Is the Obamessiah just pulling abortion statistics out of his wazoo?
Nice Deb thinks the Chosen One was playing fast and loose with the facts during the Saddleback debate.
And by the way…abortions did not go up under George Bush’s Presidency. That’s an oft repeated lie that pro-aborts like to tell. I’d like to see where he’s getting his statistics, because every chart I can find shows a decrease in abortions during W’S watch.
But as Deb notes, even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute acknowledges a decline in abortions under Bush’s presidency:
• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
Guttmacher cites a 2008 study in their own peer-reviewed journal, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, for those figures. Here’s more stats (also unearthed by Nice Deb) that suggest Obama either lied, or just has no idea what he’s talking about.
He gets confused sometimes, you know:
______________
{Post by See-Dubya. That video is by the fine funny folks at The Nose On Your Face.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dutch and European polls: Obama, McCain - Page 4 - Politics
- Honorary Hostage NiceDeb Gets Michelle Malkin Love « The Hostages: Stop Crying Or We’ll Give You Something To Cry About.
- Rick Warren Interviews Obama and McCain on Christian Faith Matters - Video and Reviews « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Never Yet Melted » Obamessiah Chronicles, 1
- News & Opinion Roundup (18 Aug 08) | Democrat=Socialist
- BizzyBlog » Things I’d Like To Post About Today ….. (081908, Morning)
- ‘Okie’ on the Lam » Blog Archive » Obama On Abortion — He’s For It . . . Then Again, He’s For It!
- B I R D
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion, Barack Obama
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
“Is the Obamessiah just pulling abortion statistics out of his wazoo?”
I wondered about that. The answer: yes.
She may very well be right about the cited stats being wrong. But as a journalist, why doesn’t she just ask his team where they came from? Obama has many eggheads working for him…I’m sure they’d provide an answer.
You mean the Obamessiah might not have all they answers???!!!!
Obama just believes his wazoo is a dependable, higher “paygrade” resource.
classic vid.
he just has no idea what he’s talking about. and if you think he’s wrong, it’s because your inner racist isn’t allowing him to be right.
Obama is an inveterate liar. he has more contempt for the truth and is smoother at parsing his language until the words lose their accepted meaning then Bill Clinton was.
Obama is just downright dangerous to this country.
HAHAHAHA!!! Now, that’s funny.
He gets the statistics from the same source he gets his “57 states” statistics from. They came on the stone tablet he brought down from the mountain with him – you know, the 91 commandments.
First, Obama said, that abortions, didn’t go down during Bush, not that they went up.
Not the same thing at all.
And if you look at the most recent complete CDC figures, abortions haven’t gone down much, they have basically flatlined.
2001 853911
2002 854382
2003 850230
2004 839226
Abortions under Clinton went down by actually significant percentages.
ROFL
Actually, I think he doesn’t really cares what the truth is because his “truth” changes depending on what audience he happens to be speaking in front of.
You think the lying is bad now, wait until he adds the Hildabeast to his ticket.
That vid is beautiful!! As for Obama not quite getting his facts straight; to quote Margaret Thatcher “The facts of life are conservative”. What on Earth would he know about that?
Chapoutier – the numbers show a small downward trend. If those were job creation numbers that had trended down 1.72% over a four year period would the MSM says Bush “created less jobs”, or that the #s were flat?
Thanks for the cute video see-dubya!
It appears the Obamessiah needs to higher some fact checkers. Maybe he can cull unemployed fact checkers from some of the failing liberal MSM outlets. Regardless of who is right on their numbers our household would love to see an end to the barbaric murder of this nation’s unborn youth.
I would say that there has been no statistically significant change from 2001 to 2004, i.e., there is a flatline, which is why the line on the chart I link to is pretty flat.
I should add, that is not to say that the downward trend is not real, just that one cannot say that it is really significant, at least not yet.
Sheeesh! Just another fast talking, hair splitting, no good, two bit, fly eatin’, ambulance chasin’, bottom feeding lawyer. And I was starting to like you Chappie. I guess it’s true what they say about lawyers and catfish.
BTW if the numbers go down then so goes abortions. If they went down by one I’d call that a victory. Especially for the baby that didn’t get flushed down the toilet.
Some one tell me how any one person, other than the mother, can be responsible for the rising or lowering of the abortion rate? How is Bush resposible? Traditional values start from home. Can the President lower the abortion rate?
Hmmmmm…I’ll go with #1, “he lied.”
I decide this based on the fact that he lied once again about his vote on the ‘Illinois Born Alive Infants Act,’ right after last night’s debate.
