Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
August 2, 2014

Janice Hahn Walks Out of Prayer Gathering to Protest Dobson’s ‘Abortion President’ Remarks

progressive005 080112 445x301 Janice Hahn Walks Out of Prayer Gathering to Protest Dobsons Abortion President Remarks

Hahn (CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Rep. Janice Hahn just wanted to hear evangelist Billy Graham’s daughter speak at Thursday’s National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill, but she ended up storming out of the room before that portion of the program could get underway.

The California Democrat said she was appalled by the remarks of Dr. James Dobson, saying she felt he went against the event’s stated nonpartisan and apolitical intent by bashing Barack Obama and calling him the “abortion president.”

“We have this annual, national day of prayer, which is supposed to bring the whole country together to pray for our nation, and typically you put politics aside and you come together,” Hahn told CQ Roll Call. “James Dobson just absolutely violated that, and I really think he did damage to what we try to do up here in Washington, D.C.”

Dobson, the founder of the conservative group Focus on the Family and host of the radio talk show “Family Talk,” told those assembled in the Cannon Caucus Room that Obama’s promotion of policies forcing taxpayers to fund abortion services was “offensive to [his] very conscience.”

“Before [Obama] was elected, he made it very clear that he wanted to be the abortion president,” said Dobson, whose remarks were captured in a video featured on WND.com. “He didn’t make any bones about it, that this is something that he really going to promote and support. And he has done that. And in a sense, he is the abortion president.”

Hahn recalled that Dobson prefaced his commentary by saying this was the first time in all his years participating in the National Day of Prayer that he had felt compelled to make reference to his own politics, and she described his speech as a “10- or 15-minute rant against President Obama.”

After trying to rally support from other people sitting in her row, Hahn said she’d had enough.

“Finally, I couldn’t take it anymore,” she said. “I stood up and pointed my finger at [Dobson] and said, ‘This is completely inappropriate for this day,’ and I walked out.”

The National Day of Prayer is typically held on the first Thursday of May; since its inception every president, regardless of faith or party affiliation, has issued a proclamation in support of the occasion. A spokesman for the National Day of Prayer did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Thursday’s incident, but the official website states that it is not a “political event” affiliated with any party, position or religious ideology.

“The National Day of Prayer, as designated by our government, belongs to all Americans,” the NDP website declares. “It is not sponsored or owned by any one group. Every American can observe the NDP in his or her own way.”

The page also includes a disclaimer noting that although NDP Task Force Chairwoman Shirley Dobson is the wife of James Dobson, the event is in no way affiliated with Focus on the Family or “Family Talk.” Dobson left Focus on the Family in 2009.

But for Hahn, James Dobson’s actions struck a painful chord.

“I’m the co-chair of the weekly Congressional Prayer Breakfast,” she explained. “I was the co-chair this year of the National Prayer Breakfast. And I work so hard at putting my politics aside every week and coming together with members of Congress I don’t agree with, but we find an hour a week where we put politics aside and pray for our country, and so far, it’s worked. … I was so upset today I felt like abandoning everything I’ve done to try to be bipartisan.”

Hahn said she has calmed down a bit since then and is considering bringing up the issue with her colleagues who regularly attend the weekly prayer breakfasts. “I would hope maybe members of the Congressional Prayer Breakfast consider writing [Dobson] and tell him that what he did really goes against what we’ve been trying to do in weekly in our prayer breakfast,” she said.

She might run into some disagreement with her co-chairman, conservative Republican Louie Gohmert of Texas, whom Hahn said she considers a “friend” despite the fact that she considers him her “political opposite.”

Gohmert told CQ Roll Call in a brief hallway interview on Thursday afternoon that he was familiar with Dobson’s remarks and Hahn’s frustration.

“I can understand Janice’s position and as co-chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast, which every president has attended, we work really hard to keep politics completely out of that,” Gohmert said.

He said he also felt for Dobson, whose religious beliefs and stance on abortion are inseparable. “I can also well understand Dr. Dobson’s frustration because it is their belief that assisting in any way, including providing funding, for abortion, is a sin. It’s not something that he should support and so he felt like this was a good time to let people know what he was going through. So I understand that.”

  • ZeeGee

    And yet, he is the abortion President. Why would that upset supporters of abortion like the Congresswoman Hahn? Millions of babies continue to be killed every year, mostly African American babies, so what would a supporter of abortion have to complain about?

    We should be praying for the souls of the children who are killed. We should be praying for the salvation, peace and reconciliation of the mothers who resort to aborting their babies. Many of them come to deeply regret their actions later in life; we should pray for them.

    Instead, Congresswoman Hahn would rather throw a tizzy about some Biblical and heartfelt comments by the founder of “Focus on the FAMILY”. Get it? FAMILY.

    Taking offense at what is true: there’s a term for that…

    • Leota2

      Using your belief system all presidents since Roe v Wade was affirmed are “abortion presidents”. Not one did anything but give lip service to
      the pro-life movement. You’d have thought women’s reproductive
      rights began and ended with Barack Obama.

      And frankly I’d actually respect the pro-life people but they really are just pro-birth. Most of them don’t care what happens to the child after its birth. Then the child’s lack of food, horrible healthcare, substandard housing, and bad education aren’t the government’s business—huh?
      You know—like its forced birth is.

      And by the way Focus on the Family is considered a hate group by
      the Southern Poverty Law Center. James Dobson is an evil man.

      • Twindad46

        Give it a rest. My wife and I adopted two foster kids. I know dozens of other adoptive parents. Every single one I know who took in foster kids and/or adopted them is a conservative, pro-life, Christian. Every. Single. One.

        What have you done for underprivileged children, other than suggest that the government take more and more of other people’s money?

        • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

          Anyone who takes in foster children has my respect, but if you think that the only people who care for children think as you do about politics, you need to get out more.

          • Layla

            How many are you caring for , Jeremiah?

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            I never said I was caring for any foster children. I think you must be capable of understanding that being a foster parent is not the *only* way a person might care for children; I also think it’s probably not beyond your powers to understand that many foster parents are in fact not political conservatives.

            Now, having considered these things, I think you should probably get some rest or use one of your relaxation techniques. It seems like it might be taxing to admit to yourself that there are other people out there in the world who don’t think or look like you who are nevertheless good people.

          • Layla

            You are right. And you don’t hear me tearing them all down, do you? I’m listening to you, trying to converse, without the hate.

        • stevenharnack

          Wow, then they must be the responsible parties for all of the abuse that goes on in the foster home system too, since they are the only participants.

          • Layla

            You’re not only hateful, you’re sick.

          • acornwebworks

            Well, Layla…while Steven was obviously being facetious (not sick or hateful), you have to admit that there *is* abuse of foster kids. And if someone is claiming that only conservative pro-life Christians foster kids, then it stands to reason that conservative pro-life Christians would be the abusers.

            Of course, once you admit that it’s not only conservative pro-life Christians who foster, then that “logical conclusion” goes away.

            You really need to lighten up.

        • LittleBritches

          I am a liberal and adopted 3 beautiful daughters from foster care, I know “dozens” of Liberals that have adopted or foster parents also. And most of us are Christians and pro-choice. See it isnt just as black and white as you want it.

          • Twindad46

            And it isn’t as black and white as Leota2 wants it either.

            Glad you adopted. You’re the first liberal I ever heard of who took in foster kids. Around here, liberals are all talk and no action.

          • Su Wu

            You need to get out of your comfort zone, dude. Everyone I know who have taken in foster children aren’t Christians, Republican or pro-birth. Get off your ‘holier than thou’ soapbox.

          • acornwebworks

            Well, my husband and I are both atheists…and we’ve fostered kids, too. And my husband is as liberal as can be.

            (I’m a lifelong Eisenhower Republican. Who knows what that makes me in your eyes, but I’m certainly not a rightwinger, any more than Ike was.)

      • ZeeGee

        This president has gone out of his way to force religious organizations to cover abortions and abortifacients. He owns the issue by actually suing Sister in the Catholic church to cover abortifacients. There isn’t a single comparison to that with any President at any time. Never.

        President Obama is the Abortion President.

        I think there’s a lot more evidence that SPLC is a racist hate group than Focus on the Family whose entire mission is to spread the love of Jesus to everyone who will listen.

        And, yes, we are Pro-Birth, but only after there’s conception. Thanks for pointing that out.

        • steveannie

          That’s a load of bull and you’re a hatemongering ignoramus. You’re just parroting what people like Dobson tell you, and it’s all lies. No religious organization is forced to cover abortion, the gov’t pays for exactly ZERO abortions, and you don’t understand the definition of “abortifacient.” What you’re talking about is contraception and if you had as much sense as the average amoeba you’d support the availability of contraception because it would vastly reduce the number of abortions that take place. You don’t give a damn about those fetuses, their mothers, or anyone else. You and your hero Dobson are just unAmerican bullies who want to force your beliefs on everyone else.

          • ZeeGee

            You need to resort to a higher level of discourse if you want to engage in a dialog. I am neither hate monger, ignorant, parrot, liar. I understand the definition of “abortifacient” and it is not contraception. I have a good deal more sense than the average amoeba, perhaps not the more advanced amoeba. I support the availability of contraception, paid for by the user, not the government. I give more than a “damn” about the mothers and their fetuses and everyone else. Dobson is not my hero, Jesus Christ is. Dobson and I are hardly unAmerican or bullies. I am certain that Jesus is not an American Patriot. I have never forced my beliefs on anyone else but I am not shy about expressing them.

            To your point, the DOJ has stood in the dock in multiple courtrooms around the country and now the Supreme Court arguing that religious organizations are not exempt from ACA’s requirement to provide free contraception and free abortifacients. There is today, through the tax dollars funneled to Planned Parenthood, federal money paying for abortions. They will claim that the Fed money doesn’t pay for the abortion but money is fungible. And Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading provider of abortions.

            Less invective. Avoid the straw man, don’t put words in my mouth.

          • acornwebworks

            Nope. You need to stop claiming things like “To your point, the DOJ has stood in the dock in multiple courtrooms around the country and now the Supreme Court arguing that religious organizations are not exempt from ACA’s requirement to provide free contraception and free abortifacients.

            Good grief. Even the National Catholic Reporter debunked that one. (And perhaps you don’t realize that morning-after pills don’t prevent implantation of a fertilized egg? They merely prevent ovulation.)

            (As an aside, the fact that money is fungible could also be used to make claims like “Catholics putting money in the collection plate were paying for priests to abuse children”. See the slippery slope?)

          • Layla

            Zee Gee hasn’t used any hate, you have. It’s becoming obvious that Democrats are the party of hate. You can’t utter a sentence without the name calling.

        • Matt McLaughlin

          Not even Orthodox Jews’ belief is that life is so sacred at conception that it can’t be aborted. You’re whole standing is having power over another person. That’s not how it works.

          • Layla

            Matt, I understand where you were heading, but think about this for a minute…..Murder over an unborn baby is the ultimate abuse of power. There are other alternatives.

        • acornwebworks

          Sorry, but “Sister in the Catholic church” was/were not sued to cover abortifacients. (I assume you’re talking about the Little Sisters of the Poor.)

          They were merely being required to provide BIRTH CONTROL coverage under the ACA…and that was *only* because they *refused* to self-certify that they are a nonprofit organization that holds themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. They refused to do this one simple thing, claiming it was a “substantial burden”.

          Oh! You wanna know who *really* filed the lawsuit??? THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR!! Yup, the federal government didn’t sue THEM…they sued the federal government!!

          (What an interesting view they have of “substantial burden”.)

          Oh. Guess what else? The ACA, Obama and the federal government do NOT require ANYONE to provide or cover abortion *or* abortifacients.

          So every single thing you claimed is false. Got that? It’s not true. So, nope. Obama does *not* “own the issue”. You were simply wrong. Repeatedly.

      • voxon123

        Have you visited the inner cities of America lately? Come to the South Bronx my discerning friend. Enter the poorest congressional district in America. Do you know who controls city hall… democrats. Do you know who controls the healthcare agencies… progressive democrats. Do you know who controls education… progressive democrats. Do you know who controls housing… humanistic democrats. Enter the place where less than 37% of black and hispanic males graduated from high school in 2011. Where 75% of the births are out of wedlock, where there are as many abortions as live births. Where 65% of the households are ran by single mothers. The poor… even the so called Christians have been brainwashed. Yes, I fault the Rep. for supporting the rich man, but the democrats are destroying millions with their humanistic philosophy etc. Come… see the thousands of poor, empty, hurt people for yourself. Welcome to Democrat Heaven. But when you talk to the people, especially the teenagers, many of them call it hell! A few more years of brainwashing and they will change their tune.

