Michelle Obama: How Many Abortions?

On my other blog yesterday (Tuesday), I said the media should ask Michelle Obama how many abortions she's had. Is that nasty? Not really.

After all, if Sarah Palin and her family are fair game for any conceivable questions, then the same should be true of the Obama family. If Bristol Palin's sex life and contraception practices are fit subjects for the media, then why should the Obamas --including their children -- be excluded from similar enquiries? What's fair for the goose should also be fair for the gander.


Consider Sarah Palin's recent comments on what things annoy her.


"Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me....I'll tell you, yesterday the Anchorage Daily News, they called again to ask — double-, triple-, quadruple-check — who is Trig's real mom. And I said, Come on, are you kidding me? We're gonna answer this? Do you not believe me or my doctor? And they said, No, it's been quite cryptic the way that my son's birth has been discussed. And I thought, Okay, more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism."


Do I really believe the MSM will ask Michelle Obama -- and at a later date, her daughters, Sasha and Malia -- questions about their sex lives and contraception practices? No, it will never happen. The Obama children -- and Michelle herself -- are "off limits." Thus, it's okay to ask them nonsensical questions concerning the "First Dog" but not about much else. (If questions about the pooch are the only ones deemed appropriate, then we might enquire what happened to the "rescue dog" Obama previously mentioned.


Michelle Obama, "America's First Lady," has spent much of her life -- going back to her days at Princeton -- advocating Black Separatism. Like her husband, she spent 20 years attending a church, one headed by Rev. Wright, preaching Black Liberation Theology. Among other charges, Wright said that the U. S. government "invented" the AIDS virus in order to kill Black people.


Why isn't the media asking if Michelle Obama agrees with Rev. Wright? Of even more interest, does Barack Obama agree with his former pastor? And do Sasha and Malia have any views on the subject?

The American people know very little about Barack and Michelle Obama. The media should rectify that, but it probably won't.

Sarah Palin, Abortion, Planned Parenthood

The following is a press release from Gov. Sarah Palin on the subject of abortion: My comments are below the release.

February 11, 2009, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today issued the following statement in response to reports that contributions are being made to Planned Parenthood in her name:
“The abortion issue has been with us for decades and has pitted well-meaning people of differing ideologies against each other. Where we can find common ground is in the belief that no one wants a single abortion.

“But when there is a clash of values, I always will come down on the side of life. Making donations to Planned Parenthood in my name might be interesting theater in these politically charged times, but it is not going to change my views or the views of many other Alaskans who believe every life is precious.

“Anti-hunting groups are employing the same tactic of using my name to promote their cause right now. Again, interesting theater.”

Steve says:

I've sort of "said my say" on the abortion issue, but if I go back to Elaine Lafferty's article on Sarah as a "brainiac" and a "feminist," I believe she nails it. For those to whom pro-abortion ('"pro-choice" it turns out is a semantic game, where only one "choice" is acceptable) is a critical single-issue, Sarah will never be acceptable.

However, I do get the sense that Sarah wants to move beyond the endless cultural food-fight over the abortion issue. Good for her. I have a hunch that the "big issue" in 2012 and perhaps 2016 is going to be how to deal with the sick elderly to keep their illnesses from bankrupting the country. The Stimulus Bill, as Sen. Coburn pointed out, is a first step in that direction.

Tom Daschle is an assisted suicide enthusiast, and even though he's dead meat politically, his initial nomination shows which way the wind is blowing. As the poet put it, there are some who are "half in love with easeful death."

I admire the way Sarah is seeking to re-frame the abortion issue: She says, “The abortion issue has been with us for decades and has pitted well-meaning people of differing ideologies against each other. Where we can find common ground is in the belief that no one wants a single abortion."

"No one" may be excessive. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and other worthies, such as the gentle ladies in NARAL, appear never to have seen an abortion they don't like.

Technology is confronting us with issues (octuplets anyone? gender selection?) that, as a society, we're ill-equipped to deal with. We need a modern St. Thomas Aquinas to give us some coherent foundation for making moral decisions.

Sarah Palin: Right on Abortion

"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." (Jesus, KJV)

I sent the following out to some people who were parsing (slicing and dicing) the abortion issue and whether it could cost Sarah Palin the presidency). Your thoughts are welcome.

Yes, some women (a sliver of urban and suburban females) will always hate -- yes, that is the right word -- Sarah for affirming life. However, I don't think it is possible to put life issues completely on the back burner.

The new "Stimulus" bill contains health provisions that point in the direction of denying adequate care to the very sick elderly. Daschle, Obama's first choice for HHS, advocates as much in his book.

There is a belief, widespread in the Democratic Party, that providing care for the elderly -- who, after all are going to "die anyway" -- is too expensive. In short, having sick old people around is an inconvenience.

Who is to say such liberals are wrong? Well, I for one will say it, but if we are all going to say so, we need some philosophical (or theological?) basis for doing so.

Let me be very blunt my friends: Don Fowler, "Mr. Democrat" from South Carolina and a former head of the DNC, said in late August that Sarah Palin's main qualification for the V-P slot was "that she didn't have an abortion [with Trig]."

I wanted in vain for Hillary Rodham Clinton and other female Democrats to chastise Fowler. If they disagreed with him, they didn't say so. Thus, I assume they weren't disturbed by his outrageous comments.

Here's the issue: What living things are valuable? And which ones should be disposed of in the most expeditious way possible?

