‘Punishing’ Obama for not wanting to ‘punish’ his daughters

April 2, 2008

I didn’t really expect this to stretch into another day of conservative complaining, and yet here we are.

To briefly recap, Barack Obama hosted a town-hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., over the weekend, and was asked how his administration would address HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among young girls. Obama emphasized education and prevention, including comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception. “I’ve got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “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. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

For reasons that elude me, some conservatives — including Sean Hannity, a correspondent for Pat Robertson’s TV show, Hugh Hewitt, and some right-wing blogs — pounced on the “punished with a baby” line, suggesting that Obama somehow equates parenthood with punishment.

Word about this is apparently making the rounds in conservative circles, because the complaints are getting louder. Today, in his Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson insisted that “Obama’s record on abortion is extreme,” and cited the weekend’s comment, among other things, as evidence.

And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

And now the religious right is seizing on what it sees as a wedge opportunity.

The conservative Washington Times reported today that “pro-life activists” are outraged.

Pro-life groups have long criticized the record of Mr. Obama, Illinois Democrat, who has voted against legal protection for babies who survive botched abortions and against prohibitions on taking a minor across state lines for an abortion.

His “punished with a baby” comment Saturday at a town hall in Johnstown, Pa., reignited the outrage.

“It is just shocking to hear it come out of someone’s mouth,” said Charlene Bashore, director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation PAC. “I can’t say it is surprising since he has a radical stance on abortion. … By all indications, he does consider an unplanned pregnancy to be a punishment.” […]

Concerned Women for America (CAW) called on Mr. Obama to recant his comment, saying it stigmatizes babies conceived by teenagers and “provides an excuse for aborting them.”

If the right wants to complain about Obama being pro-choice, that makes sense. It may not be an effective electoral strategy in a country that tends to support abortion rights, but at least I understand where they’re coming from.

But this outrage over Obama’s comments from the weekend seems wildly excessive.

The campaign told reporters on Monday, “What Sen. Obama said and what he believes is clear — children are ‘miracles,’ but we have a problem when so many children are having children. As Sen. Obama said on Saturday — and on many other occasions — parents have a responsibility to teach their children about values and morals to help make sure they are not treating sex casually. And while he understands the passions on both sides of this difficult issue, Sen. Obama believes we can all agree that we should be taking steps to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions in this country.”

Obama believes teenagers should be given as much accurate information as possible so they can make the right choices. If a teenage girl makes a mistake, and gets pregnant, Obama believes she should have a choice. Conservatives believe that girl can’t have comprehensive education on sexual health, can’t have access to contraception, can’t have access to the morning-after pill, and has to deliver a baby whether she wants to or not.

It’s hardly a stretch to call this “punishing” the teenage girl for her mistake. Contra Gerson, I don’t think this is an “extreme” position to take; I believe the opposite is.

Badly played by Obama’s campaign. Obama’s phrasing was clumsy, but what has the wingnuts’ knickers in a twist is that Obama noted, correctly, that the anti-sex forces’ agenda is in fact to punish women for having sex. Looked at holistically, the conclusion is inescapable. His campaign should continue to drive that wedge — that the so-called “pro-life” forces seem much more about punishing women for having sex than pursuing any kind of rational policy, and indeed they oppose rational policy — such as contraception and sex ed — as “radical.”

It’s time to move the Overton window away from the anti-sex kooks.

  • Complaining is what conservatives do, and they will continue on this issue day after day until they find something new to be “outraged” about. IMO, they’re just mad because Obama’s language hit upon the crux of the conservative anti-abortion agenda. For most of them it has nothing to do with helping babies, it’s all about punishing women for having sex.

  • your last two paragraphs nail it, cb. of course the frighties won’t get it…….

  • I can’t imagine anyone would be legitimately concerned if Senator Obama is or is not fond of children. This is just the righties trying to generate a tempest in a teapot, to make something big out of nothing. Obama won’t stumble, so they’re trying to make him trip over a stick.

  • What’s weird about finding fault with Obama’s comment is that it implies that the critic believes that any girl under the age of consent who gets pregnant is doing so both with consent and with a full understanding of the ramifications. The reason Obama used the word ‘punish’ is that he (apparently) does not feel that pregnancy is God’s reward to those young girls who are successfully going forth to multiply as soon as they’re fertile. If you take the most cynical perspective and frame the problem in vituperative language, then the response to his critics is: “So Hannity, you’re saying that every victim of statutory rape is being rewarded by God with a baby?”

