Obama, the Open Seat, and Abortion

President Obama will have an open seat tonight during the State of the Union address to represent those victims who have lost their lives to gun violence. Roughly 11,000 homicides were committed with guns in the U.S. during 2014. Everyone agrees these lives are tragic loses due to senseless acts of violence.

That same year, over 1,000,000 unborn human beings lost their lives through abortion. If we have one open seat to represent every 11,000 lives lost, we would need 90 open seats at the State of the Union to represent the lives of the unborn killed during 2014 alone. We would need 5,182 open seats to represent the 57,000,000 human beings who have been killed since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Unfortunately there are only 446 seats in the House chambers where the State of the Union is given.

A White House official said the president told supporters the open seat was for “the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice—because they need the rest of us to speak for them” and the open seat should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this.”

What is sad and shameful is that the president condemns gun violence while supporting abortion violence. For it is just as true that open seats are needed for “the victims of abortion violence who no longer have a voice—because they need the rest of us to speak for them” and that these open seats should serve to “remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this.”

The unborn need a voice. They need us to speak for them. True, our representatives do have a responsibility to do something. But these open seats for victims of abortion violence should not just remind every single one of our representatives. They should also remind you and me, because it is just as much our responsibility to do something about abortion.

So what can we do? We can graciously share the gospel, study more about abortion, pray, speak out on the issue, teach others, engage in conversation, vote, adopt, volunteer time at pregnancy centers, help pregnant women in need, start a student pro-life club on campus, offer healing and mercy to post-abortive women and men, and donate money to pro-life organizations.

We can all do something. Just do something.

Obama Administration OKs First Taxpayer-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research

(Lifenews.com) by Steven Ertelt

The Obama administration today authorized the first study using embryonic stem cells paid for at taxpayer expense. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's limits preventing taxpayers from being forced to pay for the destruction of human life.

Because embryonic stem cells can only be obtained by destroying human life, Bush put limits in place directing taxpayer dollars to adult stem cell research.

That science has already proven to help patients facing more than 100 diseases and adverse medical conditions.

The National Institutes of Health, following Obama's order, approved 13 embryonic stem cell lines for use by researchers conducting studies funded with federal funds.

The lines NIH approved are in use by researchers at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Rockefeller University in New York, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The Associated Press indicates as much as $21 million in taxpayer money could be used by the Obama administration to fund studies using these embryonic stem cell lines.

They were created with private dollars during the Bush administration, showing that Bush's limits did not prevent scientists from moving ahead with their research with private dollars, contrary to the assertions of Obama and other opponents.

The lines were created by destroying days-old unborn children -- human embryos who were supposedly "leftover" at fertility clinics. Adoption agencies have emerged that have allowed parents to adopt these human beings and carry them to term in a pregnancy.

NIH is also reviewing hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for federal funding under the guidelines the agency issued to implement Obama's order. The initial round of approval includes 13 batches of embryonic stem cells and NIH said today that it has 96 more batches to review -- with perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the destructive research.

About 20 of the additional lines will be reviewed on Friday, the agency indicated.

What we are announcing today is just the beginning," NIH official Francis Collins said today.

George Daley of Children's Hospital Boston, submitted 11 of the 13 lines and the other two come from the lab of Ali Brivanlou at Rockefeller University in New York.

In comments about the funding, Daley called the human beings "low-grade" human embryos who were rejected for fertility treatments, and then donated by couples for research.

Richard Doerflinger, of the pro-life office of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, told USA Today the announcement is a "political event, but the science is all moving in the other direction."

He noted how most scientists around the world are moving ahead with iPS cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells, that are adult stem cells reverted through direct reprogramming to an embryonic-like state without the destruction of human life.

"Free to Live and Love as We See Fit?"

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, "elections have consequences." President Barack Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability."

Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:

It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously. It is not only "hard" for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible. Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as "hate crimes" shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list? If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?

Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as "hate speech." It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision. It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.

There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill. The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments. "This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition," said the President. "Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit."

Does President Obama actually mean what he said here? Does he really call for a society "in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit?" The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.

But the "free to live and love as we see fit" language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill. President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter. When he speaks of all citizens being "free to live and love as we see fit" he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision? The "polyamorous?" Incest? The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as "loves" goes far beyond these.

We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called "polymorphous perversity." I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving "as we see fit." But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.

In another sense, the President's language was revealing. The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories. In an age that elevates "consent" as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure. It is all just a matter of time.

Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?

Obama Signs 'Hate Crimes' Bill

(Onenewsnow.com) by Charlie Butts

The "hate crimes" bill approved recently by Congress could be a problem for broadcasters -- most importantly, Christian broadcasters -- now that it has been signed into law.

President Barack Obama has signed into law a measure that adds to the list of federal hate crimes attacks on people based on their sexual orientation. Congress approved the legislation last week as part of the $680-billion FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association.

But Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion.

"Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call 'bodily injury' in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable," he explains.

Or an outspoken broadcaster could be held to be co-conspirator, adds Parshall. He says the supposed bodily injury could be something as insignificant as someone being jostled during a rally or shoved in a protest march.Parshall acknowledges the amendment that was passed to provide some degree of protection for Christians, but points out that interpretations of such statements are ultimately left up to the court.

"And that's always a problem," he laments. "We have a court system that has been notorious for getting it wrong when it pits the power of government on one hand and the free exercise of religious rights of individuals on the other."

According to the NRB attorney, there could also be repercussions in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Parshall says the FCC, for example, could develop rules on what broadcasters can and cannot say about homosexuality, possibly jeopardizing their licenses.

"Public school curriculum could be built entirely on the idea of what is illegal hate in our culture," says the attorney. "And our children could be indoctrinated [to believe that] if you criticize another religion or mention Jesus as being the only way, that's hateful--- [or] if you say that homosexuality is a sin, that's hateful."

And then there is the IRS, which Parshall says could apply the hate crimes law as a national policy on homosexuality and other world religions.

"And [they] could start taking a look at Christian non-profit ministries and [telling them if they] want to be tax exempt, [they] can't speak hatefully about other groups," he suggests. "That would be defined as not criticizing Islam or not being critical of the homosexual lifestyle. Those are just a few of the ripple-out effects."

Parshall contends that an examination of the motive behind the hate crimes law reveals it is not about hate -- and will have no effect on stopping crime, because that is already outlawed in all 50 states. In his opinion, it is designed to shut up the opposition -- Christians specifically -- and close down any debate against the homosexual lifestyle.

The NRB spokesman does expect lawsuits to be filed against the hate crimes law after it is signed.

"Simply Unprecedented" - President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group's 13th annual national dinner.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights." The group's annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama's speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community -- a crucial sector of its political support -- and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: "I'm here with you in that fight."

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. "I will end don't ask don't tell," the President pledged. "That's my commitment to you." Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action -- a fact noted by his audience.

The President's perceived lack of action -- and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action -- meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President's message with these words: "I'm with you. But I can't do much for you."

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President's comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that "there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open." Furthermore, "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this -- to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

Obama Wins Nobel Prize Because of "Potential." Fetus, Not So Lucky

(Firstthings.com) by Francis Beckwith

According to Lisa Schiffrin at NRO:

Some people have noted that Barack Obama has not actually achieved peace, anywhere, or diminution of hostilities, or the destruction of even one nuclear weapon, (or even any of his domestic agenda). But, as the Nobel Committee announced, this award is about a new climate of hope.

Ironically, the fact that the unborn has not achieved certain powers and abilities it may only actualize in the future, and does not actualize in the present, is employed by some bioethicists to justify abortion. (See my critique of such arguments here and here). So, Obama’s potential gets him the Nobel Peace Prize, while the unborn’s potential, unfortunately, is not enough to avoid being awarded the prize of prenatal violence.

(Originally posted on Southern Appeal)

A Post-Racial President?

(Townhall.com) Thomas Sowell

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a "post-racial" era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things-- about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied-- all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he actually did after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama's cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being "stupid" in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama's 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

With race-- as with campaign finance, transparency and the rest-- Barack Obama knows what the public wants to hear and that is what he has said. But his policies as president have been the opposite of his rhetoric, with race as with other issues.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the "racial profiling" issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was racial profiling when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge.

For those who are interested in facts-- and these obviously do not include President Obama-- there has been a serious study of racial profiling in a book titled "Are Cops Racist?" by Heather Mac Donald. Her analysis of the data shows how this issue has long been distorted beyond recognition by politics.

The racial profiling issue is a great vote-getter. And if it polarizes the society, that is a price that politicians are willing to pay in order to get votes. Academics who run black studies departments, as Professor Henry Louis Gates does, likewise have a vested interest in racial paranoia.