        • James

          Actually the southern states with abstinence only sex education have the highest out of wedlock birth rates so I guess your beliefs are not working real well.

          • Layla

            Sorry, James, but your sense of history is waaaay off.

          • James

            The out of wedlock birth rate is current events not history.

          • Layla

            Then let me say that you don’t know much about black families in the south. They are conservative, do not believe in gay marriage, yet don’t condemn it. They are religious people with strong family values. Ask me how I know this, James.

      • Layla

        ABSOLUTELY NOT true. Which presidents make abortion an issue….Democrats. Which presidents don’t feel it should be politicized or paid for in the federal budget….republicans. You keep saying you want separation between church and state and yet it is YOU who shoves it right back in there at every opportunity. MURDER is not a substitute OR SOLUTION to poverty.

        • acornwebworks

          Sorry, but abortions aren’t a religious issue. They’re a biological/medical issue.

          Sure, some people are against them because of their personal religious beliefs…but that’s not a church/state issue.

          And, like it or not, abortions are *NOT* paid for in the federal budget, no matter how much you’d falsely like to believe they are. That being the case, again…no church/state issue.

          Perhaps you ought to start doing some serious fact-checking? Frankly, I’m astonished at how many things you believe and try to present as fact that are sooooo easily proven false.

    • Pablito

      Are you aware that there are about 16 million children living in poverty these days? That’s almost 1 in 4 American children. I really wish you and your friends would pray that these children had enough food to eat, rather than obsessing over what a woman can and can’t do with her own body.

      • ZeeGee

        So, you’re suggesting that poverty is the result of too many children? What kind of logic is that? Or, perhaps they should have been aborted? Really? Add them to the 55 MILLION that have already been slaughtered? How you can shape this as a “woman’s right to do with her body”, or a women’s health issue flies in the face of the photographic evidence.

        • ta2t2o

          No I think Pablito was suggesting that you pretend to care about life – when all you really care about is birth. If you cared about LIFE you would have been a lot more pissed off about the cuts to SNAP and other programs that benefit these children ALREADY living in poverty. That’s something that could have been done directly by this Congress which they chose not to do. That’s something that our President has agreed he would sign. There is not 1 piece of pro-abortion legislation that this President has signed. In fact – he even signed his signature bill (the ACA) without that being covered. Everything he has stood for is far more PRO-LIFE than anything that the Republicans have voted for.

          In fact, whenever you mention these programs that help the lives of these children NOW, the Republicans all cry and moan about where there funding to support them will come from. Yet here you are talking about banning abortion – along with them – yet they have no solution for where the money will come from to support the huge growth of children born into poverty and welfare that will result. You pro-birth hypocrites don’t give a damn about life.

          • ZeeGee

            Thanks for your point. However, you suggest that government is responsible for supporting the “huge growth of children born into poverty” – presumably in the absence of abortion – or that the only children aborted would have been born into poverty?

            I don’t disagree with the point that there is real poverty and real needs that we should help with. This has always been true, though, even before the SNAP program existed. This is why churches and other non-government non-profits exist today; to help support those is need. Have you ever noticed how many hospitals were started or continue to be run by religious or charitable organizations?

            Charity is not a government function. When it is, ala SNAP, DCFS, Food Stamp etc. – it does an extremely poor job, extremely inefficient.

            Now, to make your head really explode, the reason there is poverty today is the lack of jobs. Jobs are not now, nor have they ever been, the creation of this government or any other government. Governments can, however, kill jobs, and do so with great frequency.

            So if you really wanted to help people, we would stop over-taxing and over-regulating and burdening the job-creators of this economy, open up the job opportunities available for the poor to not be poor anymore.

            The idea that they can’t do it or we can’t do it without government’s involvement flies in the face of history. Governments spend and destroy wealth, create poverty and misery abounds in the presence of an over-active, over-bearing government.

          • steveannie

            More bullshit. SNAP is one of the most cost-effective programs in history. Every dollar we spend on it puts about a dollar and a half back into the economy. And you still haven’t even figured out that SNAP and Food Stamps are the same thing! What’s the matter … didn’t Dobson mention that? And, by the way, your blessed “job creators” are sitting on the biggest cash reserves in our country’s history while raking in the highest profits in history, but they’re still not creating any jobs. That’s why we need a strong federal government – to protect us from your obscenely greedy “job creators” and their minions like Dobson, not to mention all the fools like you who swallow their lies hook, line and sinker.

          • ZeeGee

            Cost effective by government standards, perhaps. But, judging by your mastery of the multiplier effect, you would know that a dollar dies when it is sent to DC compared to a dollar left in the economy. I haven’t figured out that SNAP and Food Stamps are the same thing because every state, like CA, has a different name for their Federally funded food stamp program. I have consistently fed myself, without government assistance.

            No, Dobson never mentioned that SNAP and Food Stamps are the same thing. I will point that out to him the next time he calls me.

            Yes, they are my precious job creators, horrible, evil capitalists. Shame on them for starting their businesses. They are not creating jobs for one basic reason: the economic uncertainty created by this administration’s horrible policies is killing job growth.

            If you believe that a strong Federal government will protect you from the people who are trying to create jobs and hire you, you need to study history. Your friend is the capitalist and your enemy, as true throughout mankind’s history, is the government.

          • James

            The jobs were killed during Bush’s tenure so how do you explain that, that’s right the white guy from Texas does no wrong.

          • ZeeGee

            Unfortunately for you, the jobs were killed on the horns of the Democratic Ox called “Affordable Housing” with their partners Freddie and Fannie. There were no economic policies that came out of the Bush administration that killed jobs.

            Unlike ACA, NLRB, EPA, Keystone and hundreds of thousands of new government regulations.

          • James

            Checks your facts, most of the jobs lost during the great recession were during Bush’s tenure not Obama’s but why bother with the facts.

          • ZeeGee

            I agree that by the calendar that Bush was in office. Agreed. But, recall that the real estate bubble burst and housing went away which lead to the recession. To my point, the real estate bubble was the product of the Democrat’s policies of Affordable housing born in the Carter admin and realizing full flower with Clinton’s investments in Fannie Freddie and previous Ginnie. Bush’s repeated attempts to reform F&F were stifled by Barney Frank, the D’s with the support of a couple of R’s on the Housing Finance Committee in the House. Combine that with the spending of the Pelosi House, Reid Senate starting in 2006, and the writing was and remains on the wall.

            But, even more important, we have had 5 years of this President’s economic ideas. And before you blame the “do nothing R’s”, let me remind you that President Obama has presented 4 budgets to Congress garnering not a single vote from the R’s and the D’s. Not a single vote.

            Instead of pivoting to the center and governing in the mold of Clinton and every other President in our country’s history, this President has pivoted to the far left and, in spite of the lack of support of his own party, vilified and demonized the R’s.

            It is called Chicago politics and it has nothing to do with good government, little to do with the people and everything to do with power.

            Elevate your game beyond checking dates on calendars.

          • Layla

            No, most occured after January, 2007, when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress.

          • Layla

            Now I’m calling BS. And Bush is no longer President. When does this Congress, THIS PRESIDENT, take responsibility for their failures?

          • acornwebworks

            I’ve been a business owner for over 46 years now and I need to correct some misconceptions you’re laboring under.

            In this and other posts, you keep calling people like me “job creators”. But we’re not. Do you know what really creates new jobs? Increased CONSUMER demand for our goods and services. So, for you to claim “They are not creating jobs for one basic reason: the economic uncertainty created by this administration’s horrible policies is killing job growth” is, I’m sorry, absurd.

            And you know what else? Our employees are just as essential to a business’ success as we owners are. In other words, we’re all in this together.

            The fact is, I’ve never hired a single worker I didn’t need (and I don’t know a single other business owner who has, either.) I mean, what are they supposed to do? Sit on their thumbs and twiddle??? I don’t care how much you lower my corporate taxes…I still won’t hire anyone I don’t need.

            You wrote earlier “the reason there is poverty today is the lack of jobs. Jobs are not now, nor have they ever been, the creation of this government or any other government. Governments can, however, kill jobs, and do so with great frequency…So if you really wanted to help people, we would stop over-taxing and over-regulating and burdening the job-creators of this economy, open up the job opportunities available for the poor to not be poor anymore.”

            While I certainly agree with you that more people need to be employed, I have to point out that 1) these jobs need to pay more than the current minimum wage to raise people out of poverty; 2) they need to be created in America (not, for example, in Bangladesh); and 3) are you not aware that there actually are plenty of jobs in America not being filled today…because people either don’t have the skills for them or don’t live where they are? So it’s more than just having a job opening that’s needed.

            And, like it or not, reducing my marginal corporate tax rate won’t affect ANY of those things!

            Frankly, with all the articles and stories about this over the past years, I’m appalled at how many folks like you still don’t seem to understand the difference between the published tax rate (marginal) – which is nowhere near as high now as it has been in my lifetime – and what we ACTUALLY pay once we’ve taken all our deductions, utilized all our available loopholes, etc. My gosh, I don’t believe we’ve ever paid more than 15%…usually it’s 10% – or less…even with a marginal tax rate of 35%! So, nope…lowering our taxes will NOT result in new jobs.

            As an aside, the government actually doesn’t kill jobs. (And don’t fall for the hype of, say, certain restaurant owners who “said” they’d let people go, but never did. Threats aren’t actions. They were just counting on people like you to believe them and blame the government.)

            Besides the fact that the government employs a ton of people, I think you need to understand that government spending *also* provides the opportunity for the creation of a ton of private sector jobs.

            Not only that, but you talk about “over-regulation”, apparently unaware of the fact that, not only do we NOT want to eliminate all those “nasty gummint regulations”, but that they also create tons of private sector business and job opportunities all over the place! Who do you think manufactures safety equipment, for example? It sure isn’t the government.

            And do you really want to go back to the days of 9 year old children working in factories for 12 hours a day? The days before food, air and water safety regulations? I sure don’t. And I don’t want my employees and their families to have to live like that, either. And neither should you.

            What you SHOULD be pushing for is the ENFORCEMENT of regulations. Remember the Gulf oil spill? Wouldn’t have happened if regulators had done their jobs, rather than letting the BP rig operators fill out their own “safety reviews”. Yeesh.

            And what about the DE-regulation of the banks? That didn’t work out real well for us, now did it???

            Heck, about 10 years ago, a company a block away from one of mine was finally shut down. Why? Because two workers had died. Why? Because the owner was cutting corners and ignoring safety regulations.

            Inspectors came in and gave him a notice to meet the required regulations or be shut down. He said “I’m working on it”. Over the next year, that’s what he kept saying, and the inspectors and their supervisor kept letting him get away with it.

            Finally they shut off the water to his plant…so he rented Port-a-potties and hauled in water in his pickup (!). He also redirected all the seriously polluting waste water directly into the city sewer system.

            This went on for a couple of months. Workers complained. Businesses in the area complained. But the City STILL didn’t shut him down. Unfortunately, sufficient water was necessary for the safe operation of his facility, and it didn’t exist. So two workers died on the job one afternoon.

            THEN the business was shut down by the City. The guy filed bankruptcy. (Oh, he hasn’t kept up the insurance, either.) He did get some prison time…but a very small amount.

            The two inspectors and their supervisor were fired. But had THEY done THEIR jobs, two men would be alive today.

            So, no…I don’t want fewer regulations (unless they can be demonstrated to be unnecessary). I want existing regulations ENFORCED!!! And so should you. Please stop falling for the nonsense of guys like that company owner who killed his workers. (And, of course, put the rest of his employees out of work. I’d call him a job-KILLER, quite frankly.)

            I’m a lifelong Eisenhower Republican. Economic conservative…in the true sense, mind you. Social moderate.

            Because you seem like an intelligent, articulate person, might I suggest you read some basic US economic history? From both sides, mind you. Learn, for example, about how, up through the 1929 Great Depression, this country went through frequent economic depressions until the government finally established some “nasty gummint regulations” and the cycle stopped. I would also argue that, in addition to Dodd-Frank, it was the deregulation of the banking industry that caused this latest recession.