    Great. I would have thought that any respected christian leader would immediately agree with Obama and point out that this is exactly God’s punishment for sex out of wedlock and then launch into a pro-abstinence diatribe. Clearly it’s more valuable to launch into all-out hypocrisy than to help a nigger be president.

  • This will only keep getting traction until Obama can get his view onto the national stage. Right now the wingnuts are free to rant about all the things he said by ripping them from the context of his speeches, which when viewed more completely are recieved well by centrists. The wingnuts are trying desperately to take advantage of the lack of context they have now, before Obama gets the airtime that the Democratic nominee gets. They’re trying to poison the well now, because they know that Obama has a way of winning people over once he can get them to listen for a few minutes.

    BTW, they’re also trying to split off the anti-choice blacks.

  • I really hope they keep with this criticism; most people, including many that are pro-life, understand through their own experience that children are a great burden, and that considering them to be a ‘punishment’ is not as outrageous as the few loudmouths are making it out to be. I mean, honestly, let’s face it, many americans will look at their own children and think to themselves “Yup, I am being punished.”

    Cynical take, I know, but I really don’t think this is going to do anything to hurt obama except among people that wouldn’t ever vote for him based on the fact that he is pro-choice. It actually serves to dilute the general message against him into a bit of ‘noise’ I think.

  • This is only the beginning of this. It’s been non-stop on talk radio, it’s only a matter of time before a real news org. picks it up. They’ll beat obama with everything and anything they have (real or imagined). We have 7 more months of this, get used to it.

  • Seems like a fairly easy one to reverse the spin on. Obama’s camp can acknowledge that he believes that a baby would be punishing for a 9 year old girl, and go on the offensive against those on the right who believe that 9 year olds should be getting pregnant and having babies.

    Sure, it’s a bit of a distortion, but so is the original disingenuous attack on Obama.

  • Uh. Don’t the religious right people think that a woman should be punished with a baby for engaging in sex? Isn’t their position “Oh well. You should have thought of that before you had sex”? That’s punishment.

  • Since when don’t right wingers consider pregnancy a punishment for premarital sex? Are they suggesting if God loves you he will give you a baby, and if He doesn’t, you’ll get a STD? Tell that to the parents.

  • Sorry Jay. I’m a slow thinker and I didn’t refresh. But we agree, so forgive me.

  • I’m a new parent, and i sure think parenthood is punishment, sometimes. 😀

  • A democratic candidate mis-speaks and the media dares to talk about it?

    As a typical white person, I must say that is absolutely ridiculous… lol.

    Clinton mis-spoke on Bosnia, they media made it issue#1 for 2 weeks! That’s longer than the Wright controversy went on for, come on already.

  • I think Coltrane has it right. There are voters out there who WILL NOT VOTE for Obama or any Democrat even if s/he was the second coming of JC himself as long as there is a “D” after the name.

    I’m glad Obama is hitting back. I’d like to see more of this.

  • Seriously, how many grown women wouldn’t have an “Oh, SHIT!!!” reaction to an unplanned pregnancy? Let alone a teenage girl.

  • I’m really saddened to learn that this one issue has driven Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity out of the Obama camp. They were going to get along so well otherwise!

  • Clinton mis-spoke on Bosnia? Several times?

    I’m sorry, Greg, the word you’re searching for is lied.

  • What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that the country is overwhelmingly pro-choice. If I recall correctly, the numbers are something like 70% pro-choice. Even registered republicans tend to be pro-choice. And the pro-life sheep who would take this “controversy” seriously are the same people who would never vote for a democrat in the first place.

    So I think that if Obama stands up to this and throws it back in their faces, it could backfire on them magnificently. And he already has a history of doing just that with GOP smears and talking points.

  • greg, obama didn’t “misspeak” here, the righties are just putting words in his mouth.

    and clinton didn’t misspeak on bosnia. she outright lied.

  • Clinton mis-spoke on Bosnia… -Greg

    Lol. Really, you worship of Clinton is pushing the boundaries of seriousness. It’s getting harder and harder to see you as anything but a parody or a street prophet.

    Clinton lied on Bosnia. She said she was being shot at by snipers. She was drinking tea to a serenade.

