Obama aide: Hey! Not our job to reduce abortions

Well, that's what you said in a private briefing last week, Ms. Melody Barnes, Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily's List.

But it isn't what Obama apologists have been saying - including the Vatican: That Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions. Obama himself said at his Notre Dame address, ""So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. ..."

According to Wendy Wright of Human Events, that's not entirely accurate:

I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts.  It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions.  The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal.  The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they've clearly failed.  We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.

Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me.  "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions."

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to "reduce the need for abortions."

Well, this raises a lot of questions.

If you reduce the need, doesn't it follow that the number would be reduced?  How do you quantify if you've reduced the "need"?  Does Obama want to reduce the "need" but not the number of abortions?  In that case, is he okay with "unneeded" abortions?

Of course, talking out of both sides of his mouth on issues is nothing new for Obama. It's how he maintains his high approval ratings. On contentious issues - guns, abortion, gay marriage - he tells both sides exactly what they want to hear.

One would need the dexterity with the English language of a Bill Clinton to get away with this for long. In Obama's case, they can't load the teleprompter fast enough to slick his way out of trouble if anyone ever bothers to confront him over the disconnect.







Well, that's what you said in a private briefing last week, Ms. Melody Barnes, Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily's List.

But it isn't what Obama apologists have been saying - including the Vatican: That Obama's goal is to reduce the number of abortions. Obama himself said at his Notre Dame address, ""So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. ..."

According to Wendy Wright of Human Events, that's not entirely accurate:

I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts.  It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions.  The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal.  The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they've clearly failed.  We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.

Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me.  "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions."

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to "reduce the need for abortions."

Well, this raises a lot of questions.

If you reduce the need, doesn't it follow that the number would be reduced?  How do you quantify if you've reduced the "need"?  Does Obama want to reduce the "need" but not the number of abortions?  In that case, is he okay with "unneeded" abortions?

Of course, talking out of both sides of his mouth on issues is nothing new for Obama. It's how he maintains his high approval ratings. On contentious issues - guns, abortion, gay marriage - he tells both sides exactly what they want to hear.

One would need the dexterity with the English language of a Bill Clinton to get away with this for long. In Obama's case, they can't load the teleprompter fast enough to slick his way out of trouble if anyone ever bothers to confront him over the disconnect.