For "community organizers" as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama's background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Not only Barack Obama's past, but his present, tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court is, like Obama himself, someone with a background of years of affiliation with an organization dedicated to promoting racial resentments and a sense of racial entitlement.

An 18th century philosopher said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act I am forced to take it off." Barack Obama's mask slipped for a moment last week but he quickly recovered, with the help of the media. But we should never forget what we saw.

Obama to America: Accept Homosexuality

(Onenewsnow.com) Associated Press

WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama says that while he's dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls "worn arguments and old attitudes."

At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality. ""There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet," said the president. "That's why I've spoken about these issues -- not just in front of you -- but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members."

Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated.

He added that Congress should repeal what Obama referred to as "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act" -- and that his administration is working to pass a hate crimes bill and to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military.

The audience at the White House ceremony included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and other homosexual clergy. Obama introduced Robinson as a "special friend."
__________________________________________________

Personal Reflection:
1. Note the rhetoric used by President Obama. He attempts to dismiss the opposing point of view by characterizing it as "worn arguments and old attitudes" yet he himself never addresses the arguments or even mentions what they are. This is rhetoric, not reason, which seems to be more and more commonplace in this administration. If Obama wants to be taken seriously by those who actually reason through these issues he needs to interact with the opposing arguments and show a little more intellectual integrity.

2. Note how Obama attempts to make this an issue of "acceptance." First, he dismisses his opponents out of hand (see #1 above). Then he commits a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting his opponent's position. He implies that those who oppose homosexuality are rejecting the individual rather than rejecting the immorality of the lifestyle. He states, "There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters." But this assumes that in order to accept an individual you must accept everything about them as good, including a harmful and immoral lifestyle. Embracing a gay or lesbian individual does not mean you must accept the homosexual lifestyle as good, true, and beautiful. In saying this Obama seriously misrepresents and misunderstands the notion of tolerance.

3. Finally, Obama begs the question by assuming that homosexuality is natural and normal. Again, this is something that has to be argued for and not assumed.

Are You An "Extremist"?

(Townhall.com) Thomas Sowell

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanamo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about "right-wing extremists."

Just who are these right-wing extremists?

According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

If you fit into any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN -- its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored -- the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration -- and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

Why such an organization? For what purpose?

Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grassroots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.

The Contradictions of Our President

(Awakengeneration.com) Sean McDowell

While my first passion (and formal training) is in theology and philosophy, I do love following politics. For balance, I regularly read the HuffingtonPost.com (liberal) Townhall.com (conservative) and watch CNN and Fox News to try and get multiple sides of every issue. For the past couple weeks, I’ve decided to pay even closer attention to the words of President Obama. In doing so, I’m amazed at how many times he directly contradicts himself. Yet what’s more amazing is that the mainstream media doesn’t pick up on these. Consider a few…

President Obama: Can we emphasize your Muslim roots or not? During the presidential campaign you strongly downplayed your Islamic background (strong criticism was leveled at those who included your middle name “Hussein.”) Yet in your recent speech in Cairo you emphasized your background and sympathy for Islam. In fact, you boasted of having “known Islam on three continents.” Which is it? And how far does your sympathy for Islam go? Why did you speak out immediately against the killing of Dr. Tiller, but were very slow in response to the murder at the recruiting office by an American Muslim?

President Obama: Are you a Christian, or not? You have claimed to be a Christian, and I give you the benefit of the doubt (as I would anyone else). Something you said recently, however, raised some concern. In your Cairo speech you said you look forward to the day, “…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer." The term “peace be upon them” is used by Muslims to bless deceased holy men. According to Islam, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are dead prophets. Yet, of course, to Christians Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God. You may think I am making too big of a deal about this, but remember, you have recently claimed to be deeply versed in Islam.

President Obama: Will you step down from your presidency, since your race is being used as a recruiting tool for white supremacist groups? Last night CNN had a program about the recent barrage of “hate” crimes (the death of Dr. Tiller, the murder at the Holocaust museum, and the killing of the military recruiter by an American Muslim). A CNN expert pointed out that Barack Obama’s presidency, since he is an African-American, is being used as a recruiting tool for white supremacist groups and that there will likely be a significant increase in such attacks. Given that your primary justification for shutting down Guantanamo is that it is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorists, will you step down as president for the sake of consistency? You seem like a team player, so why not take one for the team? I actually don’t think you should step down. You won fairly and deserve the right to serve your term(s). But is consistency too much to ask?