            I’d also suggest reading some US social history. Again, from both sides. As someone else points out to you here, churches and NGOs simply CANNOT handle the load. I sit on a couple of non-profit boards and remember going to a meeting of churches and non-profits a couple of years ago. To a one, every single church leader said that, for the first time they could remember, so many of the middle class people they could always count on for donations were, themselves, suddenly in need.

            I, personally, am concerned about our path to establishing an oligarchy, a plutocracy in this country. And, until people stop arguing AGAINST their own best interests, I don’t see that changing.

            Have a nice day.

          • ZeeGee

            I have no words for you. I am not sure if you wanted to insult me or not, but suggesting that I read is not a good approach to a dialog.

            I gather by your reference to Eisenhower and your 46 years as a business owner puts you in that rare categories of one whose knowledge comes from personal experience. Congratulations on your many years of success.

            It highlights how there are many paths to success.

            I think, other than your insult, that our differences are semantic for the most part. I will not parse here as I have been on this string for 3 days now.

            I am a trained economist, veteran of 15 years in the financial markets in Chicago and 15 years as consultant to Fortune 500 companies. I have traveled and consulted in 40 countries with more than 20,000 people and spoken at conferences on 5 continents.

            Suggesting that I need to read about economic history or social issues or anything else is insulting.

            It does, however, point to one thing. That is that divergent conclusions can be reached on the same set of facts. Our world view, opinions, politics, social and economic philosophies are the product of the lens through which the facts are transmitted.

            When people fabricate their own facts, or try to shut down dialog through name-calling ad hominem attacks or falsely characterizing their opponents opinions and positions, the dialog becomes a fruitless enterprise.

            Take care, be well and prosper.

          • acornwebworks

            Insult? What insult?

            My gosh, if someone politely suggests that I read about a certain topic that, to them, I don’t seem to understand (because I certainly don’t know everything…and neither does anyone else in this world), I take it as an attempt at a helpful suggestion. I certainly don’t get insulted by it. Why should I? Particularly if I’ve never revealed to them my background and experience – which would have given them context.

            Now, if they were rude about it, that would be one thing. But where was I rude to you? I’ve read and reread my comment to you, and I can’t find anything I can imagine would be characterized as “rude”.

            And I certainly didn’t fabricate facts, call you names, make an ad hominem attack, or…as far as I can tell…falsely characterize your opinions and positions.

            So, sorry, but I simply don’t understand why you found my attempt at providing a helpful suggestion “insulting” when I had zero idea of your background.

          • Layla

            I think anybody posting here has a pretty good idea what SNAP is. But I also think most of us would rather see jobs created than go on trying to support everyone. This isn’t sustainable, under any system.

          • ta2t2o

            I never said the government was responsible for the huge number of children born into poverty….I said they WOULD be if they banned abortion. The fact that you changed my wording to make your point proves you have no point.

            Churches have already shown they would be ineffective in handling the level of assistance that would be needed. In fact, many of those who preach the use of churches for charity are the same folks preaching for the church to turn against specific demographics of the population. Religions have shown they would provide little support to those who would not adhere to their proselytizing.

          • ZeeGee

            Your words: “yet they (the R’s) have no solution for where the money will come from to support the huge growth of children born into poverty and welfare that will result. You pro-birth hypocrites don’t give a damn about life.”

            The “solution for where the money will come from” is the same solution that hundreds of millions of free people do every single morning on every corner of the planet – they produce, they work, they grow crops, they build things and make things, they provide services – the economic parlance is “Produce”.

            I don’t see where I changed your words or even used your words.

            Your words: “Churches have already shown they would be ineffective in handling the level of assistance that would be needed.” Churches have been the most effective organizations fighting poverty in the history of mankind. There is no evidence supporting your statement that they have already shown to be ineffective. And the “level of assistance that would be needed” is conjecture at best.

            Your last point is too absurd to believe that you would think such a thing.

            Your words:
            “In fact, many of those who preach the use of churches for charity are the same folks preaching for the church to turn against specific demographics of the population. Religions have shown they would provide little support to those who would not adhere to their proselytizing.”

            When was the last time you went to church? How many patients are treated in hospitals with names like “Methodist” or “St. Joseph” or “Luke” without ever having agree with their religion.

            Or, if you spend time in Africa or Asia or any third world country, you can’t go far without running into another missionary organization dispensing food or providing medical help or taking care of the orphans – any number of other humanitarian projects. Not missionary would ever say “you must agree with me before I will treat you”.

            Demographics?

            You should go to church sometime. You might find that your preconceptions about them are completely wrong. Just like your preconceptions about R’s and conservatives.

          • LittleBritches

            There is no way the Churches can care or feed all the needy. We are stretched to the max now, having to limit people to 6 times a yr with only enough food for 1 week. I volunteer at one. There is no way we could take on any more than what we do.

          • Layla

            How about we teach responsible family planning, values? Do you realize that a woman who has had an abortion likely carries the scars for life? This isn’t charity, it’s common sense. We need to be able to talk about these things, away from the political arena.

          • acornwebworks

            Actually, studies have shown that the majority of women who have an abortion do *not* “carry the scars for life”. So, nope, there is nothing to “realize” and nothing “likely” about your personal opinion…to which you are certainly entitled.

            And, as far as “responsible family planning values” goes? Just what do *you* mean by that?

            I ask because, unfortunately, a lot of folks mean “abstinence only” when they talk about “values”, even though comprehensive sex education has been proven over and over to be FAR more effective in preventing teen pregnancies, for example.

          • LittleBritches

            As someone that works and volunteers for a food pantry, there is no way we would be able to increase the amount of people needing food. Right now we only allow people 6 visits a year. SIX. And no way do we have enough food to give them more than a week at a time. The anti food stamp people like to say that Churches will pick up the slack….we can not. Most food pantries are stretched to the max now.

          • ta2t2o

            Thank you LittleBritches. It would be nice if this fantasy Utopia existed that all these folks like ZeeGee thought. Government was created for the welfare of the people. It’s what keeps the social contract intact.

          • Layla

            You are too busy hating, calling names to even try to understand or listen to anothers viewpoint. This is NOT a political issue, nor should it be.

          • ta2t2o

            Is that your standard cut and paste response when you don’t have a valid supportable argument? It must be, because I don’t see where I called anyone names. That type if response is an incredible copout. As long as governors and legislators continue to try to use abortion restriction as a political football, the subject will remain a political issue – whether you say it is or not. The ability for a woman to have autonomy over her body has been determined to be a right. Again we have the religious right trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. They do it with birth control, they do it with abortion, they do it with gay marriage, they do it with public education, and now they’re trying to expand that influence and pressure into other areas of politics. It makes you question their honesty in claiming tax exempt status.

      • DoodyDoo

        we not only pray for them, but we actually do something about it..we feed them….libearls are the least giving people there are…unless it is someone else’s money

        • LittleBritches

          That is a lie. And bet you profess to be a Christian. Sad.

          • DoodyDoo

            yes it is true..and Obama is not a real christian……i’m a fruit inspector and his is rotten..i would say he hates god..

      • Layla

        Abortion, black genocide. Poverty and abortion have nothing to do with one another. If someone comes to your town, tells you there are too many people, that some must die, do you agree?

    • Brandon Moreau

      We don’t support abortion but we do support the rights of woman. Hate the sin love the sinner. The catholic church which I am a member of did not always believe “ensoulment” began at conception. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed and stated otherwise. Regardless Government and religion must be separate in the US. We can not stop people from sinning nor can we judge them.

      Peace be with you.

      • John Jaie Palmero

        Aquinas, for all his lovely, inspirational writings, was just a man who expressed his opinion. I’m so sick of the sanctimonious “love the sinner” BS. Jesus said nothing on the subject of abortion. That’s enough for me.

        • ZeeGee

          So, you’re suggesting now that Jesus is pro-abortion?

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            What do you know about Jesus, you sanctimonious jackass?

          • ZeeGee

            The jackass is one of the most durable useful animals on the planet. Thanks for that.

            Sanctimonious? That would only be true if I didn’t believe in God.

            I take your meaning, however, when you call me a sanctimonious jackass and in fact, you have no way of knowing if I am or am not a sanctimonious jackass. I’d like to think not…

            As far as Jesus is concerned, I am quite the expert actually. I’ve read His book and studied His words and life. And I am pretty sure that He is NOT pro-abortion.

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            Sanctimonious, as in having a ridiculous attitude of superiority. Jackass, as in being a fool.

          • ZeeGee

            I have no such attitude. You’re imagining things that are not true or comparing yourself to whoever you imagine that I am.

            You should try to edify the dialog, though, and don’t just call people names.

          • Layla

            Your hate is consuming you.

          • sccmstl

            The bible is just another product of the largely political process that evolved into Christianity, mostly at the hands of Emperor Constantine. I sincerely doubt the King James bible has very many of Jesus’ actual words. Maybe the words of a flock of superstitious monks, but not Jesus.

          • ZeeGee

            Are you familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Old Testament to be sure, but it points to the precision of the monk’s manuscript methodology.

            The scrolls were buried in the caves of Qumran in about 450 BC and unearthed in 1948. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared to the Marist monks copies from 950 AD, the differences were almost non-existent.

            First of all, I believe that there was a Creator of all that we see and know, that Creator is called God and it is the God of the Bible. I reach that conclusion by looking at the 958 clues called prophecies that He gave us. Of which more than 500 or so prophecies have been fulfilled to the letter of the text – the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mathematically, for these prophecies to be true, it would be 1 in trillions to have occurred by chance.

            There is plenty more evidence that there is a God and it is the God of the Bible.

            Hardly fairy tales or fabrications of a political process.

            Take care.

          • acornwebworks

            You wrote “Are you familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Old Testament to be sure, but it points to the precision of the monk’s manuscript methodology. The scrolls were buried in the caves of Qumran in about 450 BC and unearthed in 1948. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared to the Marist monks copies from 950 AD, the differences were almost non-existent.”

            Unfortunately, except for the fact that they were discovered in the caves in Qumran, you got all your other “facts” wrong. Perhaps you need to read a bit more about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

            1) They were discovered between 1946 and 1956…not in 1948. The Bedouin shepherds who originally discovered the first 7 of the scrolls did so in 1946-47.

            2) They have been dated to between 408 BCE and 318 CE. Different dating methods offer different dates within that time frame.

            In addition, bronze coins found on the site form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (135–104 BCE) and continuing until the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE).

            Therefore they could *not* have been buried “in about 450 BC”.

            3) What Marist monk copies????

            You’re actually referring to the Masorite copies. And the Masoretic Text (MT). But, hey, “Masorite/Marist”…I understand how they could be confused.

            Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls definitely have shown the MT to be nearly identical to many texts of the Old Testament dating from 200 BCE…but different from others. Not only that, but most of the Qumran fragments have been classified as being closer to the Masoretic text than to any other text group that has survived.

            Plus your time frame (950 BC) is absolutely appropriate for the Masorites…but certainly not for Marist monks.

            One more important point. The Masorite text has been widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, including the original King James Bible.

            4) “…it points to the precision of the monk’s manuscript methodology”

            Well, since there weren’t any Marist monks involved, it doesn’t show any such thing :-)

            However, the “precision” for the Masorite text is about 80%…as in 60% proto-Masoretic type and 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts.

            80% is pretty darned good. But, remember…the Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible (which predates the New Testament by 1,000 years)…and was written by Jews, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect a fairly high degree of “accuracy”, i.e. being similar to older material. Of course, who knows how “accurate” it all really is.

          • Layla

            How long have you been filled with such hate, Jeremiah?

          • LittleBritches

            He may not have been pro-abortion, I guess when he tells his opinion we will know. What we do know is there was a lot of infanticide preformed, by God himself.

      • James

        Hate to say it but apparently the only amendment that counts to those guys is #2.

        • Brandon Moreau

          True but we must give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides we must honor and respect all 10 their errors do not excuse or own.

        • Layla

          James, they all count.

      • DoodyDoo

        God is angry with sinners…His wrath abides on the unrepentant..it does not matter what st thomas beleived..it was nothing more than a mere opinion…..at what point do you tell people to flee the wrath of God? …..Jesus commands people to repent..that is what Grace is…

        • Brandon Moreau

          In a theological debate just lie any debate one needs sources of information. With all due respect I would kindly ask you to do the same and perhaps read more carefully my arguments. Also are you saying that your own opinion is superior in theological knowledge to the dedicated and inspired Saint Thomas Aquinas?

