Tuesday, January 27, 2009

President And The Speaker of the House Seem Conflicted Over Abortion

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Why does the President and the Speaker of the House both say they want to reduce the number of abortions?

The Speaker has said she thinks giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and others like them will be good for the economy. She has also said she wants to see the number of abortions reduced.

The new White House website states that the President's statement of purpose is to, "reduce" abortions by "expanding access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services."

They have told us that Roe v. Wade is about "reproductive freedom" and a "woman's right to choose."

If it really is about freedom and choice and these rights trump life itself, why would they spend any taxpayer funds to try to "reduce" abortion?

If it's okay to abort one baby, why is 100 a problem, or 1000 or 48,000,000?

Star Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist, has written an excellent column asking that question.

She says, "President Obama appealed in his inauguration address for, 'A new era of responsibility,' bemoaned, 'greed and irresponsibility' and 'failure to make hard decisions' ."

Parker asks, "Mr. President, if you condone a culture that has no sense of awe and responsibility toward the greatest miracle of all miracles and mysteries---life itself---how can you expect responsibility elsewhere?"

I strongly recommend you read her column.

The crises we face is one of principle and values more than dollars and cents.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. When a woman's "right to choose"
    adds up to 50 million abortions,
    it' way over due time that government step up and take responsibility. That's what is called for by virtue of their position and ability to do.

    At the cross everyone made mistakes even Pilate.

    If God were to put a price on each
    of the 50 million, and take that
    much out of our economy, what would it be?

    Let's continue to write the President and others in government.

  2. If they are so eager to help women choose, and so eager to "reduce" the number of abortions, why are they not giving as much money to those that promote life and health as they do to death? Why do the Pregnancy Crisis centers not get as much as Planned Parenthood? Talk about hypocrites!

  3. 4:40 PM,

    Simple Planned Parenthood provides full reproductive health care, from pap-smears to contraceptives, and yes including abortion. They provide a pregnant woman with all of her options, including adoption.

    So called crisis pregnancy centers, don't enter the picture until there is an unplanned pregnancy (too late for contraceptives). Then they fail to disclose to a woman ALL of her available options.

    You see, just like Sarah Palin (who famously said Bristol CHOSE to continue her pregnancy) we think that women should have a CHOICE.

  4. Women DO have a choice--they can choose to be responsible and NOT have an unplanned pregnacy! The old fashion way of 'waiting' until one is married, where both mom and dad chooses when they will get pregnant works! It's God's plan, and those of us who followed it are blessed with 'authentic' children, and not having to deal with these type of issues o 'unplanned pregnanies'! Morality was taught when I was in school, it needs to be brought back! There once was a study a couple of years ago where teens were asked about the 'new' free love attitude. The majority would appreiate the encouragment to wait until they were married, just as society use to be for thier parents. Yes, morality needs to be once again established! TV programs are appalling with all this 'free love'. Immorality is hurting our society!


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.