"Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million."
Headline from Saturday New York Times story
"They fully expected that he would overturn the so-called Mexico City policy restricting family-planning funding overseas, reverse George W. Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research and move to rescind a last-minute Bush Administration 'conscience clause' rule for medical providers, the latter of which he will probably do as early as next week. But they also presumed Obama would handle and communicate these weighty decisions with a delicate touch, and in that respect, the President has disappointed the crucial voting bloc."
From "Catholic Democrats: Is Their Support for Obama Fraying?" Written by Amy Sullivan, the analysis appeared online Friday at Time.com.
If you're trying to square the circle--or, in this case, minimize/ignore where pro-abortion President Barack Obama is taking us--logic and full disclosure are to be avoided at all costs. Let's take the stories from which two quotes cited above appear as examples.
The Times bases its story on a paper published online by the British Medical Journal. In a nutshell the gender balance is so skewed in China –in 2005, for example, there were 120 boys born for every 100 girls--that "For the next 20 years, China will have increasingly more men than women of reproductive age" with all the potential ramifications that entails.
How'd it happen? "The imbalance is attributed almost entirely to couples' decisions to abort female fetuses."
According to the British Medical Journal paper," Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males," which has grown in number steadily since 1986 "as ultrasound tests and abortion became more available."
Notice what isn't mentioned? China's hideous program of forced abortions, part and parcel of the government's one-child policy which essentially declared open season on unborn females. Oh, and the other item that is conveniently ignored, is the dastardly action taken by Congress and signed into law by Obama on March 11.
Over vigorous NRLC objections, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) will receive U.S. funds regardless of whether that agency continues to participate in China's population-control program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion. Indeed on March 24 the State Department announced that it would release $50 million to the UNFPA for 24. You learn as much from what the New York Times omitted as what it included.
Ditto for the TIME magazine piece, written by Amy Sullivan. Sullivan has made a career out of making it safe for pro-abortion Democrats, most often Catholics, by pretending to be "pro-life."
Sullivan gives her readers a partial list of Obama's pro-abortion actions since taking up residence in the White House. Her argument essentially appears to be as follows.
Even though Obama won with a majority of Catholic voters last fall, "it didn't mean that Catholics, who in recent years had mostly sided with the GOP because of social issues, had any illusions about Obama's stance on such sensitive matters," Sullivan writes. Well, if that's true, why is he at risk of "alienat[ing] those liberal and moderate Catholics who could defend him when times get tough"?
The answer appears to be because (1) Obama lacked a sufficiently "delicate touch" when handling and communicating 'these weighty decisions"; and (2) because of "a sustained assault by a loose coalition of Catholic organizations and leaders who are committed to convincing their fellow church members that Obama doesn't share their values."
In other words, had Obama displayed his reputed rhetorical skills, this "loose coalition" would have had limited impact. The implication is that the coalition pretty much manufactured reasons to oppose Obama.
But without rehearsing the entire list of actions , what couldn't be clearer is that Obama DOESN'T share their values.
It's not tone or lack of diplomacy that explains why Obama is alienating many of those who were willing when they went to the ballot box to give him the benefit of the doubt on abortion and abortion-related issues. It is his behavior.
He is a hard-core pro-abortionist who appoints militant pro-abortionists to sensitive positions.
There is not a single pro-life policy or principle that is not in Obama's cross-hairs.
That is why resistance is building to the policies of the most pro-abortion President in our history.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: April 14, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