      • Layla

        And with you. However, you cannot place abortion in a non religious box and call it ok. How will you answer when you are asked this?

        • Brandon Moreau

          I can not compel one to follow my faith. One must follow God out of love for him this includes obedience to his laws. The same secular protections that allow me to practice my faith protect those who don’t believe and have different faiths. That is why I do so, one must love God and follow his laws out of love not fear of law be it secular or not. By outright prohibiting others from sinning as a man and sinner myself I am denying their exercise of free will.

          • Layla

            Does love allow abortion? Would not love look for other avenues?

          • Brandon Moreau

            Can you force another to love? Every situation is unique there are cases where without abortion the mother could die and other similar scenarios that are truly tragic. But we cannot force one to love God just as we can’t force others to love another person. Never forget that judgement and condemnation are not the duties of man but of God. Ideally one would hope that other avenues are chosen but they are not always possible.

          • acornwebworks

            Of course it allows it. If the unborn child cannot survive and not aborting it will kill the mother (for example, a fallopian pregnancy) and she doesn’t want to die (let’s say she has another child), and she’s really suffering physically and will die…so her husband signs the papers authorizing an abortion…how can that abortion not be an act of love??

            Spontaneous abortions occur all the time. You can call them “miscarriages”, but they are spontaneous abortions. That being the case, abortion simply is not an unnatural or rare event.

            I understand the arguments against late term abortions when the unborn child is viable and the mother’s health is not in danger. But I see no “love” in trying to force a total stranger to bear a child.

    • sccmstl

      You clearly have lost the ability to reason effectively. Researchers at Oxford University have conclusively determined that religious wackos like you are mentally ill. Please seek professional help before you further damage yourself.

      • ZeeGee

        Oh, that’s choice! We are mentally ill? Wow. Researchers have shown this, have they? That’s just too funny for words. I would enjoy the discussion sometime, though.

        • Layla

          Think you’ve been doing a pretty good job!

      • Layla

        Do you know anything but hate?

        • sccmstl

          Yes Layta, I know that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry are all products of religion. The refusal to “buy in” to all that is not hate, it is reason and reality. Fundamentalist Christians are burdened with massive guilt and uncontrolled hate of and for those things that don’t conform to their silly, mythical ideas. Free yourself from you shackles and embrace truth, reason, and Science. Then with a clear mind and a light heart, you can thank me…

          • Layla

            Nobody is asking you to “buy in” to anything. Only to ask you to respect others as you wish to be respected. Is that impossible for you to do?

          • sccmstl

            Layta, you make the same mistake many people do; you confuse the difference between respecting someone’s right to believe in whatever wacked-out, batshit-crazy religious claptrap they choose, and the claptrap itself. I served my country to defend your right to believe in whatever you want to. BUT, my willingness to defend your religious rights does NOT mean I have to respect those religious ideas you hold dear. Whenever possible, I go out of my way to ridicule religious beliefs of all flavors. They are all cut from the same cloth of superstition and ignorance, and meant only to subjugate and exploit the believers. I must defend your stupidity, but not what you are being stupid about.

      • Brandon Moreau

        That was am absolutely abhorrent statement. It was hateful and a violation of all that can be considered proper decorum in any forum of discussion. I myself and familiar with that study and it had little to do with mental illness. But the activity of the brain while praying in comparison to other activities. Your argument is flawed and invalid.

        • acornwebworks

          Actually, Brandon. I think you may be thinking of something else. Please look up Kathleen Taylor, Oxford neuroscientist and read what she has been saying within the past year.

          Granted, I think sccmsti worded it incredibly poorly and mean-spiritedly, but Taylor *is* making the statement that “one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness”.

          • Brandon Moreau

            Perhaps you are right. I was thinking about a different study. And true fundamentalism is dangerous. But to treat them as people incapable of reason and mentally ill, I feel is is a grave mistake.

          • acornwebworks

            I agree.

  • James Schroder

    Why do we even have a “national day of prayer”? Dobson has drawn the line in the sand and democrats now have no choice but to cross it with fists flying. This government paid for and government attended spectacle should be shut down for good. If there is a god, GOD DAMN James Dobson and his henchmen for bringing hatred to the front instead of the love that Jesus taught.

    • ZeeGee

      You seem so expert at what Jesus taught. Did Jesus stand by when the sick needed healing? Or the blind made to see? Or the mentally ill when they needed to be released? Did Jesus stand by when the money changer were defiling the temple?

      You presume 3 things that are not true.

      You presume that Jesus Christ didn’t have a temper and was enraged or angered by the wrongs in this Fallen World. This is not true.

      You presume that Jesus Christ isn’t keeping track, that He’s not paying attention. Even today with all the slaughter of these babies.

      This is not true.

      Finally, you presume that there won’t be an accounting for all of this someday.

      This is not true.

      PS. James Dobson is, just like the rest of us, already GOD DAMNed. But for one distinction.

      • John Jaie Palmero

        The usual idiotic, brainless reply from a bible thumper who seems to think he has a direct line to “Jesus”. Sell your BS somewhere else.

        • Layla

          So you see, ZeeGee is not the one spewing hate and calling names here. Look in the mirror, people. See what you have become. Were you always this intolerant of the views, faiths of others?

      • sccmstl

        Another wacked-out, batshit-crazy loony. These beliefs are nothing but superstitious nonsense, and deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.

        • jstan442

          then we can ridicule you back with your evolution(no proof for it at all)-you worship trees,rocks etc– your love of ugly acts of sex(homosexuality-pedophilia etc–that will keep the race going)–your side is the sick one– and in the end you will bow the knee to Christ and know that He is God

      • stevenharnack

        Boy, that’s some god that you invented for yourself. One that damns its own supposed handiwork? How could you help but be hateful when bowing down to such a crass deity?

        • ZeeGee

          You should read the Bible. It’s God’s definitive guide to the greatest mysteries of life.

          You would find out that He has given all of us ample opportunities to see Him and know Him.

          Why would God do anything for people who reject Him? People say the worst possible things about God, taken strictly from their limited knowledge about Him and His plan for mankind.

          If you decide that you want to opt out of God’s plan, you can – no problem. But that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist and His program doesn’t apply to you.

          It just means that you reject Him, you don’t subscribe to His plan. We get that choice.

          What ever your notion of what God is or should be doesn’t mean anything. Other people have their ideas and notions, too. It’s been mankind’s greatest search since the beginning of time, to figure out if something greater than ourselves created this wonderful universe and if He even knows we exist.

          • TJR

            Hello Zeegee: I am considered by conservatives to be very progressive in my political and social beliefs but I am appalled at how horrifically mean spirited some of the people who consider themselves to be Liberal are being to you. I find them an embarresment to liberal thinking which is supposed to be about tolerance) I admire that you have tried to elevate the level of this thread abpve name calling and gross assumptions.
            Of late my feelings about abortion are starting to mirror my feelings about the planets environment. I feel that conservatives and liberals could all keep arguing forever about whether climate change is real in the same way that we could all keep arguing when life actually begins.
            So lately I have begun to think that if there is any chance that we could be destroying the planet for future generations that we should err on the side of caution and protect the planet for future generations. And if there is even a chance that life begins at insemination that we should also err on the side of caution and err towards the unborn child.
            But I also think that if a society is going to take that stance that they need to make a society that does not encourage a woman to have an abortion (which is what I believe we have now) but instead encourages her to have the child. By having social services in place that give assistance for low income single mothers, that help with child education, that help with medical costs. But also sane and rational education in schools that teaches both young men and women. how pregnancies happen and how unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. This should include abstinance (which I do agree with conservatives is the best way to avoid it) but it should also include knowing how to use and get contraceptives too.
            I believe we can find common ground on this and find ways to make our society better if we could just both start listening to understand each other instead listening to reply to each other.

          • Su Wu
          • LittleBritches

            Actually YOU should learn about the bible. It was not written by God. It was written by men many years after Jesus death. Majority of it was written in ancient language and translated several times through out history. There was no vowels, no punctuation of any kind. There are ongoing squabbles about even the meaning of a word or the intent of a word. Books were not written by those that they are names after, one such is Matthew… It goes on and on. Read, learn about the bible,

    • timerunnersc

      Sorry to have to say but your an idiot. The only hatred I see or read is you moronic remarks.

    • Layla

      A symbol of the “new” Democrat party?

  • TOSHI

    Goof your you Janice Hahn!! The radical reactionary right wing has strangled any bipartisan effort and ramped up division based on religion which has completely co-opted the Republican party. Shame of Dobson for attacking President Obama in a setting that was designed for unity and tolerance. Janice Hahn is a leader with integrity!

  • Teddy Simon

    By reading the comments here it seems some of you have missed the point , this was not a political debate , a day of prayer with no political sides , that was the agreement and one person ruined it all .

    • ZeeGee

      Someone is to remain silent about 55 million intentional murders? Somehow this has become political? We stand in silence remembering the concentration camps. We offer the Armenians our sympathies and support for their slaughter. But, we remain silent on these 55 million?

      • James

        I don’t see you bible thumping about the death penality but since most of the people we kill are black why bother.

        • ZeeGee

          Point taken. I do like to Bible thump, too. Not sure about the black comment though. You must think I am against black people? Whatever gave you that impression?

          Is it something I said?

          • James

            Sort of like a bunch of conversations about this event but nothing about the events in Oklahoma yesterday and how if folks were really pro life why is this bad but yesterday is acceptible.

          • ZeeGee

            There you go with that Straw Man. Can you name a single conservative who thought the botched execution was acceptable? Can you find a single person of any persuasion who wasn’t horrified by what happened?

            You presume that the death penalty is a Biblical or a conservative principle. There is a basis in the Bible for and “eye for an eye”, but the legal system they used to convict people back then is radically different that what we have today.

            To me, the legal process that is used to convict people is not Biblical and not infallible. It is a flawed and broken system.

            But, don’t presume that because someone is conservative that they support the death penalty. Lots of us don’t. And there are plenty of Democrats who do support the death penalty.

          • James

            I’m just mentioning that if Dobson is so upset about the “abortion president” why didn’t he also take the opportunity to mention the events in Oklahoma. Both should be just as abhorrent to a pro lifer.

          • ZeeGee

            I will give you full credit for that.

            If you are aware of Focus on the Family’s ministry, the central core of their politics isn’t “R’s” or Conservative, per se. It is everything to do with the family.

            They believe, as do I, that abortion is a national tragedy for the unborn and their mothers, the living and the dead.

            It is the indelible stain that will haunt the history of this nation, we the people, to eternity.

            It perpetuates the culture of death and devalues life more than Oklahoma and the death penalty ever will.

            To this day, hundreds of thousands of innocent babies are killed – without a trial – every year. For that I am genuinely ashamed for my country.

            Good chat James. God bless you.

          • pericles9

            ZG, paragraph 2< :everything to do with the family…" Not MY family, not at all!

          • James

            I appreciate being able to have this conversation without name calling and insults that happen far too often. It seems that people can no longer have a discussion about opposing views without being labeled as a some sort of commie liberal or fascist nut.

          • Layla

            Awesome!

          • sccmstl

            But there’s no fun without inflammatory rhetoric. The rhythm of wacked-out, batshit-crazy fundamentalist loony is hard to beat, especially since it works for so many religions.

          • Andre Leonard

            Outstanding reply.. ZeeGee, your a stand-up guy..

          • stevenharnack

            Not so much about Iraqi families though, eh?

          • Tynam

            If FF were _really_ against abortion, they’d be actively promoting birth control. They’d be rallying to fund planned parenthood. They’d be demanding the equal rights amendment be ratified. They’d be promoting real sex education in schools. They’d be campaigning against early marriage. They’d be calling out and opposing public figures that slut-shame women. They’d be campaigning for better US child care, better welfare, better state support for single mothers.

            You know – things that actually reduce abortion.

            But they don’t do that. Because all those things also improve women’s freedom of action, and making sure men stay in charge is _much_ more important to them than preventing abortion.

          • glogrrl

            Amen! You hit the nail squarely on the head. If they didn’t have abortion to rail against, they’d lose half their base, so it is to their advantage to make sure it stays around.