Sarah Palin, portrayed as some kind of simpleton by many liberal feminists, has wrestled with that question. She believed and believes that her youngest son, Trig, is a child of God and that he has profound value.

Many feminists, including those who hate Sarah, believe no such thing. They apparently believe the Trigs of this world would be worthless -- burdens, inconveniences, ueseless cellular masses. Sarah does not believe such things.

If I may look into her heart, she would say that if she did have such secularist, selfish views, then life itself -- her life, your life, everyone's -- would be devalued. We would be in the situation Thomas Hobbes described where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and . . . short."

If the Trigs of the world don't have a right to "go to term," then why in fact should their lives after birth be sustained? After all, the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy and moral philosophy, practiced infanticide.

Granted, they didn't have sonograms or abortion clinics. However, were they just being more honest than we are?

Yes, the octuplets have been born in CA. But some of them are not going to have what we would regard as a decent life. So, why should they have a right to live? Why not just toss them in with the rest of the hospital garbage?

Our own squeamishness (or horror?) at the thought of infanticide is not exactly a moral imperative. It's critical that on abortion and end-of-life issues we not fall into what's happened for more than 30 years . . . a mindless exchange of slogans.

On this issue generally, I do not want any more constitutional amendments -- on life, on marriage, or on any other issue. But that doesn't mean I don't side with Sarah, who realizes that the devaluation of life that's been going on for nearly four decades could turn into a catastrophe for our society and culture.

Thankfully, Sarah does not side with Nancy Pelosi in the view that one solution to our economic problems is to have a lot fewer Black and Hispanic babies.

It was one of Dostoevsky's characters (in The Brothers Karamazov) who said, "If God [i.e., any sense of ultimate value] is dead, everything is permitted." And yes, he did mean EVERYTHING.

Sarah Palin: Respect for Life

Starting on Jan. 20 (Tuesday) my other blog (http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com) will stop cross-posting from this one and begin columns about the Obama presidency, which I expect to be somewhere between a circus and a calamity. I hope you'll visit.
"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

A friend asked me how Sarah Palin can "square the circle" of retaining conservative support while also attracting moderates and center-left Democrats.

Linda, there are ways of handling the challenge of keeping conservatives while appealing to moderates and Democrats. Sarah needs to make the point that we need more respect for life in general in America -- less violence against women, less hostility to minority group members, less child abuse, less warehousing of kids in bad schools, less crime, less drug and alcohol addiction, less mistreatment of the elderly, even less animal abuse.

At the same time, we need more assistance for those with special needs children, more facilitation of adoption, and more assistance to girls and women who are pregnant and in need of supportive people.

I believe Sarah Palin is very much in favor of moving on all the issues I raise. That's one reason I support her so strongly. She understands that the Two Great Commandments both center on the word LOVE.

There are laws against the things I mentioned (e.g., murder, child abuse), but reducing their incidence in our society is a matter less of law than of conscience, education, and basic morality. There was a belief after Roe v. Wade that it would reduce the occurrences of child abuse, spouse abuse, and the like. That didn't happen. (By the way, I'm not in favor of abortion, but ultimately it's not my decision to make. At the same time, I'll discuss the matter with anyone who wishes.)

Sarah needs to appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." She should use those very words. Her own respect for life should include respect for those whose views differ from her own. All Americans will agree with her that there hasn't been exactly an excess of love in our society.

Palin: The Explosive Abortion Issue

Picture of Trig Palin as a newborn . . .

I count myself as strongly pro-life, but I've argued for a pragmatic approach to the abortion issue. I know, you know, and Sarah knows there is nothing like a majority in the Congress -- or among the states (three-fourths of them needed) to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.

The last time a Human Life Amendment (see Wikipedia) was brought up in the Senate was 1983, and it failed to get even a majority, let alone the two-thirds vote it needed.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who is personally opposed to abortion, has said, "The Constitution does not permit abortion. The Constitution does not prohibit abortion." The critical point here is not whether one "agrees" with Scalia, but rather that what he says is true, which it is. (The implication in Scalia's statement is that the issue should go back to the states, which probably isn't going to happen. Things will stay as they are.)

Scalia is sometimes sniffed at by leftists as an "originalist." In fact, an originalist is someone who believes the Constitution means what it says. It doesn't mean what the latest Gallup Polls indicates a majority wishes it said.

Sarah's core group is anti-abortion. However, as her number of supporters grows, it will become more and more diverse. People will also come to understand that Gov. Palin embraces a combination of conservative, libertarian, and populist principles.

Her motto has been: "Serve the people." Her motto is NOT "Serve the people who believe exactly as I do." She has said she personally opposes abortion, but that she has no interest in "criminalizing" it. By the way, neither do I. Neither I guess would Scalia.

One of the chapters in my book on Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who support her, including Elaine Lafferty, Shelley Mandell (the head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW who endorsed Sarah), and Camille Paglia. That chapter will deal with Sarah's obligation as a potential President to those women and others like them.

The key is a question of respect -- respect for those whose views differ from Palin's on one or more issues.

I've had discussions with some strong pro-lifers , including one woman who heads a pro-life PAC. She understands very well what I'm saying about abortion as an issue, that it's one of conscience and education, not laws, and she generally agrees. In time, I think most of the staunch pro-lifers on in Sarah's camp will also agree.

No one sound of mind wants to paint Sarah into a corner that would lead to her inevitable defeat. We can't ask her to run in an imaginary America; she has to run in the nation as it is. Sarah is a person who leads by example, not by barking out orders and using strong-arm tactics.