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

1. It’s about Time: Ave Maria University Commencement Speaker Rips Notre Dame for Having Obama as Speaker « Frugal Café Blog Zone
2. Obama & Christ Can’t Share Stage: White House Asks Georgetown to Cover Up Jesus’ Monogram for President « Frugal Café Blog Zone
3. “Blame Bush and Buy a Puppy”: KFYI 550 NewsTalk’s Spoof on Pres. Obama’s ASU Commencement Speech « Frugal Café Blog Zone
4. Notre Dame is In My Blood; Allowing ND To Be “Used” Offends Me « Peace and Freedom Promises
5. Pres. Obama to Speak at Arizona State University Graduation: Hot As Hades « Frugal Café Blog Zone
6. Poll: More Americans Now Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice : The American Pundit
7. At least 20,000 protestors this weekend, 360,000 sigs on the petition to stop Obama’s appearance at the University of Notre Dame | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
8. Friday, May 15, 2009: Daily Handpicked Headlines :: Daily Uprising :: Join the Conservative Counter-Revolution!
9. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Is the MSM Being Lazy or Malicious in It’s Notre Dame Controversy Reporting?
10. Expected 20,000 Protesters this Weekend as Pro-Abortion President Obama Gives Commencement Speech at Notre Dame | Scared Monkeys
11. Liberty Pundit | Gallup: More Americans Are Pro-Life
12. Notre Dame Students Stand for Life « Jim Blazsik
13. Obama; Why Notre Dame? « Peace and Freedom Promises
14. BO at ND « Gunservatively!
15. Obama’s Record Speaks for Itself « The Lioness
16. Why are more Americans Pro-Life than Pro-Choice? Barack Obama « Jim Blazsik
17. Why shouldn’t Obama embrace an opportunity to be honored at Notre Dame? « My 2¢
18. Blue Collar Republican » Blog Archive » Showdown At Notre Dame
19. Abortion | NEOAVATARA
20. Speech And Consequences « Around The Sphere
21. Obama at Notre Dame, on Abortion: Can’t We All Just Get Along? « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such
22. Progressive Obama Values vs. Conservative American Values? Abortions–Over 50 Million American Babies Killed vs. Waterboarding–Million of Americans Still Alive–Truth and Consequences « Pronk Palisades
23. Progressive Obama Values vs. Conservative American Values? Abortions–Over 50 Million American Babies Killed vs. Waterboarding–Millions of Americans Still Alive–Truth and Consequences « Pronk Palisades
24. Long Island Patriot Blog » Blog Archive » Media bias in the NY TIMES… (yawn… oh really?)

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #702074
   On May 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am, Ragspierre said:

   On a more rational note…

   When, and however, Rowe v. Wade is overturned, as it inevitably must…

   it will merely mean that the anti-democratic and unconstitutional act of an overweening cabal of unelected judges is overthrown.

   That will mean that the issue will be de-federalized, and returned to the states, in which it properly belongs.

   We will have 50 potential test-beds to fashion a jurisprudence that addresses all the various interests at stake in the issue of an abortion, and there are many.

   I for one, would support a legal response that would recognize…and give effect to…the several people involved in the question, including the child.

   Would there be abortions under such a scheme? Of course, and they would be those very few cases the Pro-Abortion lobby always cites for their bloody shirt arguments; rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in genuine jeopardy.

   Would some states continue to allow abortion as a convenience? I think it likely there would be.

2. #702083
   On May 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, Ragspierre said:

   Ever wonder about how Notre Dame came to this point?

   Catholic or not (I’m included here), this is an excellent perspective, along with a clear model of how LEFTIST ideology typically infests any institution that is not assertively antithetical to it.

   http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/how_notre_dame_drifted_away_fr.html

3. #702150
   On May 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm, Papa Louie said:

   tettes said:

   Why not use a fairer choice of words, such as “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”?

   Oh, because that wouldn’t look so good for the anti-choice side.

   Pro-choice about what? Abortion? Then why obscure what you mean unless you’re ashamed of it or you’re trying to hide something?

   If you’re pro-choice about “everything”, not just abortion, then you must be for the law of the jungle. You can do anything you choose in the Jungle. You can kill anything you choose, you can steal anything you choose, and you can eat anything you choose. There are no laws to stop you. However, others are free to do the same to you. The strong and the smart thrive, but the disadvantaged not so much.

   A civilized society has laws that limit choices and protect the disavantaged. You can still choose to break the law, but society will likely punish you if you do. So if you are truly “pro-choice”, you are for anarchy and against the civilized rule of law that limits your choices.

   If abortion is the subject, then “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” are the terms that best describe the two opposing sides. The use of other terms obscures the issue and is disengenuous.

4. #702152
   On May 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, Papa Louie said:

   lgm said:

   Just to put it on record here. A 12 week fetus is not a sentient person.