          • texasaggie

            You noticed that, did you? That along with their opposition to everything that would result in all kids having decent, healthy lives sort of puts the lie to their statements about being pro-life and pro-family, doesn’t it?

            But what else would you expect? These are religious fanatics after all, and reason and decent behavior don’t enter into their calculations at all.

          • Mama62

            How does one get to the place where they think they have a right to decide these things for others? How did they come by this great knowledge?

          • http://ObiJan.com/ obijan

            So if we agree that abortion is something that we prefer to avoid, do we agree that we should take actions to avoid it?

            It _is_ a right in the USA, so you can’t make it illegal.

            The best way to decrease people having abortions are:
            - Comprehensive sex-ed
            - Free access to contraceptives
            - Infrastructural and financial support for young mothers

            Do you agree with that?

          • ZeeGee

            I will agree with this: we need to take actions to avoid abortions in this country.

            I think Sex Ed is great, but we already have it. Even though abortion has slowed in recent years, it would be impossible to attribute the slow down to Sex Ed since Sex Ed has been around for decades.

            I have no problem with contraceptions. I am not Catholic. I do have a problem with abortifacients and other drug regimen that eliminates a conceived life. I believe that life begins at conception.

            Infrastructural and financial support for young mothers sounds like the responsibility of a husband or a girls family. If a woman is so incompetent that she doesn’t know how to acquire and properly use contraception, then she must’ve missed Sex Ed class because it is free or nearly so, and widely available.

            Further, it is not a government function to house and financially support unwed mothers.

            I believe that people will do what they are paid to do. If we pay women to have babies – in the form or welfare, housing, food, childcare, medical and etc. – that is exactly what they will do: have more and more babies without the support of a father and a family.

            I also believe that the option of abortion-as-birth control presents irresponsible young women pressured by irresponsible young men to have unprotected sex and not use contraception.

            Abortion is a scourge in all of its forms. Abortion-as-contraception is so awful and macabe that images of Gosnel’s murder clinic will never leave my mind’s eye. Viable babies, botched abortions, a quick incision to the back of the baby’s neck to kill at the literal hand of a medical professional? Then to preserver their bodies in the freezer and formaldehyde jars?

            Straight out of a horror movie.

            The presence of abortion makes it prevalent not rare. It is and always will be murder. There is not now nor will there ever be some argument that justifies abortion: i.e. “woman’s right to choose”, poverty, unwanted children.

            Finally, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. Abortion has never been “legalized” in this country. There is no law on the books of the US or any state that says abortion is legal.

            Odd as it my seem given the discussion, abortion is only “legal” because of a woman’s right to privacy. A right that means that she can go to a doctor and terminate her pregnancy without having to disclose. The right to privacy that “covers” the murder of innocent babies since the baby has never seen the light of day and cannot, therefore, exert its own, superseding right to life.

            The right to privacy in every other sense has never been a “right” or a “human right”. You can’t murder your spouse in the privacy of your home then claim a fictional right to privacy to avoid prosecution. The vail of privacy is forfeited when the rights of another human being are violated.

            So, abortion is not “legal” in this country. “Abortion” is covered – according to the weakest and worst decision by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade – by the woman’s fictional right to privacy.

          • Steve

            We have had those things for decades. How has that reduced pregnancy?

          • Mama62

            Yes.

          • Patricia

            But their mothers are given a trial, everyday!

          • Mama62

            What do you say to the Mother of small children who would find herself in a situation where she must decide to live or allow her unborn to live instead. These medical circumstances do happen, so what should she do? Die and leave her already born children with no Mother? Is her life of so little meaning and value that she cant be allowed to make this decisions herself? Does society know better than she?

          • ZeeGee

            I know that these types of terrible choices happen. I am not so callous that the option of terminating the pregnancy should automatically be eliminated.

            Where I depart is abortion on demand, abortion as an alternative to contraception. I remember hearing about a woman who had gone to Dr. Gosnell for something like 8 abortions. I am sorry for the mother, but sorrier still for her unborn children.

            We live in a fallen world surrounded by uneducated and amoral people, without principles. The fact that abortion is so prevalent and debated speaks to the collapse of the values that have allowed mankind to prosper on this planet for so long. Without those values, our days are numbered.

            Good chatting with you, Mama62. Be well.

          • Layla

            These events are abhorrent to us all, James.

          • GFRF

            I support the death penalty.

            If your wife, mother, child was raped, shot in the head, and then buried alive, would you want this animal to live a long life?
            He would be housed, fed and enjoy everything your would except his freedom??
            Rethink this!

          • EWS

            How about the pain from locking him up without his freedom for the rest of his life and letting him reflect on it for 40 years while he is somebody’s girlfriend down the hall.

          • Tynam

            Yes.

            Because that is was my family would want.

            If my family were killed, they would _never_ forgive me if I allowed myself to commit atrocities in their name. They have dedicated their lives to justice, not revenge. They would not want me to throw away five hundred years of civilisation just to make the angry primitive tribesman in my brain feel good.

            If we all indulged our angry revenge impulses, civilisation would collapse in a week. That is why we _have_ laws.

            And they don’t work very reliably, which is why we _shouldn’t_ have death penalties.

            Murdering a couple of innocent people that the courts couldn’t be bothered to treat fairly is MUCH too high a price to pay just to make sure this one scumbag gets killed. Let him be locked away forever; it’s just as effective (and considerably more painful).

          • Mama62

            I completely agree. 1. The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, no facts support that it is. 2. Our justice system is too corrupt to practice it. I have no problem with removing dangerous criminals from our society to a place where they can do no harm. But I do not sanction killing in the name of justice while there is any chance, no matter how small, that an innocent person could be wrongly convicted. We know it happens and I wonder what we are supposed to feel about that and about the pain we caused their families? Oh well, so sorry? Dead is dead and we can’t take it back.

          • Steve

            Wow MaMa, such a prolific opiner. But you have shown that I wasn’t guessing what is in your mind.
            If someone murdered you I would want justice served with the death penalty. It is part of keeping order in society to take life from those who unjustly take it from others. Nobody is ok with the wrong people being convicted. But it doesn’t have to excuse all murderers.

          • Mama62

            Yes of course we all know that people in prison are living a life of ease and luxury. Death is final, you can’t take it back if you got it wrong and there is no evidence that proves it is a deterrent to crime. It is a barbaric act that makes us no different than the criminal. Also, Biblical scholars have always disagreed on the meaning of an eye for an eye, just as they disagree on the meaning of “spare the rod” and many other phrases found in the Bible. Literalism is not universal among Christians.

          • Bonnie Miller Barber

            A 19 year old girl was shot and BURIED ALIVE and you think the execution was botched? I think he didn’t suffer enough. And I’m a conservative.

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            Where would we end up if we carried out executions that comported with the evil of the crimes they were meant to punish?

            We would end up sentencing rapists to be raped; we would shoot and bury alive men who shot their victims and buried them alive.

            No, the death penalty stokes the most wicked forces in the human soul. That’s why it’s best to let it go. We don’t need it to protect the community from dangerous people anymore, as we once did. It’s time to end it.

          • jstan442

            we can send them all to your house then-i am for the death penalty–when does the crime not matter??when does the dead not get justice?–prisons are for punishment not discipline or rehabilitation-if there is no doubt they commited the crime then they should pay-not have the taxpayers pay for them till they die a natural death–what kind of ‘natural death’ did their prey have???

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            Well, that’s your opinion, but surely you must see how illogical it is to say that we either execute someone or send them to live at my house.

            There are prisons; we house tens of thousands of murderers in prisons who are not executed, and the American people are obviously not ready to execute tens of thousands of people are year. Imagine reading that the state was killing thousands of people every *month*.

            It won’t happen; so we’re left executing people every now and then, which is unconstitutional, given the 8th amendment proscription on “unusual” punishment.

          • James

            Actually research in NJ showed it was cheaper to lock them up for life then to go through the long drawn out appeal process. Sort of like pay me now or pay me later concept.

          • silverbackV

            Then shorten the process, we have the process to line the pockets of lawyers. Every step in there was put in there by lawyers, and we the sheeple slept through it.

          • James

            One problem, the constitution doesn’t only protect gun owners but I guess we can sort of bend the rules if it doesn’t apply to the rights we feel strongest about.

          • Mychele Hillary

            Well if the dead followed your orders and believed as they should their reward as well as their justice is in the heavenly afterlife, is it not?

          • Layla

            When do we get to end abortion?

          • EWS

            When women stop having babies

          • Mychele Hillary

            When men keep their peckers in their pocket?
            It takes two to tango- there is another person involved in every single abortion, a person not blamed, or shamed, a person not called to for any responsibility.
            The so called “pro-life” movement should really take their dog & pony show to the other side of the equation for awhile and target the sperm donor.

          • Guest

            When contraception is freely available and promoted….if it were, there would be a chance an lowering the abortion rates, if not abolishing them. It’s simple logic….contraception blocks unwanted births, period. Get a clue, people.

          • texasaggie

            But, but, but … contraception is the same as abortion. Weren’t you listening in catechism class? If you don’t believe me, just ask Layla, ZeeGee or any of the other Bible thumping so-called “pro-lifers.”

          • glogrrl

            When contraception is freely available and women can avoid unwanted pregnancies in most instances. It’s simple logic. What is the matter with you conservatives? You don’t want abortion, yet you block all attempts to avoid it. I think you like to keep it around so you’ll have something to rant and rail about and condemn those who use it so you will be seen as “the good guys”. Of course, I’m sure none of you have ever had an abortion at a crucial time in your life.

          • Mama62

            Conservative, anti-abortion Women do have abortions. It happens every day. When the shoe is on the other foot, it seems to change their minds. I personally know several. I am a Liberal, all my life, and I reached the age of 65 without ever having to make that decision myself, honestly I don’t know what I would have done but I would never take the right to choose away from another Woman..

          • Layla

            We don’t? I don’t have the right to protect myself and my family?

          • Tynam

            How on earth does having the death penalty help protect you or your family?

            (Since it’s been repeatedly proven by studies that the death penalty does nothing whatsoever to deter crime.)

          • glogrrl

            I can’t quite understand how KILLING someone who murdered is justice. Doesn’t it make us just like them? What’s wrong with life in prison……and what happened to “Thou shalt not kill”?

          • stevenharnack

            I can see Christ now, exhorting his followers to stretch that execution out and to make it as long and painful as possible. Was that the Sermon on the Mount? Or maybe when he was being executed himself?

          • silverbackV

            Christ’s execution was drawn out and as painful as possible. What Christ endured on our behalf was thousands of times worse than what the Oklahoma murderer experienced. The word excruciating was coined in an effort to describe the absolute horror of crucifiction.

            The two are not comparable.

          • EWS

            Yup. A blood curdling conservative like they make down there in oaky land

          • James

            Than I wonder if you’re points are valid why the same politicians who are passing bills about choice are not also passing legislation ending the death penality.

          • silverbackV

            The two are not connected. Can you tell me one thing the child has done to make it unfit to live in our civil society? On the other hand I can tell you many things the Oklahoma murderers have done to exclude them from our society.

          • James

            Taking someone’s life to me is the same. Ask Dismas if you think there’s a difference. If we were perfect and made no mistakes you might have a reasonable argument but there is a fairly long history of innocent people being convicted and put to death. If you were intent on putting people who commited murder to death you would have to add all the criminal justice staff who bent the rules to convict innocent folks.

          • silverbackV

            Some of these so called mistakes render a person no longer suitable to participate in our society. Please tell me, was robbing the 19 year old woman a mistake? Was raping the 19 year old woman a mistake? Was burying the 19 year old woman alive a mistake?

            What mistake of that magnitude did the aborted child commit to render it not suitable for life? Just curious.

          • James

            We all have the right to have our opinions, you support the death penality and I oppose it. When NJ was reviewing the death penality issue some of the strongest opponents of the death penality were families of victims, the wrongly convicted and the Catholic Bishops. The examples you mention are certainly horrific, I just don’t think you make all well throught the use of state sanctioned murder. You disagree, that’s your right.

          • James

            The mistakes I discussed have to do with putting innocent people to death not with the kind of crimes you referenced.

          • silverbackV

            The only mistake I see in Oklahoma was waiting so long between judgement and action. A preponderance of evidence said he was guilty, I don’t believe an innocent person was sent to the final arbiter.