See this attached link for a copy of Barack Obama’s 3/12/03 vote down of a bill intended to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.”
Apparently, Obama is still claiming that he struck the bill down because it was missing the federal language protecting Roe v. Wade that he was insisting on. This was proven not to be true by a copy of the actual vote obtained just this week.
As John Edwards proved to both Americas two Fridays ago – you can run but you can’t hide.
C’mon Barack, give us the change we’re really looking for.
Maybe that light glowing from the heavens that continually shines on Obama has fried his brain.
Patriot,
I am sorry I have shattered your faith in me, but claiming something is rising is NOT the same as claiming something is not going down (i.e., staying the same). There is nothing wrong with demanding accuracy in our words. Abortions basically flatlined (i.e., DID NOT GO DOWN, which is what Obama said).
Again citing the CDC, # of abortions per 1,000 women 15-44:
2001 16
2002 16
2003 15
2004 16
SNORT
Wazoo is a funny word! I think he pulled it out of his toches
He needs to learn ventriloquism because every time the Messiah opens his yapper its either a lie or a flip flop. No wonder our enemies are drooling at the prospect of this assmunch becoming president.
One of the reasons I did not put too much faith in the Rick Warren led forum is that the folks behind his questions are very solidly from the left. When Obama did not tell the truth it would have been impossible for Rick Warren to confront Obama on the lie. Quite sad when someone in Rick Warren’s position has gotten himself so boxed in, so painted in a corner, that he could not be counted on to challenge Obama’s “facts” because in doing so would pull the rug out from under Obama and the folks behind the left social gospel movement. Warren simply can’t do such a thing.
Would have been nice though to see a person who says truth matters to actually act like it did.
up or down, like patriot said, if it was down by just 1 thats a victory, plus the number will vary due to the population, more women in that age group each year.
The Obamanite’s just can’t accept the fact Odimblub got his ass handed to him on a plate last night.
I keep waiting for the left to have buyers remorse. Why don’t they see that this man is not qualified to run our country? All he does is lie or flip flop.
The vid –TOO FUNNY for WORDS………:-) (-:
You defeated your own logic. Your argument is that ‘Obama said obortions didn’t go down, not that they went up’.
Indeed, Obama did not say that they didn’t go down much, but they didn’t go down, period.
The numbers you posted clearly show that is not the case.
Besides, when your talking these kind of numbers, 1.3% is significant, imho.
1.3 is significant, imho.I am sure in your opinion and many others, but not statistically.
Un-umm…un-errr…non-whatisis translation:
“Yup, indeedy The One pulled this one straight outta his backside.”
1.3 is significant, imho.
I expect that’s 1.3 % of persons who will disagree with ya, lad.
sorry, meant to quote, not strike.
My point is, as nyk pointed out, we have no idea the numbers Obama was going off. I am sure there are a lot flying out there. I have shown at least one set where the numbers indicate a flatlining of abortions, i.e, they did not go down in any statistically significant sense under Bush, which is what Obama said. So to say that Obama was either lying or just had no idea what he was talking about is either disingenuous or misinformed or at the very least incompletely informed on both Nice Deb’s and see dub’s part.
Seeing as they are probably at oldest around 3 or 4 years old, I doubt they would be very interested in this debate right now and more interested in the Wiggles.
Hah! Those stats aren’t the only thing being pulled out of his wazoo……. but I choose to be polite.
When unemployment increases by 0.5%, that is significant news. If you don’t believe that, watch the financial markets next time emplyment figures are released. Socially speaking, 1.3% is a significant number. Granted it’s not a huge leap by any means, but it’s not flatlining either – not if it’s consistently decreasing.
I expect that’s 1.3 % of persons who will disagree with ya, lad.
Could be, but I think it’s a safe assumption they prefer sitting alive in front of the telly. Of course, with Obama being against “Born Alive” legislation, who knows at what age he would have them retroactivelly aborted?
Obama should make no bones about his pro-abort leanings as did McCain did with his anti-abort views, from what I’ve gleaned the attempted dodge didn’t please the left wingers either.
Sometimes when you “is-is” a question the only result is a losing effort that ticks off more people than an upfront “this is where I stand” answer does.
We all know Democrats…if they say it, it must be true,
regardlessin spite of proof to the contrary.And there’s the rub.
Note my comment:
IS it consistently decreasing? By golly, I would say that we can’t tell, at least yet. Not like the Clinton years where we can glean a definite huge decrease in abortions.
chap,
Obama has been pulling stuff out his wazoo for months now. It ain’t gonna change. That’s how he’s always gotten by. No one is going to challenge a black man with the apparent grasp of the facts. Running for president, now we will.