   At what point, then, does it become a sentient person, lgm? At 24 weeks, 30 weeks, birth, 1 year, 8 years, or teenager? After a botched abortion would you be ok with putting a live baby in a plastic bag and tossing it in the garbage if it didn’t appear “sentient” to you?

   I thought Democrats were all about protecting the rights of the helpless and the disadvantaged. I guess you’re all for it when you can do it with other people’s money. But when it impacts you or your sex life, the disadvantaged are on their own.

5. #702154
   On May 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Papa Louie said:

   The President said this at Notre Dame:

   “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

   Oh, you mean like portraying Bush as a monkey, or Cheney as Darth Vader, or Miss California as a dumb b*tch, or Sara Palin as the idiot Tina Fey?
   Is that the type of “caricature” we can do without? If so, I agree. But when are your supporters going take your advice, Mr. President?

6. #702158
   On May 17th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, gco said:

   On May 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Papa Louie said:
   The President said this at Notre Dame:

   “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

   He said that did he? He also said this on April 19, 2008:

   You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

   And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

   Throw in some AIG executives, secured creditors of Chrysler, and those vile, greedy doctors who are bankrupting our economy, and it looks like the media has grounds to ask a few questions about how he really feels about using caricatures. Not holding my breath.

7. #702176
   On May 17th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, atheling said:

   Papa Louie: 3

   Idiot Libturds: 0

8. #702198
   On May 17th, 2009 at 10:51 pm, Joy said:

   I watched the clip at Hot Air…

   Baby Killer in Chief said:

   “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.”

   Ummm, then why did he ditch the conscience clause already in place?

   “Surely we can do it without reducing those with differing views to charicatures.”

   Oh, you mean like labeling anyone in a pro-life group a ‘Right-wing extremist’?

   “Fair-minded words.”

   Riiiiiiiiiiiight….

9. #702202
   On May 17th, 2009 at 11:06 pm, chapoutier said:

   Ummm, then why did he ditch the conscience clause already in place?

   When?

   Oh, you mean like labeling anyone in a pro-life group a ‘Right-wing extremist’?

   When?

10. #702205
    On May 17th, 2009 at 11:40 pm, Ragspierre said:

    On May 17th, 2009 at 11:06 pm, chapoutier said:

    Ummm, then why did he ditch the conscience clause already in place?

    When?

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html

    Oh, you mean like labeling anyone in a pro-life group a ‘Right-wing extremist’?

    When?

    Don’t you recall Nappy Jan’s DHS “Report”? We do…

11. #702208
    On May 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pm, Ragspierre said:

    We also recall the Leftist on this thread who have explicitly stated that…

    Pro-Life advocates are really Anti-Choice

    Pro-Life advocates are really anti-sex

    Pro-Life advocates are really anti-birth control

    Pro-Life advocates are hypocrites because (if) they support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes

    I know when someone is disagreeing with me on rational grounds, and when I’m being demonized and put in a rhetorical ghetto.

    The thing here is Roe v. Wade, like so many other moves to federalize an issue and take it from the people whose right it is to decide, polarized the debate. That is what happens when you force an edict on an entire country, and remove it from the states where it belonged and belongs.

12. #702210
    On May 17th, 2009 at 11:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    Okay on 1. I personally don’t know how I feel about the issue. With abortion, sure. That is easy. But a pharmacist that won’t fill a birth control script? Or a muslim cabbie that won’t carry someone with a bottle of wine? Hmmm….

    Not so on 2.

    Don’t you recall Nappy Jan’s DHS “Report”? We do…

    Not so well apparently. The essential component was not the idea, but the willingness to do violence. From their own lexicon:

    A movement of groups or individuals who are
    virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against
    providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and
    their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic
    beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

    I am sure, as a lawyer, you can appreciate the importance of an “and.”

13. #702211
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am, atheling said:

    Sheesh, chapoutier is really pathetic.

14. #702212
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:03 am, chapoutier said:

    Oh…and actually reading the cnn.com article…funny that that article actually point out that refusal to provide abortions is the one thing that will remain protected under the new proposed rule.

    So I have to recant my “Okay on 1.”

15. #702213
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:04 am, chapoutier said:

    Sheesh, chapoutier is really pathetic.

    Perhaps, but I know what “and” means. Apparently its subtle nuance escapes you.

16. #702217
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:13 am, Papa Louie said:

    chapoutier said:
    

    Ummm, then why did he ditch the conscience clause already in place?

    When?

    I think Joy is referring to an Obama administration proposal to rescind
    the previous Bush rule:

    The publication of the proposal to rescind the Provider Conscience Clause opens up a 30-day public comment period, after which Obama will likely roll back the protections for medical personnel and facilities.

    Everyone assumed at the time that it was a done deal. But I have not heard what happened after the 30-day comment period that began in March. It may be that Obama changed his mind on this issue, or he rescinded the Bush rule but left the “Conscience Clause” in place. Maybe someone can fill in the details.