            In numbers, there are very few innocent people put to death through our judicial system. If it makes anybody feel better (not just you James) consider it a really late fourth trimester abortion. Now for nit picker’s fourth trimester mean a long time after the birth process.

          • James

            What’s a few? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? In my faith even one is too many. I guess in your faith it is okay for state sanctioned murder.

          • silverbackV

            Beyond a shadow of doubt. If a jury finds them guilty and the are sentenced to death, it is not state sanctioned murder. It is culling the herd for benefit of the herd.

          • James

            Tell that to God when you get to the pearly gates. I’m not sure he’s going to say killing the innocent for the sake of the herd is okay.

          • texasaggie

            TX has a long history of executing innocent people. Our good Gov. Goodhair has at least two occasions where he signed off on executing people who had already been shown to be innocent.

            And then there is TX record of having the most victims of any state taken off death row by the Innocence Project. How many of the countless executions that have occurred under Goodhair and the Shrub were innocent people who didn’t have the good luck to be exonerated in time?

          • James

            For some reason that doesn’t seem to bother the death penality advocates. What’s a couple of innocent dead folks as long as we get the real bad guys.

          • Steve

            There’s a classic confusion. The murderer has done something to deserve the death penalty besides just taking up space in his mommy’s tummy. What did the fetus do?

          • EWS

            What’s not a straw man article is following people to their homes and threatening them and killing dr’s because you know that eye for an eye thing. Yeah we should all go back to back alleys and coat hangers because that is just ok. The fact is abortion has been around as long as women have had babies and will remain when all the fanatics are gone. Better to be legal safe and rare.

          • Steve

            Did you know that even the barbarians considered abortion so terrible that it was punished? Those were the truly godless ones. So it isn’t just a religious thing. It is a value of life thing, which is universal, unless one can rationalize it otherwise for comfort.
            If killing doctors is wrong (as I also believe), then how is it merely a “medical procedure” to kill a baby (aka abortion)?
            How about if women who don’t want to get pregnant just don’t get pregnant? Is that such a radical idea? We can put a man on the moon without losing him yet women can’t avoid pregnancy without killing the innocent one? How’s that?

          • WestTexan70

            Almost every conserative white person in my hometown had no problem with the horrific botched execution in Oklahoma. This white male native Texan has lived among you people for almost sixty years — I know you better than you do.

          • Patricia

            And plenty of hypocritical “Conservatives” who support abortion and homosexuality when they “need” to. Don’t kid yourselves! It depends on whose ox is being gored. Progressive Liberal Democrats stand with human forgiveness. There is no perfect Christian, Jesus knew this! Certainly not Brother Dobson, he’s not my source for Christian guidance!

          • ZeeGee

            Exactly; there is no perfect Christian. We are all deeply flawed. But, I challenge you on your point about Progressive Liberal Democrats, standing with human forgiveness. I find them to be intolerant and their policies most often hurt the very people they want to help.

            When you realize that anything done by government function is and always will be the exact opposite of what the intention is, you begin to realize that government’s ability to help anyone is limited.

            I find that Liberals are more intolerant and will quickly resort to name-calling, profanity and the presumption of ugly attributes (“hate monger”, “vomit spewing”) that are not based in reality.

            Patricia, we disagree about the “HOW” to help people. We don’t disagree in our desire to help people. Government programs always hurt people – without exception. The solution is never another law or government program.

        • GFRF

          Are you just plan uneducated?
          You compare a rapist and a murder with an innocent unborn person?
          Wow, our education system has really failed us!
          .

          • stevenharnack

            I thought that the credo was that all god’s children were equal? If the killer repented his sins then aren’t you then killing just another innocent soul and presuming to be god yourself? You christians sure are schizophrenic!

          • Steve

            All men are created equal. True. But forgiveness of sins makes the sinner’s heart pure before God. It doesn’t eliminate all the consequences of his actions. What actions have unborn babies taken that earns them an even more insufferable death than the botched execution?
            >The same people who have declared that Conservatives are conducting a “war on women” themselves murder millions of women per year. And what is it exactly you think the Conservatives are doing wrong to women?
            >The same person who walked out on the practice of free speech in defense of unborn children can’t wait to increase federal funding for the practice of more state sanctioned murders. Go figure.
            >You libs are the ones talking out of both sides of your mouths. All your college degree has done for you is trained you to rationalize the absurd.

          • Mama62

            In your opinion the unborn has the same rights as the person in whom they are residing. How can that possibly be true? The person in whose body that Festus resides gets to make that call, not you. IF in Gods eye it is murder, then let God deal with it when the judgment day comes. It isn’t you place to assume that role for yourself. Abortion isn’t new to this world. It is as old as humanity and to my knowledge is not addressed directly anywhere in the Bible. Judging others however certainly is. If you really hate all abortion, please find a street corner and start passing out condoms and birth control information. Support your local Planned Parenthood Clinic as well. Demand that all children receive factual education on the subject of sex. Including how not to get pregnant. When you have done all these things, come back and tell us what you have done to stop abortions. Makin abortions illegal will not stop abortions, it will only turn desperate Women into criminals and worse. Education and birth control stop unwanted pregnancies, which in turn greatly lessens the incidence of abortion, but what a Woman chooses to do with her own body, is her business. YOU cant tell another person what to do when YOU will never walk in her shoes and YOU will never have to live with the consequences of her decision. President Obama is certainly not the first President to support a Woman’s and Dobson was completely out of line in his remarks at that particular venue.

          • Steve

            Thank you for the reply. It is a common idea that you espouse, and has some merit when considered entirely from a woman’s self-centered position. But now it’s my turn.

            “In your opinion the unborn has the same rights as the person in whom they are residing. How can that possibly be true?”

            Answer: Words mean things. In this case, the word “all,” as in, “All men are created equal.” What part of “all” is unclear to you? When MLK made his appeal to America to wake up to certain inalienable rights which were already spelled out, he was acknowledging that the righteousness of that statement was an inspiration from God to the writers of the Declaration of Independence. The word “all” is defined as “any whatsoever, every, being the utmost possible of.” We are all a part of all people, and we are created, not simply stamped out like cookies. That means the moment we are created (certainly as people, not as buffalo, goats, pigs, birds, etc.), we are created equal. Were you equal to me after you were born, or before that, too? Should the man who (hypothetically) punched you in your stomach, killing your baby, be held for the murder of your baby? I would hope so.

            “The person in whose body that Festus resides gets to make that call, not you.”

            Response: In my mind, God made the call before the woman herself was even born. You were in the eye of God before you were in the womb. Honoring this belief is what gives the highest value to every human life, and makes every life so valuable that to take a life is the highest of all crimes. This applies even to the mother. Perhaps it should be the most heinous of crimes when the one on whom the innocent life in the womb is given actually turns against that most vulnerable one, growing in her own body by the design of the Father Himself.

            ” IF in Gods eye it is murder, then let God deal with it when the judgment day comes.”

            Response: First you say “IF,” but you finish with “when.” Which is it? I believe the latter. And I believe that God will in fact judge.

            ” It isn’t you place to assume that role for yourself.”

            Response: It is my role as a citizen of a civilized society to take a stand on behalf of the weakest among us. So I advocate for the unborn, the most vulnerable and innocent of all people. As I am a Christian, I identify with God’s value on all human life. You think that means that I am judging you? You flatter yourself. I am focused on the unborn child’s right to life, a right to which you have availed. It is the self-centered view of a mother that makes her think of bearing the child in terms of her own “rights,” as opposed to the most sacred responsibility that mother will ever have.

            “Abortion isn’t new to this world. It is as old as humanity and to my knowledge is not addressed directly anywhere in the Bible.”

            Response: It certainly is as old as sin itself. Although not directly mentioned in the Bible, it is not a leap to regard Mary’s responsibility as too great to consider emptying her womb because she was unmarried. And the duty of Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, not “if you please, my dear.” God didn’t design abortion, either. It is the invention of mankind. Today’s abortion is considered “medical” because it has been adopted by the profession which, strangely, starts with an oath to “First, do no harm.” But simply because the technology is available and seems sterile and safe doesn’t mean that it is therefore “good.” Simply because you have been given the “legal protection” by five men in black robes (no, not a “right” like speech or assembly as guaranteed in the Constitution), doesn’t mean that it is therefore “good.” Abortion does in fact stop a beating heart. It does in fact end a human life. Aren’t you glad that yours wasn’t ended by your mom so we could share our thoughts today? I don’t judge you or any other mother who has had an abortion. I consider it a tragedy in that woman’s life, and I pray for her. But I first pray for that little baby who was so brutally killed before even having the opportunity to breathe, laugh, say “mommy,” grow up and make brilliant discoveries, or even sin the first time. It just shouldn’t happen, and I will always be set against it.

            “If you really hate all abortion, please find a street corner and start passing out condoms and birth control information. Support your local Planned Parenthood Clinic as well. Demand that all children receive factual education on the subject of sex. Including how not to get pregnant. When you have done all these things, come back and tell us what you have done to stop abortions.”

            Response: Where does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY kick in for you? As for education, we have had state sponsored mandatory sex ed for decades, long enough to create the impressions you think people should get from it. How has that worked for us? So I have done my part, because my money was taken by the government to provide that educational opportunity on my behalf and yours. That had the advantage of reaching all children, as opposed to the few I could reach on the street. You still think kids have yet to be taught? You believe that is what is resulting in all the unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock? Do you think like that and actually vote?

            “Makin abortions illegal will not stop abortions, it will only turn desperate Women into criminals and worse.”

            Response: Now you are starting to sound a little conservative yourself. Making guns illegal has done exactly what for Chicago? The law is not the answer to abortion. Morality is the answer. People must each have an inner constitution that self-limits what they do. It SHOULD include a supreme value for life. We don’t walk down the street and kill one another as simply as we tip our hats to one another, do we? There’s laws agin that, to, but people still do it. So how do you give a fellow adult the respect for their life but not the unborn child? As for becoming desperate criminals seeking to abort their unborn baby, women can choose life, just like their mothers did. Even adoption is a better solution than murder of the innocent. If you simply MUST kill someone, why not enlist in the military and do it with a purpose?

            “Education and birth control stop unwanted pregnancies, which in turn greatly lessens the incidence of abortion,…”

            Response: Once again, we have had both for a long time, but how has that worked for us?

            “…but what a Woman chooses to do with her own body, is her business.”

            Response: True enough. The BUT here is that killing your unborn baby isn’t just something you do with YOUR OWN BODY. It is killing another innocent life, the innocent life that YOU HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT, which is something you do NOT have the right to do. And your own constitution should prohibit abortion through your own heart, as your mother’s personal constitution did.

            Bear with me here, we’re almost done.

            “YOU cant tell another person what to do when YOU will never walk in her shoes and YOU will never have to live with the consequences of her decision.”

            Response: Yep. I can’t. But that’s an attempt once again to make killing the baby in your tummy simply a personal “choice,” as if you and all womankind has special authority to commit murder because of the circumstances of that life. Pregnancy is not simply a health condition that you can ascribe a personal solution for, like a cold or an STD. Pregnancy is how we reproduce. As a woman, you have the right to choose whether to become pregnant or not (by controlling your sex life), but once pregnant, you have made your “choice.” Abortion as contraception after the fact is murder. Period.

            “President Obama is certainly not the first President to support a Woman’s and Dobson was completely out of line in his remarks at that particular venue.”
            Response: Nope, he isn’t. But he has done more to facilitate abortion than any world leader ever. To be a Democrat is to identify with the entire package, including favoring abortion for any reason, at any stage of fetal development, including that most barbaric of all, partial birth abortion. I don’t acknowledge ANY rationale for that practice, and every doctor who has performed one is guilty of murder. So is the mother.
            As for that particular venue, I suppose you deign it necessary to control that type of speech. You and I have just enjoyed freedom of speech here. Dobson is known for his opposition to abortion. Could anyone expect him NOT to speak about it, or to lay out his case against it ANYWHERE he goes? I don’t think it is ever out of line to speak on behalf of LIFE or LIBERTY. Indeed, the president missed a good opportunity to do just that when he visited the Middle East. But, given his support for the very casual practice of murder of the most vulnerable people in his own country, he couldn’t very well take the high ground when speaking to the misogynists running the Muslim lands.