President Obama: Are you against nations working unilaterally or not? In a recent speech to international leaders you said that no individual nation should work alone—it must work in partnership with other nations. However, you also recently told Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel needs to stop building settlements in the West Bank, as the U.S. would not tolerate such actions. Your Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, chimed in, calling for a “stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions” from Israel in the West Bank (The Week, June 12, 2009, p. 21). In other words, Clinton is making unique demands that apply solely to Israel. Please clarify, for there seems to be a contradiction. If you are against nations making individual demands, then how can you level unilateral criticism at Israel? Are you reserving special condemnation for Israel that you won’t extend to Muslim nations? Sure, many Islamic nations would support your criticism of Israel, but that was not your justification.

It’s amazing to me that the mainstream media doesn’t pick up on these contradictions (except Sean Hannity picked up on the first one). Why not? The only explanation I can think of is its liberal bias. Check out this link for some recent stats that clearly show the media’s bias towards Obama. If anyone has another explanation, I would love to hear it.

David Letterman recently said that he doesn’t make jokes of Obama because he doesn’t provide any good material. Is he serious? This is hard to believe, especially since Obama claimed there are 57 states and also made derogatory comments about the Special Olympics. The media love for Obama is absolutely astonishing. It was best summed up by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas in an interview on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Obama and the Holy Qur'an

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

A Christian writer says President Obama's recent speech in Cairo praising Islam is further evidence the American president has a "low view" of biblical Christianity.

Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, has written a column titled "Obama Nation's Low View of Christianity." Knight says he wrote the column as a service to everyone who wants thorough documentation -- not just bits and pieces -- of President Obama's statements distorting Christianity.

Knight argues that the most disturbing thing President Obama said in his Cairo speech was that the Middle East was the first place where Islam was "revealed."

"That word 'revealed' is very important," Knight explains. "It means an unveiling, and it means a divinely-inspired unveiling -- which would indicate that the president is saying the Koran is a holy book. In fact, he referred to the Koran several times as the 'Holy Koran.'"

Such a perspective from their elected chief executive, says Knight, should concern Bible-believing Christians.

"If you're a Christian, you don't regard the Koran as a holy book of any sort," he states. "You regard it as springing out of the Old Testament, because it incorporates a lot of the Torah, as does the Christian Bible -- but then it goes off into a false religion."

Knight says to call the Koran a holy book goes beyond diplomacy, yet Obama understood the significance of what he was saying because "of all people, he knows the power of words." However, Knight points out that most of the press in the United States missed or ignored the remark.

Obama, Tiller, Islam, and Little Rock

(Onenewsnow.com) Fred Jackson

WASHINGTON - The Justice department announced late Friday afternoon that it is launching an investigation to see who else may have been involved in the murder of abortionist George Tiller.

Tiller was gunned down at his church in Witchita Kansas last Sunday. Authorities quickly tracked down and arrested a man believed to be the shooter. 51-year old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is now facing a first degree murder charge.

Pro-life groups who have long protested the thousands of abortions that Tiller has performed over the years, including late term abortions, were quick to condemn the Tiller murder.

But in its press release on Friday, the Justice Department made it clear that it believes others may have been involved in Tiller's death.

Here is how the press release reads : "The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies."

The Justice department's announcement also states " The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients."

In the wake of the Tiller murder, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to "offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country." The directive was given in the apparent belief that other violent incidents might take place.

Some conservatives have questioned the extent of the reaction to the Tiller killing by the Justice department. They have pointed to an incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday of this week when a Muslim convert opened fire at a military recruiting center, killing one young man and wounding another. The conservatives have noted that there was no indication from the Obama administration that it feared there might be similar incidents at other military recruiting facilities or any attempt to link the Muslim man's actions to a possible larger Muslim campaign against U.S. military personnel or facilities.

And while President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "shocked and outraged" by the Tiller murder, he has made no public statements about the death of the young recruit in Little Rock.

Personal Reflection: First, the murder of George Tiller was wrong, no doubt. It is impossible to reconcile murder with a "pro-life" position. Even if you believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, and even if you believe that capital punishment is justified in certain circumstances (as I do), to carry out capital punishment is not the role of the individual but rather the role of the state. Pro-life organizations have rightly condemned the shooting of George Tiller.