Are you a trial lawyer chap?
Would you want this fool defending you? He can’t think off the cuff. Everything has to be prepared: written down or teleprompter or the Messiah is screwed. Which is why his ego wanted the townhall debates but his handles didn’t. Verdict: Empty marxist suit.
You have to understand that Chappie the Marxist considers babies to be statistics, not actual people, so a few thousand more or less is of no actual interest or significance to him. Actually, according to the footnotes to those CDC abortion numbers, several states, including most interestingly California, have not reported abortion statistics in years, so the numbers are worthless. Just like a lib lawyer, presenting flawed data and then lying about it. Are you in John Edwards’ law firm?
On August 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm, cicerokid said:
Some one tell me how any one person, other than the mother, can be responsible for the rising or lowering of the abortion rate? THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE HAS NO CONTROL OVER ABORTION.
Chapoutier, the “most recent complete” CDC figures acknowledge what you do not:
“In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data from 48 reporting areas. Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma did not report, and data for these states were not estimated. During 2000–2002, Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting areas to 49; for 2003 and 2004, Alaska again reported and West Virginia did not, maintaining the number of reporting areas at 49.”
The data you cite from 2001-2004 still does not include California – because it can’t – but you should have admitted that these data are limited before you claimed that the Clinton administration saw a ’statistically significant’ decline in abortion that the Bush administration did not.
But if McCain picks a pro-choice VP, everyone is staying home.
I’m sorry. I missed the part where you showed he pulled these facts out of his wazoo. I will agree with the notion that there are certainly numerous sets of data and multiple ways of interpreting said data. I will also agree that ALL politicians select the data points and interpretations that most suit their needs. However, I have still not been shown where Obama has been proven to have either lied or just not known the facts in this case.
Thank god for all those souls out there with trials, no.
Yes.
I disagree. I notice great amusement in citing Obama’s pattern speech and counting the “ahhhh….s”. Some see that as not knowing the issues. Some see that as contemplation and trying to give a thoughtful answer to a question that actually responds to the question rather than spouting off talking points that 50% of the time do not even address the actual query. I suspect that the correlation between R and D and one’s thoughts on this issue is high.
chapoutier: Obama said abrtions did not go down. That was inaccurate. They did go down. The fact that he didn’t know that is interesting. Your comparison of the numbers is irrelivant spin. The numbers went down.
Actualy You have been shown that, you simply tried to spin that fact.
One problem, we’re not talking about the Clinton years, we’re talking about the Bush years. To take that line would be no different from me making the same comparison to a POTUS when the numbers increased sharply – it’s simply not relevant to what Obama quoted as fact.
I would agree that it’s not a definitely consistent trend given the 2002 figures you quoted, but Obama did not qualify his claim by using the word ’significant’. His words were that abortions didn’t go down during Bush’s presidency, period. That is simply not true, and you have kindly provided the numbers to back that – be it by significant degrees or otherwise.
I don’t image this discussion will go mainstream anyway, so it’s pretty much a moot point.
The numbers I cite include all the states. That was intentional. I have no idea why some states are slower, but there consistently seems to be a 3 year gap in the study date and the most recent data. The study I cited was November 23, 2007, the most recent.
Is there anything worse then those numbers? gGenerations of human beings wiped out. Why? The Rev Jeremiah Wright talks about different not deficient. Surely those same humans deserved at least the same argument for sparing their lives.
If the MSM never asks you to name your source why bother. If it sounds good at the time, use it.Let your apologists make something later.
Are abortions required to even be reported? That is the main question, and if they are not, then Obama has no idea what he is talking about.
Here’s a hint, they are not required to be reported.
Barack Obama is misinformed on many issues, least of all tire inflation.
I’m not sure how much of it is his fault, but it’s quite clear to me he doesn’t have much of an idea of what he is doing.
I’ve seen some pretty weak stuff from this guy considering he’d meet with rogue dictators face-to-face.
Sean Hannity might be a good warm-up for that, because I kinda doubt that the boys in OPEC will take it easy on Obama because he’s slender, fit, tall and biracial.
Just my thoughts, though.
I heard today on the news that 44% of America consider themselves “Pro-Choice” and 44% label themselves “Pro-Life.” I wonder how those percentages would change if the question was “Do you consider yourself Pro-Infanticide or Pro-Infant Protection?”