    Misspeaking would’ve been saying she was drinking coffee.

    People don’t forget being shot at. Ever.

    Obama didn’t misspeak. He said it’s punishment to be a young, pregnant teenager. He’s right; it is. Anyone who disagrees needs only to spend a moment research what life is like for a 16 year old with a child.

    Of course, I don’t expect any acknowledgment of reality forthcoming from you.

  • Yikes. I’m thinking I might want to tamp down my enthusiasm for kids sauteed with shiitake and soy a bit. Brooks, I like your counter-intuitive thinking. Jkat, thanks for your Greenwald link the other day. I placed my book order 4 sur.

  • Ah, the “logic” of the wingnuts:
    Believe in the sanctity of life, even if it would kill the mother, and approve of going to war. Oh, and the death penalty is ok, too.

  • Clinton lied on Bosnia. She said she was being shot at by snipers – doubtful

    She meant to say…

    “we landed under threat of sniper fire” and instead she said “we landed under sniper fire”

    If you look past the ridiculous implications that would make Clinton haters such as yourself believe she outright lied, and realize that she is, like Obama, only human, then you can understand that she mis-spoke.. or should we start labeling Obama a liar for things he mis-spoke about?

  • What a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that the country is overwhelmingly pro-choice.

    Exactly. I say let them complain. They’re the same folks who thought making a big fuss about Terri Schiavo was morally right and good politics at the same time. They have no clue.

  • Right-wing idiots want to keep covering planet Earth with people. Unwanted pregnancies
    carried to term benefit no one.

    Right-wing corporate morons will not be happy until Obama says “Sieg Heil” to the little Bush-Napoleon, just like McBlunder has been doing for the last eight years.

  • former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson insisted that “Obama’s record on abortion is extreme” …

    Only on Wingnut World can something a majority of Americans agree with and support be labeled “extreme.”

    But, as BuzzMon noted, these are the same clowns who prattle endlessly about a “culture of life” while supporting torture, endless war and the death penalty.

    Expecting any logic from them is like expecting a decades-long string of World Series championships from the Kansas City Royals.

  • If, instead of “punished with a baby”, he had said “blessed with a child of god and heir to heaven” they’d have mocked him as the antichrist or something. We shouldn’t give a good god damn about what the right wing thinks. They’re moribund and should be ignored or laughed at. In the end they’ll take their snake oil back into the sweaty tents in which they used to shriek and roll around, entertaining the ignorant hillbillies.

  • Those crazy nuts may just force Obama to give another amazing oration on having a mature perspective on a problem that has bedeviled America for decades and people will want him all the more for it. The right has been playing fast & loose with political dialogue for so long they believe their own crap. There is a gunslinger in town now; their peashooters won’t scare anybody anymore.

  • Obama didn’t misspeak. Teens forced to have children is a punishment. Hell, women forced to have children is a punishment. I don’t see fundies out there promoting teen pregnancy. If it’s a reward or a gift then they should be right? If it’s a neutral event the they shouldn’t be promoting abstinence.

    Clinton didn’t misspeak either. She lied and got busted.

  • This really is a hilarious line of argument. They’re a hop, skip, and a jump away from seeming like they’re actually advocating teen pregnancy. And as Coltrane said above, I think at worst this just raises the general volume of whining from the right which will just be more background noise for anyone who hadn’t already decided not to vote for him. On the other hand, this is just one more little step in the direction of making them look for everyone like the fools they really are.

    Is it even possible to take the “How dare you say teen pregnancy is a bad thing?” argument as anything remotely rational or serious? Of course, they’re actually trying to argue that Obama wants to abort all unborn babies (clearly, he’s anti-child with two daughters of his own), but the leap from “teen pregnancies are punishment” to “Obama wants to force all women to submit to involutary abortions’ is beyond absurd. Not that it’ll keep them from making it, of course.

  • Well, of course Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt would think that. They’re not going to be a 16 year old girl any time soon. The worst punishment they could suffer would be an annoying child support payment. I agree that this is something that common sense voters understand, i.e. they don’t want their teenage daughters getting pregnant either, and that wingnuts misunderstand as badly as they misunderstood Terri Schiavo.

  • Look, this is an easy fix. Just have Obama write a speech about how his racist grandma use to cross the street when she say a teen with a baby, have Chris Mathews cry about it; problem solved

  • “we landed under threat of sniper fire” and instead she said “we landed under sniper fire”

    And when she said they had to run for cover, she meant they had to stand on the tarmac and shake hands. And when she said they couldn’t meet with the welcoming committee because it was so dangerous, she meant to say they posed for pictures with a little girl. Gotcha.

  • She said they had to cut the ceremony on the tarmac short, to my knowledge she didn’t say they cancelled it.. this is getting a bit far off topic, don’t you think?

  • Greg, tell me the truth: you haven’t even seen the footage of Hillary speaking about Bosnia yourself, have you?

    She was very specific in her descriptions of what happened, and there was no misstatement there. Go to Youtube and look for any number of the videos overlaying her own description from the conference with the news footage of the visit. After you’ve seen it, come back and tell us what you find. We’ll be waiting.

  • She meant to say…

    “we landed under threat of sniper fire” and instead she said “we landed under sniper fire” -Greg

    Oh, please. Read the transcripts. Whatever. You’re now officially an irrelevant idiot. Your sign is in the mail. I done wasting my time on you.

    Facts. You’re doing it wrong.

  • She said they had to cut the ceremony on the tarmac short, to my knowledge she didn’t say they cancelled it.. this is getting a bit far off topic, don’t you think?

    So, if you continue to misrepresent what Hillary did, we’re not allowed to refute your bogus claims just because you were saying it off-topic? Right.

    But we’ve seen clips of her talking about the “corkscrew landing” that wasn’t corkscrew, and how she “ran out because there might be sniper fire” though she obviously wasn’t running and the pilot said they wouldn’t have landed if there might be sniper fire. We’ve also seen when she said a different time how “the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire” and how they “ran with their heads down,” even though there obviously was a welcoming ceremony and she didn’t run. I could go on and on. The point is, she said this stuff several times, and it’s obvious it wasn’t just one misstatement. She was lying to us specifically to make herself sound more important than she was. And she’s making you look like a total fool, yet you continue to defend her. Why?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

  • How did this get to be about Hillary?

    Anyway, it’s not too surprising that Senator Obama has stumbled once in a while. This one was really bad language, but I can understand the sentiment. I don’t believe that teenagers whose contraception fails should be ‘punished’ either.

    Of course, considering that our carbohydrate saturated diet in America has children maturing to mensus by ten, we are going to have pre-teen mothers. Toss that one back to the wingnuts.

    That said, Senator Obama is pretty moonbat on this issue. Not quite the nifty “Legal, Safe and Rare” response other candidates might say.

  • Greg is definitely exhibiting one of the worst traits of a Hillary supporter: It’s all about poor Hillary. Any time there’s a negative story unfairly attacking Obama, rather than taking the high road and agreeing that the attack is unfair, or at least going on the offensive and repeating the smear; the typical Hillary supporter will talk about poor Hillary and how it’s unfair that she’s treated unfairly. In this case, we see Greg yet again bringing up the embarrassing Bosnia story and getting utterly SLAMMED for it. He’s totally in the wrong in this one, but he can’t help himself and has to keep defending poor Hillary.

    But why would you want to bring up your candidate’s screw-up when you could just attack the opposing candidate? Because they really can’t see much past defending Hillary. That’s what it’s all about. They don’t support her because they think she’s some great candidate who will save the country. They support her because she’s always been unfairly attacked all these years, and they’re just continuing their support of her. That’s why they can’t stand it whenever we talk about anyone else being unfairly smeared. They don’t even really care about winning this. They just want to see Hillary finally getting the fair treatment she deserves and won’t rest until she gets it. Poor, poor Hillary. Only got to be a Senator; never a President.

  • If Greg wants to be taken seriously in these parts, he needs to take L Boom’s advice. Tell us what the video shows and how well it lines up with what Clinton said. Fail to do that and you make yourself irrelevant.

    I like Hillary’s assertion that since she says a lot of things, that anything she says that’s whack must be a “misstatement”

    …you know, I say a lot of things – millions of words a day – so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement…”

    And I love the way she throws in “millions of words”. That’s a misstatement.

  • Children can be a great hardship and demand an enormous sacrifice especially when a surprise, unplanned or unwanted to begin with. Too much responsibility can seem like a punishment, especially when you didn’t ask for it. This is the kind of worthless chatter the right will be using against Obama as they try to make mountains out of mole hills with outrageous indignation as if that were anything compared to the McBush disaster.

  • I wonder where those ripping on Obama stand on S-CHIPs, or Head Start, or all of the federally-funded programs that help both those 16-year-olds who do have babies and the babies themselves.

    Would not supporting these programs be considered “punishinment”?

  • Can we please stop using phrases like “abortion rights”? It’s a “woman’s right to choose.” No one is “pro-abortion” we’re “pro-choice.”

    Words matter.

  • The point of my original post was to point out that ALL candidates should expect to be ridiculed to some extent for mis-speaking.. It was the Hillary haters who took it to the next level and started bashing her over Bosnia all over again.

  • Actually, Obama worded this very poorly and indeed did misspeak. To me, the problem is that he says “if they make a mistake.” As if this mistake (having unprotected or poorly protected vaginal intercourse) is something girls are making alone. Once again teenaged boys are excluded from this conversation.

  • That said, Senator Obama is pretty moonbat on this issue. Not quite the nifty “Legal, Safe and Rare” response other candidates might say.

    I fail to say how Obama’s statement is “moonbat” at all. I doubt many conservatives, other than those who are particularly anti-choice, would disagree with it even as it is phrased. More than that, I don’t see how it in any way contradicts “Legal, safe and rare” at all. In that it is a statement in support of sex education, it would seem to support this notion almost explicitly. I can certainly see where his political opponents might want to nitpick the language but what exactly is supposed to be the extreme part of what he said or, for that matter, in anything regarding his position on reproductive rights?

  • As if this mistake (having unprotected or poorly protected vaginal intercourse) is something girls are making alone.

    I don’t see how his statement implies that in any way. Whether or not someone else is involved in any particular mistake is immaterial to the question of whether it is a mistake and that is certainly no less true here. In fact, I am not certain of how coming up with some sort of phrasing to include the responsibility of additional parties to the mistake would even change the meaning of what he is saying here which is that he thinks the availability of sex ed and contraception are important social tools even for kids with responsible parents.

  • the christianists are a mind-boggling group. sadly, they are also dangerous in that they sincerely believe that the bible is a greater authority than the united states constitution. their insistence that any indication of nono-alignment with their belief system is not only unacceptable but a direct attack on them leaves the rest of us with no choice but to reduce theiir participation in any discussion which lies outside of the four walls of the church and the immediate homes of their members.

    if there were any justice in this country, there would be NO tax exempt status for ANY religious organization and only organizations which contribute in a practical way — food to the hungry, education scholarships, etc — would be tax exempt. political contributions would also be specifically prohibited from any tax exempt status.

    if the rule is going to be that you have to pay to play, well, then, let’s just make that the rule across the board.

  • Actually, Obama worded this very poorly and indeed did misspeak. To me, the problem is that he says “if they make a mistake.” As if this mistake (having unprotected or poorly protected vaginal intercourse) is something girls are making alone. Once again teenaged boys are excluded from this conversation.

    He was talking about his daughters. He has no sons, you see.

  • brent,

    The mistake, the way he’s saying it, is one his girls are making. And it is implied (by pregnancy and/or STD as the consequence) that their mistake is in not using protection when they have sex. This is not a mistake they can make all by themselves so the clarification of another person involved is not immaterial. A boy can very well be burdened with a child and an STD if he has unprotected sex, too. His statement makes it the girls mistake and the girls burden alone.

    I agree with the spirit of what he’s saying, but he hardly said it in the clearest way.

  • Sorry nancy. I don’t read his statement as suggesting anything about the lack of culpability or responsibility of other parties to a pregnancy at all. It doesn’t even touch on the issue, not because it isn’t important but because he is referring specifically to his own daughters. I think you have to make a fairly long leap to get to the implication you are seeing.

    But I suspect we will just have to disagree on that. I am curious however, how would you have phrased it to change the implication you have surmised? How would you make his statement clearer?

  • The point of my original post was to point out that ALL candidates should expect to be ridiculed to some extent for mis-speaking.. It was the Hillary haters who took it to the next level and started bashing her over Bosnia all over again.

    Not to belabor the point here, Greg, but there’s a key difference: Obama said something that the vast majority of Americans would essentially agree with but phrased it poorly (teen pregnancy is bad), while Hillary repeatedly told a story that was demonstrably (and, later, frequently proven to be) false. That’s why the two situations were treated differently.