Second, I am amazed to see how inconsistent pro-abortion choice advocates are in their thinking. This was no better demonstrated then by the President himself. He is "shocked and outraged" by the murder of an abortionist such as George Tiller who was known for his willingness to perform late-term and partial-birth abortions, yet at the same time, he is not "shocked and outraged" by the thousands of abortions that take place in this country everyday (each of which takes an innocent human life) but rather endorses abortion wholeheartedly. Rather then be shocked and outraged, why not just say that Scott Roeder was exercising his right to choose when he shot George Tiller? But that would be wrong of course. You cannot justify the taking of another individual's life simply by labeling the decision to take it "pro-choice." Yet this is exactly what pro-abortion choice advocates such as the President do when it comes to taking the life of the unborn.

President Obama's Notre Dame Speech: Not So Brave

(Scriptoriumdaily.com) John Mark Reynolds

When a few protesters interrupted President Obama’s speech at the Notre Dame graduation by shouting: “Stop killing our children!” the student body replied by chanting, “Yes, we can.”

This inadvertent message juxtaposition was, perhaps, not the best way to placate traditional Catholics.

President Obama gave a good speech at the Notre Dame University graduation if rhetorical skill is the measure of speaking excellence. Graduation speeches are notoriously tricky. Most people will little remember, but only resent the length of anything said there. Obama navigated those waters, but he did so by missing the point of the entire controversy surrounding the visit.

Notre Dame aided that misunderstanding, but watching the ceremony made it obvious why their better judgment was clouded. It was moving to see civil rights leaders in Notre Dame’s history honored and live to applaud the nations first African-American president. Given University leadership in the cause of civil rights, it is understandable that Notre Dame would wish to honor this President.

It was still a mistake to give him a high honor, though not to let him speak. Anybody thinking there would be wide spread disruption at the ceremony or a lack of courtesy knows nothing about Christian higher education. If he had to come and be honored, Notre Dame students were right to give honor to the office of President by politely hearing him out even if they do not respect the abortion views of the man.

Besides, anyone who thinks traditional Catholic views represent some vast majority of the Notre Dame student body also does not understand the state of Catholic higher education!

President Obama’s speech was a very bad speech for pretending to be one thing when it was something else. I predict it will be hailed for boldly confronting the “controversy surrounding his appearance,” but he was not bold and he did not confront the controversy.

The President spoke as if the controversy centered on his appearance at Notre Dame and speech when in reality it was his being honored despite his views.

Traditional Christians in the academy were not concerned that the President was invited to speak at a Christian university. Who wouldn’t welcome the chance to hear the perspectives of the single most powerful political figure in the world? President Obama’s views on abortion are wrong, and morally wicked, but listening to an argument on them is not.

President Obama “bravely” defended civil dialogue in his speech when civil dialogue was not the question. No reasonable academic, and no patriotic American, questions the right of our President to speak his mind. All of us are in favor of civil discourse and few see any reason to question the motives of our opponents.

Those who do not want to listen to their opponents are wrong. We should all charitably read opposing views on the great issues of the age and treat our opponents with tough-minded respect. If we still disagree, we should charitably believe for as long as we can that they are misled and not wicked.

The sad truth, as our own lives demonstrate to us, is that we often have noble motives for wicked acts. We did not mean to hurt anybody, but we do. Our positions are not sanctified by our sincerity. This is as true of the proponents of segregation, many well-intentioned men, as advocates of abortion.

Notre Dame did not just listen to the most powerful abortion advocate in the world, but loudly and publicly honored him. He is a man, perhaps with noble motives, who is sending their tax money to pay for abortion. If the University attacks those who opposed this honoring of an abortion advocate, as opposing free speech or hearing other points of view, then the University will be guilty of grossly distorting the basis for opposition.

Perhaps, the President’s speech will persuade Notre Dame to avoid this tactic. As a warning to college administrators not to slander their critics, the President’s speech may have some good effect.

What of abortion?

About abortion, the President “bravely” said nothing at all to defend his view that it should be legal to take the life of a child in the third trimester or that experimentation on humans (or potential humans) is licit. He said nothing at all to show why the Catholic papacy and bishops are wrong to say that support for abortion is a sin so grave that it overshadows other goods deeds in politics.

In short, Notre Dame and the President talked about what they agreed on and ignored their differences. Any pretense that the President was brought to the campus to give all points of view is laughable. Perhaps well-intentioned academics are so skilled at dialogue that they are apt to ignore actions. While President Obama invites Notre Dame to talk, he governs outside of the culture of life.