For those who feel “infanticide” is too strong a term, what else could a rational person call the willful death of 45 million babies? Choice?
And maybe they think he is the reincarnation of the Fourth Imam….?
Did that number go down?
My point is that Obama did not provide the stats he was using. No one (including Deb or Dub) has apparently tried to clarify this question, until you have, you cannot say he lied. You can say such and such studies refute that contention. Okay, fine. But that is entirely different from saying that he lied or somehow made up the statistics.
What I find amazing is those who say a doctor can’t give a 13 year old girl asprin without perants permission but think it is fine and dandy for a doctor to rip a fetus out of that same child and never even ask if the perants know.
Oh please. Stop trying to spin that Obama screwed this up.
Or what about “pro choice or pro-zygote?” What do you think the numbers would be then?
Of course how the question is framed makes a huge difference, and I am sure each side is citing the studies that best support their side. Which is actually my point.
Is that because his staff was trying to limit bimbo eruptions?
It may be acted upon as if it means something but the numbers are a pure fiction. The government considers anyone to be employed who works ONE hour a week. I don’t know about you but my employer would not be happy with me showing up to work for one hour a week.
did it?
I am not trying to spin anything. It is see dub that is trying to spin that Obama screwed up without knowing what data Obama was relying on.
BO is just doing the standard lawyer tape dance. What is important, are the type of judges he will appoint.
But if McCain picks a pro-choice VP, everyone is staying home.
If you are holding out for a spotless ticket, better vote for the annointed one!! There is NEVER going to a candidate that believes the way everone on this post does. There’s going to have to be a concession somewhere. A pro choice VP is better than a pro choice POTUS. I am pro life. Our republican nominee appears to make everyone here happy on the issues except for illegal aliens. I can deal with that, and press him, the LGU, and congress on that issue.
Sorry, chap, you are wrong here. The link you gave above was to the 2007 study, but if you look right below Table 2, where you got your numbers, it says from 1998 on, California and a few other states did not report. I presume that’s where you get the huge reduction during the Clinton years (from 1,186,039 in 1997 to 884,273 in 1998). Regardless of how you look at it, the numbers went down, as in lower now then when W became President.
The link you provided above includes data only through 2004, and specifically excludes California, among other states, (check the footnotes to Table 2) which more than likely accounts for the entirety of the drop in abortions during the Clinton Administration which you cited so proudly, since California, given its political hierarchy and size, is undoubtedly one of the 2-3 leading states for numbers and percentages of abortions.
Oh please. He said abortions had not gone down and they had. He literaly said “abortions have not gone down” not percentages or ratios or anything like that. Fact is Obama screwed up. It is not the end of the nworld. GGGEEEZZZZ how pathetic.
By pathetic, I mean your desperate attempt to defend him over this issue. He is clearly wrong yet you seem to think it is the end of the world. So he got one wrong. Everyone is wrong every once in a while.
Who gives a flip if obummer was wrong on whether obummer was wrong on the number of abortions. We still have them. A million plus abortions per year. 33 percent of the birth rate. Hideous.
Chappie, the fact that there are 1.3% less lab experiments available to your favorite liberal breeding grounds means that there are that many innocent children watching the Wiggles. You can debate all you want whether or not abortions flat lined “statistically” but in reality, what really maters to these children at least, is that the number of abortions went DOWN.
I hope and pray that we at least maintain this statistical flatline. Although with your “Chosen One” these unborn will be labled “burdens. And we wouldn’t want to saddle the poor with any more burdens, would we? Then I believe your flatline will end.
The problem is, Chap, we are talking about Presidential candidates ability to clearly annunciate where they stand on major issues. It’s not as if we are talkin’ about some obscure topic like preserving the habitat of the muck-faced blue-eared zibbit at a local libray board candidate’s debate.
To not have formulated a clearly expressed major policy just a few months before a general election just doesn’t play very well.
In 1980 Ted Kennedy was asked – on Nightline I think it was – why he wanted to be President. He fumbled looking for an answer; it was embarassing to watch and really impacted his bid.
Dukakis bad response to a capital punishment question in the 88 debates helped to kill off any hope he had of winning. And that was after he had run up a 16 point lead in the polls.
I expect Obama’s people realize how badly he did and are/will be working on not just his “ummers” but also on his inability to directly answer questions.
But therein lies the rub; if he answers questions directly Obama loses the majority of Americans while pleasing the extreme liberal roots. So far he’s been able to hide behind “glittering generalties” and the we-are-the-world staged events. He can hope to ride that train to the White House, but the electorate might demand something more tangible.
chapoutier: My major concern with obamas response on abortion is that it was “above his pay grade”. Excuse me, but there is nobody with a higher pay grade in this country than the president of the united states. It came off as an excuse to avoid answering the question. He should have just stuck with his statement that he was pro-choice.