          • Mama62

            Interesting that you believe that God has anything whatsoever to do with innocent girls who are raped becoming pregnant. Another Literalist view. I would not like your God very much. He must be the evil brother to mine. Nice to hear what you really think. Now that we know that if your 11 or 12 year old daughter became pregnant you would force her still not fully developed body to endure the rigors of childbirth. Glad you weren’t my father. Dobson is a fundamentalist who believes he has the right, I don’t know why, to inflict his views on Women. His books are barbaric and he is a control freak. I was raised in a Christian home and never subjected to the kind of treatment he proposes to parents in his books or the the domination he suggests men should have over their wives. He and those like him make a mockery of Christianity, using it for justification of their own power over others and I for one an sick to death of them and their warped opinions based on teachings they clearly do not understand or misinterpret for their own purposes.
            Teenage birth rates are down, are haven’t you noticed? Teenage birth are up in school populations where abstinence only is taught. What does that tell you? Education and birth control are the best ways to prevent abortion. They work even if you don’t care to believe the facts. You sound as if you believe that Women who have abortions are heartless murders who do not care anything about life. I say to you, when you get a uterus and are the member of our species who bears the responsibility of carry a child to birth, and the being the primary care taker of that child, you get to decide. In the meantime, you don’t. Its that simple. Stopping legal abortion will not stop abortion and your belief that you have a right to call Women who use a legal method to terminate a pregnancy murderers speaks volumes.
            How do you know what is in the mind of Democrats? Are you one? Do you think we all look and sound and think alike? How do you know what is in the hearts and minds of the Women who choose abortion or of those who do not? We are not all alike and your one size fits all rules do not apply.
            There is little that can be accomplished by having a conversation with a person who thinks the way you do.

          • Mama62

            I for got this one, if illegal guns weren’t pouring into Chicago from surrounding states where they are easily attainable, there wouldn’t be so many illegal guns in Chicago. BTW, I don’t favor making guns illegal, I am a gun owner. I do favor reasonable background checks and taking guns away from criminals and mentally ill people. I favor a climate of responsibility over a climate of fear.

          • Steve

            SO it is the other states that cause the gunmen to pull the trigger while aiming at people they hate. I hadn’t heard that one. Liberals usually disregard personal responsibility. It seems to be a running narrative among libs.
            Now couldn’t you and I have this conversation sitting on the front porch while sharing iced tea without hating each other? I’d still love you when we go home.

          • Mama62

            Personal responsibility is very important to Liberals. Maybe you don’t actually know any. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about us.

          • Steve

            Enlighten me please.

          • Steve

            Oh, MaMa, lighten up. We still can talk. It’s not like I was going to FORCE you to. This is a forum where people express their views. I’m really glad you took the time to read mine. It was pretty lengthy, no? I could be your next door neighbor, and mow your lawn just to be a nice neighbor, or bring meals when you are sick. You would have no worries if you had to drop your kids off with me to sit for them and play with my kids. So we think differently. Is that the first time that ever happened? Do you live in such a boring world that everyone you know thinks exactly like you?

            As for what I would do—I wouldn’t want my daughter to have an abortion, and I left out the part about killing the rapist. It is a terrible situation to face, and I know it is part of our very sick society. I sure wouldn’t want to be faced with that. The exceptions to the rule should be rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Those are realistic exceptions. My manifesto deals with my contempt for the rationalizations that you have expressed to make a fetus seem to be less than a real human being that can be disposed of casually as a common approach to contraception after the fact, which is the leading use of abortion. You know that, and I know it. There just aren’t that many women raped or in danger of dying from childbirth.
            We both know Christian homes that have huge contrasts. I wouldn’t allow anyone to define it for me, either. In my heart, it is God Who decides for me, and I identify with His heart for people. God won’t refuse entry to heaven for those who have had abortions if they repent and receive His Son. To identify with His heart for those women, I have to love them, too. I don’t judge you, either, but if my words have piqued some guilt in you to cause you to attack me, so be it. I didn’t put the guilt in your heart, and I don’t have to answer for it.
            And if you were my daughter, I would love you unconditionally forever. I would even accept that you don’t love me back. I don’t have to answer for that, either. I just have to do my part. I don’t read Dobson’s books. I don’t need the words of men to define who I am. HIs views are his, just as yours are yours and mine are mine. We aren’t making any money off our words. At least we know that we are sincere.
            Now, enlighten me, please—how does one “inflict” his views on someone else? Views are made of words. Views are not policies, and views don’t collect taxes. Did my views amend your behavior in any way? I thought not. Are my views strongly held beliefs? Yes, without a doubt.

          • Mama62

            You called them murderers, now you say you can live with an exception for rape, etc. How do you rationalize that? IF in your heart you believe it is murder, then why would any reason be valid? The problem with this attempt to take away the right to choose is that you can never know what exactly is another’s circumstance and that restrictive brush pains a very large swath. I wonder also how you can know what kind of person you are defending in Dobson, , if you have never read his writings? You might be enlightened if you had. You inflict your views on others when you support those who would limit others rights to make their own medical choices and poison the national conversation by referring to these Women as murderers.

          • Mama62

            Exactly how does President Obama facilitate abortion more than any other President? Because he thinks Women should have access to birth control? Wouldn’t that be limiting abortion? Of course if you believe that life begins when the sperm and the egg wink at each other, you won’t like many forms of birth control. I guess you believe President Obama invented these methods of birth control, to facilitate abortion. That’s why he has 2 lovely daughters, because he loves abortion. Your comments make no sense.

          • Steve

            Uh-oh, now you think it is a valid practice to see into my mind? We’re both in trouble now…
            Obama has made access to abortion a state-sponsored, state paid business, a government provided murder mill, if you will. Abortion should be rare. Babies should be common. It sounds like you had an abortion as a teen and have been living with a wall of self-protection around yourself ever since. It has made you hard and defensive. You rationalize the practice of abortion as a women’s only conversation just to keep opposing views out of the way. My heart goes out to you.
            Birth control, according to the popular Democrat’s definition, includes abortion, and is just as viable as using a condom or the pill. I don’t mind birth control pills or condoms. But casual sex in the real issue when you talk about the need for so much birth control. Therein lies the need for personal responsibility and a personal constitution that says “no” to casual sex outside marriage. Saying “yes” is was creates those consequences that you mentioned earlier I will never experience. Someone has to say “yes” usually. Rape aside, it is about personal responsibility. And carrying an equalizer, which you support, would make it easier for women to stop the rapist, too.
            If my comments make no sense, why are you wasting your time replying here? Don’t you have to cook dinner for the kids? Ttyl MaMa.

          • blfdjlj

            Abortion is near the bottom of Obama’s priorities. Obama did not repeal Bush-era anti-abortion laws. Obamacare does not mandate abortion coverage for any health insurance plan

          • drew

            “Answer: Words mean things…” The reveal in this response is the veiled reference that our Constitution was written by God’s hand. When we refer to ‘all’ we refer to those who are already here, living, breathing, suffering, surviving, living and learning day by day. The respect should be given also to women who are pregnant and choose to make a life altering decision. It is a private matter and never to be decided by consensus or decree. If a woman 12 weeks into her pregnancy but not showing gets punched in the stomach by someone unaware it would still be a legal stretch to even consider it ‘manslaughter’.

            “Response: In my mind, God made the call…” In this response you make Mama62′s argument for her; She allows in her discussion to look to God’s judgment and not yours. After all, you did begin with the words “In my mind” did you not?

            “Response: It is my role as a citizen…” Ironically I feel the same. However in this case I must defend the pregnant woman or couple with child facing this dilemma and decision NOT to be dictated to by zealots who seem to be bending the idea of a free society to their will and the dictum of their religion.

            “Response: It certainly is as old as sin…” Well, the devotion to rhetoric and hyperbole makes this response pointless to even counter. I must ask, though, which position are you taking; Is your point a legal or moral one? If it is a legal one one needs to ask how you intend to find out a woman or couple is with child without invading their privacy? Would you then subject yourself to the same sort of scrutiny in your own life? Wouldn’t it be immoral to make this personal and private life-changing decision for someone else when you then intend to ignore or even impede the raising or disposition of the child after gestation? Do you intend to enlist the government to assist in this endeavor subsequently giving the government more power? I think you might be suffering a slight case of myopia. And your response is quite lyrical and descriptive but does nothing to further your argument or counter Mama62′s.

            “Response: Where does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY kick in for you?” It strikes me as odd an argument coming FOR state sponsored sex education in school be used as a defense for your argument. You complain that your money was ‘taken’ to support these things [as you say 'words mean things'] and are arguing from a religious view the sanctity of human life yet have no similar objection for your Federal tax [51¢ for every $1] being spent on the Military. Much of that money is spent on creating and utilizing ways to kill people in foreign lands. While many are considered to be enemy combatants more than a few are also ‘collateral damage’ including men, women children-even those who are yet to be born. Minefields left behind in Viet Nam by American military killed and maimed women and children for decades as a direct result of our ignorance and cavalier attitude toward our abandoned weaponry. Perhaps I can ask the same: Where does PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY kick in for you? Your outrage here is imbalanced unless your agenda is not what you state.

            “Response: Now you are starting to sound…” You pose the question as a comparison to the legality of abortion and the illegality of concealed handguns in Chicago -I’m assuming as your statement was vague. You don’t clarify the comparison other than to say the law is not the answer. I agree with parts of this response: “Morality is the answer. People must each have an inner constitution that self-limits what they do. It SHOULD include a supreme value for life.” With that should come also the respect for privacy and individuality. You later write “As for becoming desperate criminals seeking to abort their unborn baby, women can choose life, just like their mothers did.” She can. She should be led and enticed by a welcome society and one that fights for her future and a bright future for her yet born child. The most important word in that statement is ‘choose’-not be forced by law. The final sentence in that response is just arrogantly ridiculous. It implies that the parents or mother are intent on killing by any means necessary and haven’t deliberated seriously this decision. Simply because they don’t make the choice you are dictating doesn’t mean you can make a callous statement like that. It doesn’t mean they haven’t taken consideration or can be considered murderous. Again, this does not further your argument.

            “Response: True enough…” The truth is while you make the claim that the woman has been “ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT” but you don’t say by whom and to whom she owes this trust? You then claim she hasn’t the right.

            Let me make this clear before I continue. If I were to be consulted by any woman in this position considering the termination of her child I would implore her to review any and all possibilities to bring this life to fruition. I would ask her to consider anything that would help her choose life.

            I would NEVER have the hubris to tell her that the life residing inside her was not hers. How convoluted is the argument that this life is her responsibility but not her right to terminate? To me it is an absurd argument brought forth by people who have never been in a desperate situation in the entirety of their lives. I would NEVER have the audacity to say I or my community is going to imprison her uterus until gestation is over and force her to bring forth a child of which that said community will then refuse to help with the raising or disposition.

            So far your position of how you *feel* about the matter of a woman’s right to choose to terminate is clear but how you intend to impose it is not…until,

            “Response: Yep. I can’t…”The phrase ‘commit murder’ makes your intent clear. You want to equate this matter of personal choice in a woman’s life to give birth or not as the same as me buying a gun and shooting you in the head or some thug strangling your wife or daughter while they sleep. I have discussed this many times with people with your mindset and I won’t bother here. because you do see it as the same thing. Of course you don’t understand that you have the conceit to decide the destinies of two people that you may never know. The struggles and suffering of both the mother [who, as I know suffer this decision both before and after the procedure] and the child become none of your affair after the fact. The opiate you ingest to feel that this decision-the one to equates this choice with murder and all the legal fallout our society bestows upon it-must be quite a powerful one to make you this blind to the damage that could occur in the aftermath. This would include the loss of your own privacy to our government. Once you think about this unilaterally [and actually read Roe v Wade as well as Eisenstadt v Baird and Griswold v CT] you might understand how this might come to be regrettable to employ this as law.

            Lastly,

            “Response: Nope, he isn’t…” This is where your argument goes off the rails. “[Obama] has done more to facilitate abortion than any world leader ever…including favoring abortion for any reason, at any stage of fetal development, including that most barbaric of all, partial birth abortion.” If you could point to any credible source that can prove that I’d be quite curious. He has made the right to choose in this matter accessible. I remember a recent President or two who successfully defunded [for a time] Planned Parenthood even they even suggested termination as an alternative. Ironic how you defend Dobson’s right to speak out in a forum that was agreed upon as apolitical but make no mention of essentially gagging a place devoted to public service by dangling funding over their heads for the same ‘free speech’. It’s easy to see how you confuse Muslim countries that deny women rights with as much as imprisonment and murder for even the infraction of not dressing properly with denying a fiscally, physically or mentally unprepared woman or couple from choosing not to bring a child to fruition.