Keyes vs. Obama: Death Penalty and Abortion

Unfortunately, Keyes did not get a chance to respond to Obama's last statement but I would like to make a few observations.

Obama attempts to differentiate between the slaveholder and the pregnant woman "exercising her right to choose" by saying that the woman is making her choice "in extraordinarily painful circumstances." He attempts to dismiss Keyes' comments as mere rhetoric. This reply is weak and mistaken for several reasons:

First, Obama never addresses the argument. The analogy by Keyes is plain and provocative. Both the slaveholder and the pro-abortion choice advocate discriminate based on a morally irrelevant factor: level of development. Obama never addresses this but simply attempts to dismiss it as "rhetoric."

Second, Obama resorts to rhetoric himself. He characterizes abortion as a woman's "right to choose." Of course the question is, "choose what?" If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, no one should have this "right." Obama does not address the only important question of the debate: what is the unborn? In refusing to address this, Obama must resort to euphemisms such as "right to choose" which, ironically, amounts to empty rhetoric in the absence of reason.

Third, Obama begs the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being. Imagine you lived back when slavery was under debate in this country. What if someone were to say, "Yes, but you don't understand. Slaveholders are exercising their right to choose slavery in extraordinarly painful circumstances. Times are tough. Slaveholders have families to feed and businesses to run. If you don't like slavery, then don't own a slave. But don't force your morality on others."* In point of fact, this was the exact logic used by some pro-slavery advocates. But notice all of this assumes slaves are not persons and instead are property, which is exactly what Obama is doing in the case of the unborn. He is assuming that which he must prove. He is begging the question.
____________________________________________

* As a side note, this line of reasoning also commits the relativist fallacy. It treats an objective truth claim as if it were a relative or subjective preference claim. In other words, when a person says that abortion or slavery is immoral, they are making an objective truth claim. They are not making a subjective preference claim such as "I don't like abortion or slavery." To treat an objective truth claim as if it were a subjective preference claim is to commit the relativist fallacy, which is what both the slaveholder and Obama do. This is why the bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" completely misses the point.

100 Days of Change for the Family

May God have mercy on our nation and President.

Obama Stuns Pro-Lifers

(WorldNetDaily) Chelsea Schilling

At the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton Hotel this morning, President Obama caught pro-life advocates off guard when he said God wouldn't condone taking the life of an innocent human being.

Obama spoke of the need for people of all religions to end persecution "in the name of perceived righteousness."

"[F]ar too often, we see faith wielded as a tool to divide us from one another as an excuse for prejudice and intolerance," he said. "There's no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same."

The president said people from various religions all have different views about how humans came to be on Earth and "where we are going next."

Obama attempted to draw similarities among the world's diverse religions.

"No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenant is hate," he said.

"There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."



The blogosphere lit up with comments from pro-life advocates upon hearing that statement. Many referenced Obama's support of partial-birth abortion.

"It is, of course, the Golden Rule, the call to love one another, to understand one another, to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth," he continued. "Instead of driving us apart, our very beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted, to make peace where there's strife and to rebuild what is broken, to lift up those who have fallen on hard times."

Obama also announced the formation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

"The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group of faith over another or even religious groups over secular groups," he said. "It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state."

The president spoke about his professed conversion to Christianity, saying he was born into a household that was not "particularly religious."

"It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck, no matter what they looked like or where they came from or who they prayed to," he said. "It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods that I first felt God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose, His purpose."

Obama's agenda regarding "reproductive choice" is posted on the White House website. It states, Obama "has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration."

The Obama administration repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions during his first week in office.

The president has also said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," a sweeping bill that would abolish pro-life regulations across the nation.

What You Won't See During the Super Bowl

(Onenewsnow.com) NBC has rejected a pro-life ad for the Super Bowl, citing its policy not to run ads involving "political advocacy or issues."

The 30-second television spot, a project of CatholicVote.org and financed by The Fidelis Center for Law & Policy, actually emerged just before the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, explains there is nothing objectionable in its "life-affirming" message, which features ultrasound pictures of a baby in a mother's womb.

"The ad actually sparked so much interest, and we started getting e-mails and calls from people who saw the ad [and] wanted to try to put it on the air," says Burch. "And given the time of year that we're at, there began a campaign to put it on the Super Bowl."

Burch says his organization signed a contract with NBC to air the spot, and they were extremely happy -- "Until we were informed that NBC, in conjunction with the NFL, was rejecting our ad because it was a political or issue ad," Burch states, "and they said they have a policy against it."