Patriot,
“In reality”, what I am arguing against has nothing to do with abortion per se. My argument was with see dub’s characterization of Obama’s comments. My issue is not with “the issue” if you will.
We could pretend we are arguing about how many kittens were adopted from animal shelters from 2001 to 2004 if that would simplify things.
exactly.
exactly – that was meant for PurplePeep.
I’m pretty sure this was a reference to God and how the issue of the morality of abortion is between a woman and her creator.
This is exactly why Odimbo is eating rump roast tonight. well said purp.
What major issues are you referring to?
Obama is applying for the position of president of the united states of america, not god. He needs to present his views and not use god as an excuse not to answer.
Yeah, and his position, which all of you have made abundantly clear, is that abortion should be legal.
Legal. Which is in his perview as president. Not moral.
No need to simplify it with me, pal. I’m not the total rube you might think me to be. O-man’s comments were inaccurate. If anyone is spinning thing it you for your chosen one. To make statements such as those are meant to mislead or redirect attention. Something at which you lawyers seem to become adept. (Example: Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer “yes” or “no”.)
One other thing Chappie, I’m sure even Obama does not believe that a number like ‘16′ is an accurate enough reflection of the population to make claims the number is not falling. It would take a 6.25% decrease to have any effect on that number whatsoever, and that is most certainly beyond significant.
Isn’t this a subject for the Supreme Court and hopefully a states rights issue.
The question was, when did he, meaning Obama, thought a baby gets human rights. He used god not to answer this very basic question. It wasn’t about what scientists or moralists or anyone besides obama thought. Obama was asked his opinion, and he refused to answer. Think about it, if we are to believe obama then he can not give us his opinion on one of the most important issues in the country today. Not the law, obamas position.
I meant simplify as in take away the charged atmosphere that abortion necessarily brings, not as in dumbing it down. I do not think you a rube, nor others here which are arguing in perfectly good faith. So my apologies for my poor choice of words.
I am doing neither. I am staying on topic. It just so happens I disagree with see-dub.
His legislative record says that his position is that infanticide should be legal. Morality isn’t the question. It’s how long you and the rest of the Democrat Party will defend a monster.
Notice the left’s rationalization to make their decision to “Choose” by dehumanizing the life that grows within them. “It just a cluster of cells!”
Is the “freedom to choose” more important than preserving a life?
I guess with that kind of rationale, it would be okay to “choose” to abort the lives of those whom we determine are a “disease” on mankind, and “non-persons?”
My opinion, abortion should be a states rights issue. As should gay marriage. Just my opinion. (see chapoutier, its that easy, why could obama do even that?)
So he has said he is neither a scientist nor a priest?
Hardly controversial.
As I stated and the rest of the quote clearly shows, Obama was being asked his opinion, not what scientists or priests think. Obama could not give it.
It shouldn’t be a matter for judges, but unfortunately it has become so thanks to an activist court – which is precisely why Obama is a disaster. He will appoint judges at all levels who share his extreme view of abortion and the typical liberal preference for legislation by judges, which means that even newborns won’t be safe. However, the “good” news is that murderers will be.
right_on,
My point was not about the dictionary definition of “zygote.” My point was that how a question is worded has a huge impact on how it is answered.
If you ask “Do you favor killing babies?” I am sure you would get around a 100% negative. But the question is useless because it does nothing to clarify whether or not people think an embryo or a zygote or a 5 wk old or a 10 wk old or a 25 wk old or whatever fetus is a “baby.”
chapoutier: And when does Obama think life begins? Be nice to know wouldn’t it?
I think he claimed he did not know. Such humility from a politician is refreshing.
The real question is….
This is a thread about abortion. Where is EQ? I thought she sniffed these out like a bloodhound does coke at the border.
No he dodged. He could have said, in my opinion…..
But no he dodged the question. We have no idea when he thinks life begins. I would sugest he thinks it is at birth since he suipports even partial birth abortions (see his voting record) if so he should say so instead of dodging the hard issue.
I guess with that kind of rationale, it would be okay to “choose” to abort the lives of those whom we determine are a “disease” on mankind, and “non-persons?” Exactly right-on. All this thread has shown us is that OB has little respect for the sacredness of life.
It appears that some of the liberals here are a tad defensive about Obama’s performance last night… hehe.