Who loves abortion more than Obama and Sebelius? UPDATED

It’s a serious question: is there a politician alive who loves abortion more than Barack Obama? Is there a bureaucrat alive who serves it more faithfully than Kathleen Sebelius?

They both put fealty to abortion access before health care for poor women.

President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn $30 million worth of funding from a Texas Medicaid program that provides health care services for low-income women.

It did so because Texas recently passed a law that said its Women’s Health Program could not disperse funds to abortion and contraception providers such as Planned Parenthood.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius personally traveled to Houston to make the announcement that the Obama administration would cut funding of the program and would no longer continue the waiver that Texas had previously been given to continue funding of the program temporarily.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid. In a letter to Obama, Texas Gov. Perry accused the administration of trying to violate states’ rights “by mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use.”

They both put it before the long-standing, effective and well-regarded assistance to victims of human trafficking:

. . .six organizations applied for anti-trafficking grants from HHS’s Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Four scored so low they did not make the cutoff when evaluated by an independent review board. Two applicants scored well. Heartland Human Care Services scored highest and MRS came in second, very close to Heartland, even after losing points for not being willing to refer for contraceptives and abortions. Yet, after finagling by Sharon Parrott, one of three politically-appointed counselors to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, ORR awarded $4.5 million, spread across Heartland, which earned the award, and United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and Tapestri, groups that hadn’t made the grade according to the independent review board.

HHS denies any hanky-panky. Show me the data.

Obama has put abortion before the life of a baby born alive during the procedure.

But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.

People are always entitled to their opinions,decent people can disagree and still be decent people — and many people evolve on this subject. I certainly have; I used to call myself pro-choice. I know pro-life people who cannot find themselves wholly sold on the idea of overturning Roe v Wade because it does nothing to change people’s hearts, and I can respect their arguments, even as I now believe that the ruling was inappropriate.

I also know pro-choice folk who are perfectly sincere when they say that since women have always sought abortions. it ought to be “legal, safe and rare” but are troubled by the excessive number of abortions, the marketing of it and particularly the practice of late-term and partial birth abortions.

But I think it’s a peculiar person who is so enthralled to abortion that he/she is willing to assault the consciences of others (or insist that they jump aboard the abortion train or be excluded from the privilege of providing their well-established assistance and health care to people in need.)

I mean, think about that mindset: no, you’re not allowed to help these women and children who have been trafficked, because you won’t serve abortion; no, you’re not allowed to help these poor women with their health needs, because you won’t serve abortion; no, you’re not allowed to offer your own insurance policy to your employees unless it serves abortion, sterilization and more.

No, you’re not allowed to serve the living, unless you first pay your obeisances toward death, sterility and emptiness.

This seems extreme to me. I can’t trust people who love death so much that they make sure access to it comes before access to healthcare, human safety or free consciences.

How can anyone love death that much, without it somehow demonstrating a hatred for life, a desire to over-control — which is really a desire to play at being God?

How is it a healthy mindset? Whole economies are being allowed to dry up and die in order to protect the Delta Smelt. But for the unborn (and the accidentally unslain) no protections?

UPDATE: Over at the USCCB’s media blog, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh writes:

Until now the federal government has respected the church’s role in defining its ministries and has not tinkered with doctrine. Despite this history, however, HHS and the rest of the Administration now are digging in their heels on the neuralgic point. They stick to the ACLU definition unreasonably, even while saying it’s only for this health care regulation and won’t apply to others. They turn a blind eye on those of us who shudder at Caesar’s defining what constitutes a church ministry.

Why President Obama seems to have chosen this moment to become theologian-in-chief is a mystery. Why should Caesar weigh in on theological questions such as what ministry is religious enough? Distributing Holy Communion at the altar? Yes. Distributing bread in the soup kitchen? No. He might have to meditate on where the loaves and fishes on the hillside would fit, in this theological framework.

You’ll want to read the whole thing

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • KO

    I have a question. You post a lot about the HHS mandate. You also post about babies who sing Adele or cute babies with big dark eyes. So, it is clear that you pay attention to popular culture. I wonder then, why haven’t you posted anything about the Trayvon Martin case? It would be much harder to find a baby singing Adele than to find commentators talking about this case. Do you have nothing to say about it? It just makes me wonder if Catholics with all of their rhetoric about equality and freedom care about similar issues of oppression going on right under their noses. I know you don’t speak for the Church, but so far, I haven’t heard any Catholics – even Fr. Barron, or others online speak about this issue, which is emblematic of so may other problems in our country. I would like to know where the Church has stood throughout history on other issues calling for equal rights. So, have you just not thought about this Trayvon’s case or other issues of racial inequality or do you for some reason not want to talk about this type of inequality?