He respects NBC's decision but says his group's pro-life ad is not divisive or confrontational and is not really political. It simply asks people to imagine the potential of every human life.

"And particularly one person's human life -- which I won't give it away. You'll have to watch the ad," he says.



Personal Reflection: The point of this ad is simple. Since Roe v. Wade nearly 50 million babies have been aborted in this country. There is no telling how many Einsteins, Mother Teresas, and future leaders have been lost in this holocaust. Case in point: Barack Obama. His own abortion would have been justified in the eyes of many given the poor circumstances he was facing in life. And yet he overcame those obstacles to become President. Ironically, Obama's own life is a testimony against the radical pro-abortion choice position he supports.

Obama, Abortion, and Economics

Let's see...

What can I do to help America in this time of economic crisis?

I know! I'm going to repeal the Mexico City Policy and spend $440 million dollars a year to help fund global abortions! Brilliant!

Hurray for change!

Laura Antkowiak, Research Assistant with the National Right to Life, has written an excellent article responding to economic arguments put forward by pro-abortion choice advocates. Contrary to what many believe, abortion hurts our nation economically. Laura's main points are as follows:

1. Fewer babies means fewer consumers, less demands for good and services, and fewer jobs.

2. Abortion slows labor force growth.

3. Abortion undermines technological innovation.

4. Abortion drives the Social Security crisis.

5. Abortion does not save tax dollars.

In the end, abortion is not just wrong morally. It is wrong economically as well.

Let the Obamanation Begin!

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Officials with the incoming administration of Barack Obama have confirmed that he will indeed overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office. Despite campaigning on the rhetoric of wanting to reduce abortions, Obama will make one of his first actions promoting them globally.

Meanwhile, some 77 members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking Obama to back down from doing so.

President Bush used an executive order on his first day in office to reinstitute a pro-life policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund international groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries.

While U.S. law prohibits funding abortions directly, Bush's Mexico City Policy expands the law by also prohibiting the funding of pro-abortion groups that either do abortions overseas or lobby pro-life governments to sacrifice their abortion limits.

During the presidential election, pro-life groups issued a clarion call to voters telling them their tax money would be used if Obama were elected and saying he would likely reverse the Mexico City Policy immediately after taking office.

The capital publication Congressional Quarterly reports that top Washington officials tell it that the incoming president will reverse the pro-life measure on his first day as president, on Wednesday.

When Obama overturns the limits on global abortions, he will do so over the objections of dozens of members of Congress.

"As a new administration begins, it is our hope you will work, as you have pledged, to create a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. We urge you to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America's foreign aid programs," the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote Obama on Friday.

They say the policy "ensures that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning. Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotesabortion."

The members, led by Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, also say it is "insulting" to other nations to promote pro-abortion groups that lobby them to overturn long-standing pro-life laws based on their culture and heritage.

"We also have a responsibility to respect the laws of many developing countries who have laws prohibiting or restricting abortion. It is an insult to fund organizations that are intent on overturning those laws by promoting the Western ideology of abortion on demand," they said.

Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat who sponsored legislation in Congress to reverse the provision, told CQ that somehow putting it in place endangers the health care people in third world nations receive.

But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of National Right to Life, tells LifeNews.com the Mexico City Policy and Obama's reversing it is all about abortion.

Thus, it appears Obama's move will take money away from non-abortion groups that provide services to poor people in foreign nations.

"One effect of Obama's anticipated order will be to divert many millions of dollars away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method," Johnson explained.

"So, a president who not long ago told the American people that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions, is already effectively promoting the increased use of abortion as a means of population control," Johnson added.

President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.

President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it.

Under the Mexico City Policy, funding for family planning programs is not reduced.

New Agenda in the White House

By Maurine Proctor of Family Leader:

The White House has already updated the government site outlining President Obama's plans for the future and they deeply affect family, marriage and religious freedom.

Early Childhood Education

• Zero to Five Plan: The Obama-Biden comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, the Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state Zero to Five efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school. [The government wants to educate our babies and make us pay for universal pre-school?]

Civil Rights

• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law. [Both Hate Crimes and ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act) laws impact religious freedom.]
• Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
• Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not. [We will be putting children in a position where they do not have the right to a mother and father. What does this mean for religious adoption agencies?]
• Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma - too often tied to homophobia - that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.

Reproductive Choice

• Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
• Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.