We recently had a fabulous first in the pro-life community by having H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, pass the U.S. House, 228-196. And while we stay firm in our hope and confidence that the day we will see our country rid of the reprehensible evil of abortion is not far away, it’s not going to happen until there’s someone else in the White House.

Obama has a long history of supporting abortion, and we already know he’s BFFs with Planned Parenthood. But it makes sense to ban abortion after 20 weeks in the aftermath of the Gosnell case and Live Action’s Inhuman investigation, right? Well, apparently not.

As the House got ready to vote for H.R. 1797, the Obama administration released a statement on the bill which reads:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. 

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make. If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Recently I’ve been trying to steer away from stupid-people-bashing and instead shed a little light on the good things in life, but this statement is so full of stupid I had to say something about it.

You see, the language used here is so old – older than Mom Jeans, bell bottoms, that fluffy winged hairdo, and whatever else was popular before I was born (just kidding – some people still think Mom Jeans are in). This is the language used when the original Roe v. Wade decision was made.

“Well, what’s the problem with that?” you might ask. What’s wrong with it? It’s outdated, and it has already been disproven. That’s what’s wrong with it. Here are the specific crazy points which can be attributed to this short statement:

1. The administration said this bill “would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights.” But women’s health and reproductive rights are not equal to abortion and the so-called “right to choose.” There’s a lot more to a woman’s health than reproduction, and if Obama doesn’t think so, he needs to go back to 8th-grade science class.

2. A “woman’s right to choose”? He went there. This is  an ancient argument. It’s actually quite hard to believe that this was used by the administration, because it’s been a known fact for some time that abortions kill babies. Ultrasounds show it. Science shows it. It’s really quite impossible to deny that the unborn are human. Or they might say abortions “terminate a pregnancy,” but even then a “pregnancy” is not part of the woman’s body. It’s a separate being. It’s not the woman’s body. Some pro-choicers have even admitted this. So it’s not whether a woman has the right to choose abortion or not. It’s whether she has the “right” to kill someone or not. Let’s be honest.

3. Isn’t it funny that a government statement is saying they should not be part of people’s decisions – and that some should be left between women and their doctors? So, can I go decide with my doctor to kill an annoying neighbor or rob a local bank? No. We have rules for a reason, and that is because some things are plain wrong. It’s not okay to commit a serious act of violence privately or publicly.

And finally, Mr. President, abortion is not the quiet thing it used to be. It used to be something you didn’t talk about and people wouldn’t notice you speaking incorrectly about. But now, we won’t be quiet. We notice these things. We won’t stop pointing out that you either support directly taking the life of a child, or you do not. And you do. This is not the fluffy and complicated woman’s right you make it out to be. This is life or death.

We recently had a fabulous first in the pro-life community by having H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, pass the U.S. House, 228-196. And while we stay firm in our hope and confidence that the day we will see our country rid of the reprehensible evil of abortion is not far away, it’s not going to happen until there’s someone else in the White House.

Obama has a long history of supporting abortion, and we already know he’s BFFs with Planned Parenthood. But it makes sense to ban abortion after 20 weeks in the aftermath of the Gosnell case and Live Action’s Inhuman investigation, right? Well, apparently not.

As the House got ready to vote for H.R. 1797, the Obama administration released a statement on the bill which reads:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. 

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make. If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Recently I’ve been trying to steer away from stupid-people-bashing and instead shed a little light on the good things in life, but this statement is so full of stupid I had to say something about it.

You see, the language used here is so old – older than Mom Jeans, bell bottoms, that fluffy winged hairdo, and whatever else was popular before I was born (just kidding – some people still think Mom Jeans are in). This is the language used when the original Roe v. Wade decision was made.

“Well, what’s the problem with that?” you might ask. What’s wrong with it? It’s outdated, and it has already been disproven. That’s what’s wrong with it. Here are the specific crazy points which can be attributed to this short statement:

1. The administration said this bill “would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights.” But women’s health and reproductive rights are not equal to abortion and the so-called “right to choose.” There’s a lot more to a woman’s health than reproduction, and if Obama doesn’t think so, he needs to go back to 8th-grade science class.

2. A “woman’s right to choose”? He went there. This is  an ancient argument. It’s actually quite hard to believe that this was used by the administration, because it’s been a known fact for some time that abortions kill babies. Ultrasounds show it. Science shows it. It’s really quite impossible to deny that the unborn are human. Or they might say abortions “terminate a pregnancy,” but even then a “pregnancy” is not part of the woman’s body. It’s a separate being. It’s not the woman’s body. Some pro-choicers have even admitted this. So it’s not whether a woman has the right to choose abortion or not. It’s whether she has the “right” to kill someone or not. Let’s be honest.

3. Isn’t it funny that a government statement is saying they should not be part of people’s decisions – and that some should be left between women and their doctors? So, can I go decide with my doctor to kill an annoying neighbor or rob a local bank? No. We have rules for a reason, and that is because some things are plain wrong. It’s not okay to commit a serious act of violence privately or publicly.

And finally, Mr. President, abortion is not the quiet thing it used to be. It used to be something you didn’t talk about and people wouldn’t notice you speaking incorrectly about. But now, we won’t be quiet. We notice these things. We won’t stop pointing out that you either support directly taking the life of a child, or you do not. And you do. This is not the fluffy and complicated woman’s right you make it out to be. This is life or death.