    Oh, you mean like labeling anyone in a pro-life group a ‘Right-wing extremist’?

    When?

    Chap, you really didn’t hear about the Homeland Security report (titled “Right-Wing Extremism”) that came out last month?

    Here is the relevant part for your benefit:

    In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report said.

17. #702219
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:16 am, chapoutier said:

    Papa, see 94 and 96 above.

18. #702223
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:28 am, ErinF said:

    I have to ask this, because I am not Catholic:

    How does a Catholic support the infanticide president? Aren’t Catholics supposed to be pro-life from conception on? I just don’t get it, and maybe that makes me the ignorant one. However, if there are any Catholics on this blog, can you answer this for me?

19. #702225
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:31 am, Papa Louie said:

    I guess I am late to the party. (If I refresh my screen while typing, I lose everything I typed.) I still think my quote that “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion” may be extremists is more supportive of Joy’s comment. The use of the word “individuals” along with “groups” implies that anyone who opposes abortion could fit the mold.

20. #702228
    On May 18th, 2009 at 12:38 am, chapoutier said:

    Papa,

    I cited above to the DHS official Lexicon, written prior to and meant to inform the later DHS report, which defines all sorts of extremism, all of which have a violent component to them. Merely having the opinion is not enough.

    In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

21. #702230
    On May 18th, 2009 at 1:01 am, Ragspierre said:

    In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

    What we call in Texas a “frog-fur” distinction. Very lawyerly and all, and valid in and of itself, but it misses the larger impact of the report. Which, please remember, nobody read in the context of the lexicon. Take the various cases of police pulling over people identified as being in one of those groups, solely for the presence of a bumper-sticker, etc.

    You may assert that is the result of stupid work on the part of DHS, with nothing darker behind issuing the report than ham-handedness. I am not so sanguine.

    Bottom line on the conscience clause: reversing was and is under consideration by THE ONE.

    Beyond that, we know that THE ONE either has or is planning to open the federal coffers to fund abortions, not just here, but overseas.

    We know he is the most radically PRO-DEATH president ever. Going away…

22. #702234
    On May 18th, 2009 at 1:26 am, Papa Louie said:

    chapoutier said:

    In other words, taking the lexicon and the report together, one cannot read into the definition of extremist anything other than having a violent intent.

    Yes, I think a logical mind would come to that conclusion. But you don’t have to look hard to find democrats who believe that anyone who opposes abortion or illegal immigration automatically has violent intent.

    If you don’t believe me, take a look at this unchallenged remark from Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC about the Tea Parties.

    This is not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

    If attending a Tea Party to protest spending and taxes makes you part of a “hate” group, is it a stretch to think that protesting abortion might get you that label as well?

    I would hope the Obama Administration is not as politically partisan as some of the guests (and hosts) on MSNBC, but I’m not going to assume it. They clearly have a mutual admiration for one another.

23. #702290
    On May 18th, 2009 at 8:04 am, chapoutier said:

    Rags,

    One can speculate all one wants to on what Obama might do. God knows enough of that goes on here and it would be futile for me to attempt to change anyone’s mind. But my original query was not an invitation to do so. I was asking specifically when Obama had abandoned any sort of conscience clause.

    Originally, I had meant (and thought Joy meant) it in the context of actually providing abortions. If she meant it in a broader sense, then I misinterpreted, and she (and you) are right. But what cannot be said, or at least I haven’t seen it yet, is any sort of statement by Obama that would indicate he intends to force doctors to actually provide abortions against their will. Indeed, that protection is a law (not merely a rule as the conscience clause discussed above is/was).

    As to the definition of extremism, Texans may call my distinction whatever they please. In the rest of the lower 48, “and” means something. You talk about the impact of the report, which is all well and good, but pardon me if I don’t really care for these purposes because, first it again did not respond to my query. It is a very different thing to say “Obama has labeled anyone who is pro-life as an extremist” and to say “There is a DHS report that indicates that there may be violent groups driven by an anti-abortion agenda.” Or at least these sentences are different outside of Texas.

    Perhaps you, and others, read the report out of context, but perhaps that is because it was not written for the general public. And when that proper context is actually provided, one cannot continue to cling to the previous, erroneous interpretation.

24. #702296
    On May 18th, 2009 at 8:40 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    So what idiot invited the Baby Killer in Chief to speak at the leading Catholic University?

25. #702460
    On May 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am, atheling said:

    “There is a DHS report that indicates that there may be violent groups driven by an anti-abortion agenda.”

    With absolutely no substantiation to that assertion. No data, no facts, no examples.

    It’s all speculation in an attempt to tar all those who oppose abortion as violent, just as they tarred all returning veterans, and all those who sport the Gadsden flag.

    Fascism.