“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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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?

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.

Sheesh, chapoutier is really pathetic.

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