    [actually I don't pay a lot of attention to pop culture at all, and I don't watch news. I only became aware of Trayvon's story yesterday, but I did not write about it for the same reason I do not ever write about kidnapped blondes or missing, abused children (I didn't even know who Caylee Anthony or whatever her name was until after her trial); I don't write about horrible stories that break my heart, and I don't write about horrible stories that become sensationalized, because I generally have nothing to say about them beyond they're terrible, and because plenty of other people are writing about it. I have written about racial inequality before -- I have archives, you're welcome to check them -- but I can't think of a thing to say about this story beyond it's terrible, and I hope an investigation is fair and just. Do you need me to acknowledge that racism still exists in this country? Of course it does. It's rampant. And vast. As to the church, considering the number of priests and nuns who have marched for racial equality, formed orders to serve and educate minorities and so forth, I think you can rest assured the church works for racial equality. Check out Dr. Pat McNamara's column; he's written a lot about it. -admin]

  • http://fatherbrownatleisure.blogspot.com/ John Salmon

    This way of thinking-The Culture of Death, promoted by the mentality of death-does make you wonder about the degree of self-loathing needed to endorse abortion so heartily. Wouldn’t it be far more normal-psychologically healthy-to identify with the baby in the womb-since we all were once that? Why do we love kids? Not just because they’re cute, but also we all were once kids, and in many ways still are. I liked the the Curt Jester’s recent post-”Barack Obama, the WWPPD (What Would Planned Parenthood Do?) President”: http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2012/03/wwppd/

  • Mr. Patton

    The answer to the question of “Who loves abortion more than Obama and Sebelius?” is the Supreme Court of the United States and all the people that defend the Constitution of the United States and the Laws contained therein.

    [Does that include, then, the folks who are trying to defend the Constitution against the HHS Mandate? -admin]

  • Dad od Six

    I have thought for some time that women leaders of the pro-abort groups have had abortions, and want to ensnare other women. I have thought men involved with pro-abort groups are there for reasons of irresponsiblity. President Obama’s infatuation with abortion would make an interesting pyschological study, especially with his upbringing…does he wish he was aborted?

  • Brian English

    “The answer to the question of “Who loves abortion more than Obama and Sebelius?” is the Supreme Court of the United States and all the people that defend the Constitution of the United States and the Laws contained therein.”

    Are you joking? Roe was an abomination of a legal decision, but it certainly did not establish the “abortion rights” that Obama and Sebelius are pursuing.

  • Mr. Patton

    “Are you joking? Roe was an abomination of a legal decision, but it certainly did not establish the “abortion rights” that Obama and Sebelius are pursuing.”

    I guess you don’t know why the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Roe versus Wade? Perhaps you should look into what two amendments of the Constitution are used to support that case.

  • Jonathon

    I personally don’t think anyone “loves” abortion and I don’t think that it is fair to assume that funding Planned Parenthood should be considered loving abortion. Abortion is not the only services that Planned Parenthood offers I should add. I am not pro-choice, I am pro-life. But consider the days when abortion was not legal. Abortions were peformed illegally by non-health professionals and sometimes by the pregnant mothers themselves. Most of these abortions ended tragically with not only the child dying, but at times the mother dying as well. The fact of the matter is that people will make the choice for abortion whether it is illegal or not. It is a sad truth. Stopping government funding to clinics will not stop abortions, ever. God has given us free will and if someone decides to abort a baby or commit murder or suicide that is their choice and they will be judged in the end. I have seen women who have had abortions walk out of clinics in tears, men who have found out their partners had an abortion afterwards in tears. My opinion is that not even The Culture of Death could even say that they love abortion. This is my opinion that I cannot imagine anyone loving abortion. How could you love killing an unborn child unless you were mentally ill?

  • Nathan

    The SCOTUS isn’t always a paragon of virtue when it comes to protecting the rights of the vulnerable. The same logic used in Roe v Wade was used in Dred Scott v Sanford. This faulty logic has lead to the 2 worst decisions in the history of the court.

