discuss appropriate baby killing. Murder of innocents is black and white.

        • Daryl Little April 18, 2013 at 8:42 am #

          So Tom, what you really mean is, “There can be no discussion about abortion because you guys think it’s wrong”.

          Don’t go all “black & white” on this one. The question has been asked over and over and still people like you don’t want to give a straight answer.

          That question is “What did the baby do wrong in the rape/incest?”

          The answer, of course, is nothing. But you can’t go there because it undercuts your “argument”.

          Kind of like shooting the hostage that a gunman brings into your home and leaves there. Why give them breakfast when you can off them?

    • Johnny Mason April 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

      Tom, in regards to rape or incest, the life of the baby has value and its value is not diminished if it occurs via such horrible means. If the life of the mother is at risk with the pregnancy, then I think the decision should be made by the family on how to proceed.

      I do not know where you stand on abortion, but lets say for a moment that you think abortion should be illegal in the last trimester. Does your view change if the child was conceived by rape or incest?

    • Paul Reed April 17, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

      Yes, I would force her to have the baby. The alternative is to allow her to kill her baby. You can also note that the state can force men to die in a war that it is not their making. Why can’t the state force women to finish a pregnancy, which in 99.9% of cases is directly of their making?

    • C A Thompson April 17, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

      Tom,

      I know these discussions can get a little heated, and I am not trying to heat this one up any further. But I have heard many people ask the same question you have asked. When I hear this question, I always want to reply with a question, for the sake of a more purposeful and grounded discussion. Here it is: Could you point me to said instance–to a woman pregnant with a child conceived from a rape or incest, and whose life is in mortal danger if she delivers the baby, such danger that there is no way to deliver the baby without grave dnager to the mother?

      If you can point me to such an instance, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

  17. Bridget Platt April 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    That’s exactly how I feel, Michael, thanks for that link. It’s so very true.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes