2004 : Michelle Obama Lobbied For Partial Birth Abortion And Protection Of Patient Privacy

ScreenHunter_275 Apr. 13 05.50

michelleobama5.jpg (577×1101)

Patient privacy is only protected if you choose to kill your baby. Barack Obama is now demanding that patient privacy be violated as part of his gun confiscation plan.

During that same year, one of Kenya’s leading newspapers proudly boasted that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to 2004 : Michelle Obama Lobbied For Partial Birth Abortion And Protection Of Patient Privacy

  1. miked1947 says:

    He Knows “Better” now, after consulting with his panel of experts!

  2. LLAP says:

    Almost 3 years ago, I was discussing B.H.O. with a friend of mine who had lived in Georgia for several years. I asked him what his opinion of Obama was. His answer was, “pure evil”.

  3. Pathway says:

    The Bamster voted to allow doctors to kill an infant after birth if it was a botched abortion. He is pure evil. You can see it in his eyes.

  4. Facebook won’t even allow this article to be linked. They know he’s an illegal alien and are proud of it.

  5. gary turner says:

    Well, good on Mrs Obama.

    Before all you neo-conservatives go all postal on my butt, let me give you my credentials. I was a Goldwater conservative back when Texas may have had one elected Republican in the whole state (Bruce Alger in Dallas). I consider myself a classic liberal (as did Goldwater); one who follows the precepts of Jefferson and Adams, two of the great liberal thinkers of our country. Given a choice between regulation and none, first first inclination is for none. (Why in hell do the states require licensing of barber, for gods’ sake?) It’s going to take long term compelling reasons for me to favor any reduction in individual freedom of action. There is no compelling reason ever for reducing freedom of thought or its expression.

    With that in mind, I favor a woman’s right to make choices for herself. I especially think that abortion control on a religious basis is an abomination. Read the first and greatest of the Bill of Rights. We have freedom FROM religion. In fact, freedom from religion precedes freedom of religion. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”) Further, the fourth amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”. In my mind, that includes one’s medical records.

    Likewise, the venom expressed against same sex marriage is religion based and is contrary to the rights enumerated in the 14th amendment (equal protection). Marriage is defined again and again by all jurisdictions as being a civil union. Taxes, inheritance, medical decisions and any number of other benefits and responsibilities are set down in law from which same sex couples are barred.

    So, if you’re one of those who favor totalitarian socialism that supports your religious bigotry, please don’t sully the good name of conservatives, or of Jefferson, Adams, Mason and the others who tried valiantly, even risking their own lives, to give us the freedoms we enjoy. Choose some more representative name, say “national socialism”.

    Gary Turner

    • Your credentials sound like the usual left wing poser BS

      Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device

      • gary turner says:

        Are you calling me a liar? In that case, present your evidence. Your response made me double check that I wasn’t looking at RealClimate. I expect null value responses there. Not here.

        What part of the constitution do you favor ignoring? Do you want to kill off just a smidgen of our freedoms this time, or do you prefer wholesale slaughter?

        Suggesting I’m left wing would really get a laugh from the left-wingers who know me. I get as much pleasure from goring the shit out of their pet oxen as I do ripping the American Taliban a new one. I am for maximizing individual freedom and against all attempts to restrict them.

        g

      • Me says:

        Gary, I’m not that religeous. Common sense Eh!

      • Me says:

        it doesn’t need religeon to be injected to do what ever itis you think it needs to do, there is right and wrong.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Gary, The danger is a central government that is “right” on the issues you want and then usurps total control. I personally don’t care whether you are religious or irreligous, in favor or opposed to abortion, love or hate gays, etc. What I don’t want ( and what any sane person shouldn’t want) is for the federal government (and especially the supreme court or president) to be the arbiter of morals. That should be left to the states. If you don’t like the laws where you are, move somewhere else, or try to change the state laws. Allowing the federal government to make decisions (right or left) is crazy.

      • Me says:

        No Eric government is government, where does it end, it can go down to the municpal level, below the state or the feds, but it’s still government. It is needed to make things run and protect our national intress and nothing more. Then it gets complicated and scewed with the right and wrong as some are suddenly more equal than others, and they power trip and now it is their intress and not the municipal, state or countries.