  • Rudy

    Abortion is an abomination. Those who promote it for their political, social and ideological agenda, those who practice it and market it for their profit, those who favor it, and those who have one knowing full well what the consequences are, but do it anyway to keep their “lifestyle” will one day have to respond to God.

    And now let the vitriol come.

  • Dad of Six

    Jonathon- I believe that in 1970 there were all of 36 women who died from illegal abortions. That was a tragedy, especially considering the abundance of adoption agencies at the time. Now with 4000+ abortions everyday in the USA, what can you say? Stalin said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic…that’s where we are today.

  • http://www.sherryantonettiwrites.blogspot.com Sherry

    Maybe not more, but as devoted/dedicated to furthering the access to abortion and seeking to stomp out any dissent, Nancy Pelosi? The women on Jezebelle’s site? The Creators of Emily’s list? NARAL?

    For some Democrats and Republicans, Abortion is a poisonious partner they allow themselves to dance with, but aren’t wedded to, with the list above and the current administration, specifically Kathleen and Obama, it is a commitment that is as unseemly as it is pernicious. There isn’t an abortion they wouldn’t champion, and I doubt a bridge they wouldn’t cross to promote/further it. At least, past performance seems to indicate this is the issue that for them is non negotiable. Disturbing.

  • KO

    Dear Admin,
    I really appreciate your honest and direct response. It breaks my heart too. I think I just want to know that my Church and fellow Catholics also care about things that break my heart and the hearts of so many in our country, be it the HHS mandate or Trayvon’s story. Thanks!

    [Thank you. Appreciate it. Was justing reading this over at hot air; seems even the politicians were slow to catch on to this case. Btw, Max Lindenman has just weighed in on the story - admin]

  • Katherine

    This is a man who said if his daughter made a mistake, he would not want her punished with a baby (his grandchild). That tells you all you need to know on how he views life.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    People might not love abortion per se, but they certainly use it as a crutch, and an easy way out. They also see it as a prop for the contemporary, hedonistic lifestyle! Who wants to be “punished” with a baby, when they could be out partying, hooking up and having fun?

  • Brian English

    “I guess you don’t know why the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Roe versus Wade? Perhaps you should look into what two amendments of the Constitution are used to support that case.”

    You are missing the point. There is nothing in the Constitution, nor even in the Roe travesty, that supports what this Administration is trying to do.

  • Brian English

    “I personally don’t think anyone “loves” abortion and I don’t think that it is fair to assume that funding Planned Parenthood should be considered loving abortion. Abortion is not the only services that Planned Parenthood offers.”

    But there are plenty of other entities that provide health services without providing abortions, and the support should go to them. The Obama Administration attacking Texas for doing exactly that reveals a view of abortion that could certainly be fairly described as an obsession.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, Brian E., the Obama administration’s support of abortion does seem to verge on the obsessive. Obama himself voted that children born alive during an abortion shouldn’t be allowed to survive. And that weird lanaguage about not wanting his daughter “punished” with a baby. (A baby is punishment?)

    Also, the administration’s insistence that birth control must suddenly be provided to everyone, for free (meaning the taxpayers should pay for it), despite the fact that it’s already cheap and readily available. And this truly weird insistence that taxpayers should be surcharged a dollar, to pay for abortions. . . this is really getting into nutzoid territory.

  • Rob B.

    Jonathon wrote: “The fact of the matter is that people will make the choice for abortion whether it is illegal or not.”

    The same could be said for murder and theft. Yet we don’t legalize those crimes…

  • Katherine

    Jennifer Fulwiler has a great essay about how to know evil. http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/11/how-would-you-know.html
    It seems to me we are there. These people don’t want “safe and rare” there is something else going on here.

  • Vera

    Maybe there is just one who loves it more. The woman (girl) who was thrown to the floor by her father and raped, ending up pregnant.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Obama going into the presdidency was the most pro-abort president in the history of the country. He even supported killing babies that survived abortions. Sometimes when a president is so far on one side of an issue he moderates somewhat when in office. Obama has done no such thing. He remains as pro-abortion as the day he came into office. How can anyone have an once of respect for someone who’s heart isn’t in the least moved by the thousands of innocent deaths a day? How can one look at this man and not puke?