    Up until a few weeks ago, and despite my many misgivings about Mark Penn, I would have been happy with either Hillary or Obama in the White House. I’m still not a Hillary-hater, but I do have to say that she’s earning every ounce of the enmity she’s been getting the past few weeks from her fellow Democrats.

    I honestly don’t see how you could watch those videos and defend her statements as anything other than bald-faced lies. But then, you didn’t, you just keep trying to change the subject.

  • Greg, meet Michael Gerson, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Penn. I am sure the five of you will find a lot in common and can indulge in a pity party that keeps you off the streets for awhile.

  • Lance, @41,

    See Greg’s comment @14. *That* is how it got to be about Hillary. Greg’s one of them “regular people”, who think that “fibula” is “a little lie” and a little lie is, in turn, a kissin’ cousin to “mis-speak”

  • obama said: ““I’ve got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “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. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.”

    YEA…with socialist PROGRESSIVE morals…many young girls will end up with STD..

    OH!!..THEY ALREADY ARE… ” The most severely affected are African-American teens. In fact, 48 percent of African-American teenaged girls have an STD, compared with 20 percent of white teenaged girls..” http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_62091.htm

  • Becoming pregnant is definitely possible if a teenage girl has sex. I believe all teenagers need to have sex education. If a girl gets pregnant there is always adoption. I cannot believe that some people on this blog say that children are a punishment. I AM DUMBFOUNDED about that statement. If women would not get pregnant then life would not go on. If everyone aborts then no one is born. If a teenage girl has sex and gets pregnant after she knows it is possible then why murder the baby? I know, I know, it is about them and not the new life inside of them. We have become a selfish nation. Hillary’s sniper fire is a fairy tale but Obama’s talk is a nightmare. His daughter’s do not have to do the right thing and of course it will be everyone’s fault but their own. Attending church did not seem to help Mr. Obama to learn the truth.

  • Terrible choice of words by Obama…right idea, wrong words.

    If Greg keeps spinning like that, he’ll end up burrowing straight through to China…but maybe exposing a tremendous geo-thermal vent in the process which could give us energy independence. Keep up the good work, Greg.

  • When I was living in Chicago, everyone with an STD was black. No white people had them.

  • Cate, life will go on, you medieval douchebag. Personally I only aborted fetuses which seemed to have the potential of becoming one of you.

  • The larger issue here people (notice I didn’t call anyone a name) is that of personal responsibility. Politicians in both parties have always found that it’s easier to get votes by promising people who make bad decisions that the government will swoop in and make everything okay.

    This applies to naive people who borrowed money they couldn’t repay, banks that made loans to people who couldn’t repay and to poor folks who sat for days on their roofs in New Orleans,

    Obama probably would have been well served if he had chosen the word “consequence” rather than “punishment.” But focusing on a woman’s right to choose to abort (this terminology is accurate) misses the important question. Absent a pressing national security concern, why would the federal government be expected to rescue people from their own bad decisions in the first place?

  • Billy @ #64, perhaps you should reread Obama’s statement. Go on, scroll back up and reread it.

    …..

    Done? Good. Now, this time you surely noticed that Obama wasn’t talking about abortion at all. He was talking about comprehensive sex education being better than abstinence-only (which it demonstratably is, but I digress). So the issue Obama raised is one of giving children accurate info about how sex really works so that they can make knowledgeable decisions, not about government bail-out of “irresponsible” behavior. It was the GOP wingnuts who brought up abortion, not Obama.

    Furthermore, I have to wonder what reality you’re living in that you would equate pro-choice politics with a government bail-out. The whole point of pro-choice is that the government *doesn’t* involve itself in a private matter, but, rather, the people involved make their own choices and deal with the consequences privately.

  • The right wing wants us to ignore that the vast majority of girls who get pregnant and carry through with that pregnancy end up giving up their dreams prematurely. They give up on education, jobs, true love and life. They have to accept a marginalized position in society (at least if you are in a conservative community), no to little income, no education, no chance for advancement. The right wing wants the lower class to continue to fall in this pit. They can then write new laws and build up a new class that is dependent on society. Who knows, maybe the Right wing would like to enslave everyone who is receiving assistance. Build a slave class to serve their needs. (NOTE: This is an extreme example, carrying the thought to one conclusion.)

    • Comments are closed.