      • Me says:

        And on another note, there are some out there that don’t know any better and will go all long with that ever athority says.

      • Me says:

        authority says.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Government is Government, but at least people have a reasonable chance of making an influence at the city/county/state level. At the federal level it is very difficult to make a difference.
        “That government is best which governs least” – “That government is best which governs not at all”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)#.22That_government_is_best_which_governs_least.22_-_.22That_government_is_best_which_governs_not_at_all.22

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Gary! Does the child have rights? If not, why not? Are you going to say what we once said of blacks, that they are not fully human?

      And marriage is a religious RITE, not a RIGHT of citizenship. You say you want freedom FROM religion (our founders believe in freedom OF religion), then why would you want the government sponsoring a religious rite? Why is our government involved in marriage? Answer: They should not be.

      If the government wants to issue civil unions, that would be fine, as it would not tarnish a sacred religious pact with God. Goldwater must have had more issues than I remember.

      • gary turner says:

        @gator69:

        Hey Gary! Does the child have rights? If not, why not? Are you going to say what we once said of blacks, that they are not fully human?

        That’s a straw-man argument. There is no equivalence. The real question is when does the fœtus become a viable human sans heroic effort?

        And marriage is a religious RITE, not a RIGHT of citizenship. You say you want freedom FROM religion (our founders believe in freedom OF religion), […]

        Perhaps you should do more study regarding their stance on religion. You cannot have freedom of religion if you cannot be free from it.

        […] then why would you want the government sponsoring a religious rite? Why is our government involved in marriage? Answer: They should not be.

        I went to seven different dictionaries (some merely quoting others as they are wont to do), and all define marriage in the same way, a contract. Even the promise to marry is binding in law and has been for at least three millennia. While the bible mentions marriage in Genesis, it is more the case that religion, at least in the West, has involved itself in the civil matter rather than vice versa. I’d think it should be a Good Thing, from your point of view, that government recognizes the religious rite, and gives it the power of law.

        If the government wants to issue civil unions, that would be fine, as it would not tarnish a sacred religious pact with God.

        t already does. The religious tend to forget that marriage is a civil union. All that is necessary for religion to do is not perform the rite for same sex couples.

        Goldwater must have had more issues than I remember.

        From Wikipedia: “By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater’s views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life.”

        People also tend to forget that he was very active in bringing an end to racial segregation in Arizona. They also tend to misremember that Goldwater Republicans, including many of my friends were marching right beside the long-haired hippies in Selma, AL.

        This ends my participation on this topic.

        g

      • gator69 says:

        Thanks for the revisionist history lesson, complete with Wiki quotes.

      • LLAP says:

        @Gator: Gary should take a lesson from these quotes from George Washington:

        1) “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
        2) “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

      • gator69 says:

        Hey LLAP! In the last decade, I have gone back and read original unedited texts from our founders, and there is no doubt the vast majority of them were devout Christians. Quakers even!

        The very first Bible printed in the US was printed on the congressional printing press. Each junior congressman was issued a Bible, and Jefferson’s collection of Jesus’ quotes, because one cannot fully understand our founding documents if one does not know God.

      • LLAP says:

        Agreed Gator! I don’t know where Gary is getting this “freedom from religion” idea. I am all for de-centralization (less federal government, more decision-making at the local level) and I can’t stand it when politicians try to restrict the size of our soda at the movie theatre, but freedom cannot be absolute – there has to be a balance of freedom and responsibility. A common moral code helps in that regard, and is also necessary to keep society cohesive and on the same page … the 10 Commandments is a good place to start.

  6. gary turner says:

    @Eric Barnes: Absolutely agreed. Of course, most states also mimic the national constitution’s Bill of Rights, so the same restrictions apply to them also.

    g

    • LLAP says:

      @gary: “Well, good on Mrs Obama.”

      In the article above, Michelle Obama refers to partial-birth abortion as a “legitimate medical procedure”. It involves severing the spinal cord while the baby is in the birth canal. Do the same procedure seconds later when the baby is outside the birth canal, and you face murder charges, like Kermit Gosnell. Do you support this barbaric practice Gary?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s