  • elcid


    Are you trying to make a racial thing out of the Trayvon Martin case and presume that some Catholics do not care? maybe we should let the justice system figure out what all happen before pre-judging, after all people are innocent until proven guilty correct? maybe it was racially motivated and he will receive the justice he deserves, but what about the young white boy who was set on fire by two black boys, see the report here: http://www.drudge.com/news/154220/boy-set-fire-racist-attack…in either case we don’t know all the facts yet so let’s not pre-judge or presume what may have been behind each situation, maybe the root cause of these events is a lack of morals and not so much racial discrimination, maybe it has something to do with the class warfare rhetoric coming from the left, gee we can’t even criticize obama without being called racists.

  • V F

    Vera, I wanted to comment on your comment.

    Just as an FYI, the percentage of women who conceive as the result of rape is very small. The reason is because when a woman goes through the trauma and stress of a rape, her body would most likely hold back on ovulation even if it were preparing to do so at the time. I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen or that it doesn’t happen just that the biological processes that have to occur in order for conception to happen are very much affected by stress. That’s one reason why couples who are having infertility issues are often advised to take a break from trying to conceive and try to relax. The stress hormones our bodies manufacture when we need them have a tendency to prevent conception. I would imagine in the case of incest (like you cited in your example) that the percentage of conceptions is even lower due to genetic abnormalities that such a union could express.

    If the scenario you’re talking about has happened to you or someone you love, then please know that my heart breaks for that situation. No woman or girl should ever have to be in that situation. The answer for that situation though, is not abortion. The child who is conceived from incest or rape is still worth giving life. He or she cannot help the circumstances under which he or she was conceived and brought into this world any more than you or I can. If the mother does not feel she can care for or wants to care for the child, then adoption is a much better alternative than abortion. Abortion only adds to the pain of the mother. It is not the quick relief that I think many people feel it could or should be.

  • nohype

    You do not see why those who advocate abortion can so easily disregard the positions of others because you take the pro-choice rhetoric seriously. That rhetoric is not the rationale of those who are the leaders of the abortion movement; they know that it is only rhetoric to dupe the rubes. Suppose a woman gets drunk and kills a person as a result. Will she be able to say that she should bear no consequences of her actions because she did not choose to kill the person? No one would take that argument seriously. But if she engages in the baby-making act and gets pregnant, people will take her seriously if she says that she should bear no consequences of her actions because she did not choose to get pregnant. What she really wants is not choice but the right to re-choose, to avoid consequences of her actions. However, saying that you are in favor of re-choice just does not have the right ring to it.

    If the pro-choice rhetoric were sincere, those who employ it would be outraged at the forced abortion policy of China. It is hard to find even a little bit of any outrage. If the pro-choice rhetoric were sincere, those who employ it would have no problems with people who choose to have large families. Ask people with large families how much support they get from the pro-choice crowd.

    The pro-abortion position of those who have carefully thought about the issue is not based on a sloppy pro-choice argument but on the premise that overpopulation will impair economic development or causes world poverty or will degrade the earth’s environment. It is not pro-choice convictions that are behind programs that encourage women in the third world to take the pill, it is a conviction that overpopulation is a threat. If having a child imposes external costs on others, what economists call a negative externality, there is justification to try to prevent people from having children. If social pressure or free contraceptives are not enough to keep people from having babies, forced abortions will be necessary. And if forced abortions are not a problem, why should forcing people to pay to support contraception and/or abortion be a problem?

    The overpopulation argument does not resonate with Americans as well as pro-choice rhetoric, but unlike the pro-choice line, it is logical given its premises.

  • LisaB

    “I personally don’t think anyone “loves” abortion…”

    @Jonathan, for you:
    I Love Abortion

    ht: the american catholic

  • Jay

    You’re only realizing now that Obama is an extremist?

  • jy

    This is all going according to Obama’s plan. The priest hit the tip of the iceberg with his comment quoted here (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/large-crowds-turn-out-to-protest-obama-mandate-in-150-rallies-across-u.s). It is and always has been Obama’s plan to eliminate all Catholic healthcare agencies in the nation so that he can have unilateral control over their former function. (Which, by the way, accounts for about a sixth of the national economy).

    The prospect of filling the university void is just an added bonus. The government, if Obama is reelected, will be charged with such momentum as to be unstoppable. It will not be able to cease growing, or even slow down, until the rule of law is utterly eliminated.

  • doc

    Democrats own abortion. They fight harder for it than any other part of their agenda.

    KO, why would you say that the Florida killing in emblematic of our country? To say this presumes that America is a deeply racist country. That is true only in the fantasies of the Left. Do you think it apppropriate for Al Sharpton to organize a lynch mob and transport it down on this town? Al has some experience unleashing lethal mobs you know.

  • jy

    Lisa B linked to an article entitled “I Love Abortion”

    The combox there includes a clear and plain expression of the perfect inversion of words and the things they represent, which lies at the logical extremity of the propositions being discussed here:

    One commenter asks:

    Q: “How about after the birth? Would you draw a line at the birth, or would you (like a couple of medical ethics academics over here in the UK) feel that it should be ok for a woman to have her newborn terminated, entirely at her choice?”

    A: “After birth, the infant can no longer have any effect on the woman’s physical health (unless she consents). Meaning, there is no reason for her to have an “abortion” (actually infanticide).

    “We’re not medical ethics academics here. We just don’t like seeing womens’ human rights violated.”

    Q: “If you would draw the line at birth, why would you?”

    A: “Because that’s the point at which the entire reason why a woman should have the right to an abortion comes to an end. Kind of like drawing the line on life-saving medical intervention at death, or drawing the line on calling the fire department at the point when the fire has burned itself out.”


    According to this person, the killing of the fetus is “life-saving”, and the birth of a new human being into the world is “death”.

  • Kassi

    I live in Texas and have followed this closely as I am also a pro-life activist. The so-called Women’s Health Program is nothing more than a subsidized “family planning exam” once per year for women so they will receive contraceptives and not have babies on Medicaid. I encourage everyone to read – from the state’s own website – what this program is and is not. It is not comprehensive healthcare and is extremely limited in what it does. Scroll down to “Covered Services” and read carefully: http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/WHP/index.shtml

    It is above all a means to provide low-income women with contraceptives, some of which are abortifacient and/or carcinogenic. The “screenings” this “family planning exam” “might” include are limited, if they are offered at all. NOTE: It does not say they have to be done. Nor does the PAP smear have to be done. They merely “might” be done. Most of these screenings are the kind that would be done to see if a particular contraceptive is contraindicated due to some other health issue. There is no treatment covered and that is clear from the website as well. This is not about women’s health nor is it pro-life or something that Catholics in good conscience should support. If you took the contraceptives out of it, there would be nothing left to this program. In other words, there is nothing redeeming about it.

    Note also that the reasoning behind this program is nearly identical to that of Sebelius with regard to the HHS Mandate. Here is one of several articles you can find about how great it is that Texas has fewer Medicaid “births” due to WHP and how that was the purpose of it all along (forgive the graphic): http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/m/Blogs?oid=oid%3A1284117

    In pertinent part:

    “The WHP is a Medicaid-waiver program that offers low-income and uninsured women who wouldn’t otherwise be eligible for Medicaid, unless pregnant, an opportunity to receive preventative health and family planning care. The program, devised by lawmakers in 2005, was conceived as a way to save the state money and to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It has so far done just that: In calendar year 2009, according to the Health and Human Services Commission, the program averted 10,300 Medicaid-paid births, saving the state roughly $46 million in all funds. Indeed, the program is paid for by a 90-10 match from the feds – that is, for every $1 the state kicks in, the feds throw in $9. In other words, it’s a great deal for Texas – especially when you consider that more than half of all Texas births are paid for by Medicaid; in 2009 alone that cost the state nearly $3 billion.”

    For even more chilling statistics as to the births “averted” by this program, see the Texas Medical Association’s testimony before the state legislature last spring re. WHP: http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=21131

    The “spin” on Obama’s defunding of this program by pro-lifers, the pro-life media, pro-life lobbying groups, etc., has been stunning to the few pro-lifers of us that see this program as it is. Planned Parenthood was defunded, but other facilities will provide this contraception (again, some of which is abortifacient and/or carcinogenic) at taxpayer’s expense for a eugenicist end. Pro-lifers in Texas seem to have lost their way on this one, perhaps believing that merely defunding Planned Parenthood makes this program pro-life. It does not. Perhaps this also betrays how many pro-lifers (including Catholic pro-lifers) think that contraception is acceptable or at least acceptable as the lesser evil. It is not.

    And, given how pro-life organizations and individuals have clamored for the continuation of this contraception program to reduce births on Medicaid, how can we then argue against the HHS Mandate and criticize the justification for it? It is so vitally important that we be consistent at every level or we lose our moral authority and credibility on these issues. We cannot leave ourselves open to being called hypocrites.

    Defunding this program was the truly pro-life thing to do, although I am certain that is not what Obama intended. Fear not, however, if you support it. Our governor has vowed to “find the money” to continue it, despite the state’s budget problems. He can scarcely afford not to as babies are expensive, just like Sebelius said. This has been a disappointing episode in Texas pro-life politics, as has the pro-life news coverage of it. I hope that your readers take a moment to educate themselves about the true nature of this program.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    VF, you are right. If abortion were limited to cases of rape, incest, medical reasons, etc., the number of abortions performed annually would be miniscule.

    It isn’t rape that’s responsible for the million-plus abortions our country suffers every year.

    Many of those who are pro choice are also against the death penalty—even when the condemned prisoner has committed horrific crimes. Yet they’d condemn a child to death for the crimes of its father. The unborn baby hasn’t raped anybody; can’t we just let it off with, maybe, a few years in jail, or some community service? If Ted Bundy could have people asking that he be spared, why can’t a child by spared? Even a child engendered by rape?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    doc, the recent murders of a Jewish rabbi, and three children—one of them an 8 year old girl—have gotten relatively little attention from the Left (and not a lot from the conservative side, really; most of the emphasis was on the Inspector Clouseau-ish attempts of the French police to capture the murderer, whose grinning face has been over-exposed over the past few days. And now they’re releasing the videos he took of the killings.)

    Once it was ascertained that a Moslem, and not a caucasian, right-wing Nazi type, was the murderer, the Left lost interest. Jews are not on the approved victims’ list these days.

    Hopefull, Reverend Al won’t unleash another lynch mob on innocent victims, as he has before.

  • taad

    Sister Walsh is right on the mark. The man who made the statement, “It’s above my pay grade.” when referring to when does life begin. Now seems to know a lot more, even though he above the pay grade of those who are charged with making such theological questions.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Obama’s peculiar devotion to abortion

  • Mr. Patton

    [Does that include, then, the folks who are trying to defend the Constitution against the HHS Mandate? -admin]

    That will be tested soon enough in the Supreme Court as to who or whom is actually defending the Constitution. Despite my personal feelings or opinions on the HHS Mandate, I will support the decision of the High Court unlike many here the seem to think that abortion isn’t supported by the High Court…:) Sedition isn’t a charge that I would take too lightly.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Um, Mr. Patton, are you accusing those trying to defend the Constitution of sedition?

  • doc

    Just to be clear, Mr. Patton, who is accusing who of sedition? No one has brought it up before you.

    Anchoress, it’s good to know you’ve given up the NYT and the corporate media talking heads.

  • Brian English

    “Defunding this program was the truly pro-life thing to do, although I am certain that is not what Obama intended.”

    You think?

    Defunding Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the nation, was the right thing to do. The fact that Texas has a program with problematic elements, none of which are abortion, is completely irrelevant.

  • Brian English

    “Despite my personal feelings or opinions on the HHS Mandate, I will support the decision of the High Court unlike many here the seem to think that abortion isn’t supported by the High Court…:) Sedition isn’t a charge that I would take too lightly.”

    Even if Obamcare is found constitutional, it still doesn’t mean it is a good law. Arguing that a bad law should be repealed is not sedition.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Slavery used to be the law of the land.

    That doesn’t make it good.

    And those who wanted it abolished weren’t seditionists.

  • Mike M.

    In Obama, In Sabellius, in the entire Democrat Party today we are dealing with the Diabolical, Diabolos, the Demonic. It is on full display. They are, lieterally, possessed. There is, in all Dems today – Obama being their material, spiritual, social, and political leader – an entity in whose name they speak, in whose name they come, by whom they are taken possession of – willingly I might add.

    I say that without the normal qualifications and standard pseudo-sophisticated caveats that Republicans are bad too and it’s not ALL Ds (Yes, in fact it is for talking purposes, and no in fact there are no comparable R situations).

    They are what it looks like, sounds like, acts like. Period.

    They are legion. Legion has been around a long, long, long time. When certain people open the doors, it walks right in. Those doors were flung open decades ago and we really should not be surprised by what has happened. We have no problems a good exorcism cannot cure, but there is no other cure.

    It is us or them and that’s that. They will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.