            In the harsh and pure light of reason and logic your argument fails on all counts. The right for the adult to choose in this country is paramount and trumps any and all invasion of privacy as well as religious moral doctrines.

          • Steve

            Dude, how can you spend that much time and butcher that much of what I wrote? What level of boredom must you be in to willfully misconstrue my ideas as dictates? If you can’t argue what I actually wrote, you just make up what you want so you can rationalize your chosen points and award yourself some high fives. You must be a liberal. Words mean things, but the idea of written language is to convey their agreed meaning as popularly defined. If your impression of a discussion forum is from the college debate team, then you may have a future as a press secretary for a democratic administration.

          • drew

            Pot calling Kettle. You just did the same to Mama62′s response.
            I used quotes. I refer to your argument sometimes verbatim. I did argue what you wrote. This is an open forum and it is a debate.

            So if you feel I made an error why not take the time to enlighten me and the readers rather than just spew accusations and insults.

            I am a pragmatic centrist. What must you be?

          • Steve

            A pragmatic centrist. So you stand solidly in between left and right, with your feet firmly planted in….something. But your reliance on rationalization as a substitute for logic reveals that you are a moral relativist, and therefore far left.
            The rights of the individual to choose in this country is honored and codified in the Constitution. However, I believe that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution meant for people to live first by a personal constitution, having a moral compass within, and they meant that people should honor a deity, heavily favoring Christianity. It is in the personal writings of the Framers. You can look that up.
            Moral relativism is at the core of the decay of our culture. One evidence of the decay of our culture is a reduction in the value of life, particularly of the unborn. Relativists such as yourself love to conjure rationalizations to create personal comfort with immorality, calling it “liberty.” On an unbridled level, certainly a Libertarian level, that works. But society suffers without boundaries. The Framers envisioned a moral people who would self-regulate, with the basis thereof being Christianity. That would provide each person with the value of life presented mostly by Christ, but certainly that of a loving God. If you don’t believe in a deity, that’s fine, and that’s also presented in the Constitution as a right. It doesn’t present any problems until the crisis comes, and you must choose between living your life as you please and the life of another.
            At the very least, even as a libertarian, you must understand that your rights end where my nose begins. You do not have the right to impose on another. Ideally we hold others as equal or greater than ourselves, and assume a brotherly concern for one another. There’s your peaceful society in a nutshell. But when you discard a fellow human who is in the process of becoming, just as you did, a whole person, that displays a callous disregard for the value each of us has in the eyes of God as realized by the Framers and expressed to the world in the Declaration of Independence. Everyone likes to repeat,”…all men are created equal…” yet they somehow refuse it to all men. Abortion is popularly used as a “cure” for pregnancy. It is, in fact, stopping the beating heart of a forming human. We can’t mince words to reduce the value of life simply for personal convenience. Motherhood is tough. Were it not so, mothers might not naturally care so dearly for their children, who rely entirely on nurture. But the mind is a powerful tool, and it enables behaviors that are contrary and counterintuitive to a peaceful society.
            If anyone reads into my words and feels imposed on, that is their own misinterpretation. I take no responsibility for such nonsensical mental masturbations. My words obligate no one. My words harm nothing. My words represent my thoughts of a world that lives by a personal code which places human life higher than personal preference. Convenience may lead one to turn on a light, throw an extra log on the fire, work harder to earn a raise. Personal convenience is no justification for taking the life of another. Rationalizing why it should be a “right” to do so is simply the practice of an under developed intellect, using shadows of logic and allusions to rights, but standing on no principal that leads to a peaceful society.

          • Guest

            Just so you can’t accuse me of cherry picking [again] I used the entirety of your statement and answered it paragraph by paragraph:

            “A pragmatic centrist. So you stand solidly in between left and right, with your feet firmly planted in….something.”

            Nice. Good scatalogical reference to intone the rest of your argument.

            “But your reliance on rationalization as a substitute for logic reveals that you are a moral relativist, and therefore far left.”

            Interesting leap from relativism to ‘left’ but your initial argument is incorrect. Since logic is defined “as capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning or based on known statements or events or conditions” and you are posing your argument from a religious view this means you are presenting your argument from the same position. This rationale, as result, can not be defined as either left or right anymore than it can be clearly defined as right or wrong. The issue here is discussed as morality within the confines of the law and the governance of the community as opposed to the rules of a religious congregation in our society. I hope that is clear to you now.

            “The rights of the individual to choose in this country is honored and codified in the Constitution. However, I believe that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution meant for people to live first by a personal constitution, having a moral compass within, and they meant that people should honor a deity, heavily favoring Christianity. It is in the personal writings of the Framers. You can look that up.”

            Some of the more progressive authors of the Constitution were very universal adopting such ideologies as Complementary Dualism and the teachings of Dao as part of their inspiration. While they were all Christian by belief they never mention following a deity as any sort of directive [I would like you to point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where you found this].Knowing from experience full well the damage that allowing any one religion to dictate laws as so important as to make sure that what governs the community and what governs the congregation are to remain two different and very separate sets of rules. This is why it was the FIRST thing the addressed in the Constitution. I believe you can look that up.

            “Moral relativism is at the core of the decay of our culture. One evidence of the decay of our culture is a reduction in the value of life, particularly of the unborn. Relativists such as yourself love to conjure rationalizations to create personal comfort with immorality, calling it “liberty.” On an unbridled level, certainly a Libertarian level, that works. But society suffers without boundaries.”

            Since the basis of your argument stems from ‘moral relativism’ I agree with the first sentence as it also needs to be applied to those who have the hubris to invade someones privacy and make a life alterng decision for them by removing the choice based on their version of morality. Morality is as subjective and personal as one’s devotion to a god. I believe our society was created so as to not have any one faction interfere with those personal convictions so long as it does not interfere with you and yours. As I already mention you are also arguing from a pulpit of ‘moral relativism’ giving you the moral charge of rescuing unborn children that you will not be responsible for. Subsequently claim moral high ground cannot be claimed when after these children are born the responsibility is then relinquished to others. Child rearing is a fiscal, physical and time consuming burden on any person. As you say “society suffers without boundaries” and it is my assertion that legally and morally you are overstepping yours.

            “The Framers envisioned a moral people who would self-regulate, with the basis thereof being Christianity.

            That would provide each person with the value of life presented mostly by Christ, but certainly that of a loving God.”

            This just simply isn’t true. They did envision a moral community, they also envisioned an intelligent one. It would be one that also understood the right to free speedh as also taking responsibility for and having the ability to logically defend your statements with truth and logic. This is a bit of moral decay for another discussion, though.

            “If you don’t believe in a deity, that’s fine, and that’s also presented in the Constitution as a right. It doesn’t present any problems until the crisis comes, and you must choose between living your life as you please and the life of another.”

            Could you please point out in the Constitution where you derived this? I believe you are either misinterpreting or embellishing.

            “At the very least, even as a libertarian, you must understand that your rights end where my nose begins. You do not have the right to impose on another.”

            Precisely. In this we are in full agreement. Unfortunately your position in this matter on legal grounds is where you defy your own statement. You seem to think you have the right to stick your nose [blue or otherwise] into the private dealing of others and make life-altering and monuments decision for them as your morality is offended.

            “Ideally we hold others as equal or greater than ourselves, and assume a brotherly concern for one another. There’s your peaceful society in a nutshell. But when you discard a fellow human who is in the process of becoming, just as you did, a whole person, that displays a callous disregard for the value each of us has in the eyes of God as realized by the Framers and expressed to the world in the Declaration of Independence.”

            But what of the individual who’s rights you trample with your “brotherly concern”? You disrupt the tranquility of our society to satisfy your version of morality within a community or relationship that otherwise does not and in all probability will not concern you. Certainly that disregard for both the right of the birth mother or parents and the cavalier ignorance for the destiny of the child you then force by law into the world should also be considered immoral and a “callous disregard” for their ability to make this choice for herself or themselves. You keep imposing your God into this discussion as if it makes your ideology absolute. This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution feared.

            “Everyone likes to repeat,”…all men are created equal…” yet they somehow refuse it to all men.”

            True. Been fighting about it for years. In fact I think there was a pretty big one about it and Federal intervention about 80 some years after it was written. Perhaps you’ve heard about it.

            “Abortion is popularly used as a “cure” for pregnancy.”

            In fact abortion percentages are on the decline. I have never heard it called a ‘cure’ by anyone except those that oppose the right of women to choose to terminate. It’s appalling and shows a lack of character mentioning it.

            “It is, in fact, stopping the beating heart of a forming human. We can’t mince words to reduce the value of life simply for personal convenience.”

            This argument implying ‘inconvenience as the only reason for termination always comes from those who prefer to berate women and haven’t had the displeasure of being poor, destitute or perhaps having too many mouths to feed already. It is short-sighted and arrogant.

            “Motherhood is tough. Were it not so, mothers might not naturally care so dearly for their children, who rely entirely on nurture. But the mind is a powerful tool, and it enables behaviors that are contrary and counterintuitive to a peaceful society.”

            This is true and many women choose to become mothers even when the pregnancy was initially considered an inconvenience or, worse, a product of incest or rape. The mind is a very powerful tool. I would never chastise or question a woman who decided that the child that grows inside of her that was a product of a rape was worth keeping and raising. In this respect I believe my ‘moral relativism’ trumps your religious moral high ground. Why do you feel it is your responsibility to interfere with something that in all probability will never concern you?

            The balance of your soliloquy, while very lyrical and thoughtful, still never answers the most important question I posed. Do you intend to rally for this choice to legally be removed? If so, how do you intend to employ it? Moreover, how do you then maintain the very real separation of church and state when you imposition is based on a religious morality?

            I should underscore that I believe in choosing life at all costs. If more time was spent helping to create and maintain a country [and possibly a world] that could be considered equitable and safe you would witness the percentage of abortions go down even further than it already has in the last decade. If all of the money, time and effort spent by those who picket OB-GYN’s that practice abortions or Planned Parenthood, print flyers and placards, maintain websites and organizations like AbortionNo, National Right To Life, ProLife Action, etc and stopped spending all of this cash on lobbying lawmakers and spent it on assisting unwed mothers with low cost, non-denominational child care and healthcare not only would this be a better and more ‘peaceful society’ it would really be the Christian thing to do.

          • Steve

            Alight, fella, I’ll give ya one more go. In order for you to take me at my actual words, you must stop inserting your own suppositions. I have in no way implied that I was attempting to regulate, or propose regulation of anyone or anything. If you read me without that assumption, you get me better. Also, if you stop assuming where I flip between faith and government, you get me better. I build my case for faith for the purpose of revealing original intent, because the basis of the Founders’ work was that they were writing a governing document to limit government for a moral people. They were limiting government because they felt Americans could self-govern, and needn’t be micro-managed. Their faith was Christianity. The Constitution allows for unbelief (included in freedom of religion), but still assumes morality. Take the second amendment for example. If the Founders felt that people were incapable of peacefully keeping arms, I doubt they would have enumerated that right. They assumed that people would be guided by their moral conscience and not blow each other’s brains out for every dispute. Such was the preponderance of the imposition of each person’s own conscience in society then. If only it were so now.
            If you believe in life at all costs, then you would not immediately cite exceptions. Poverty is not an excuse. Especially in this day and age we have many resources to help with children, ranging from financial assistance to outright adoption. We would not have many contributing people if they had been aborted due to the poverty of the parents. Think of how many great leaders, inventors, artists, or preachers have never been allowed their first breath because of some rationalization for the death penalty without trial, with so little regard for what could be. Again, I write in favor of life, and against the poverty of the soul that favors abortion. The numbers of abortions just don’t support the rape, incest, or health of the mother arguments. But I don’t sit here at my computer and order anyone or anything. I voice my opinion, my favor, my desires. Are you so afraid of my voice that you must take the leap to a manifestation like legislation? How in the world would I arrange that? You understand that I am just one guy here, right?
            Now, are you a father? Do you have any idea what it is like to bring a life into the world? I tell you this, if you have children, especially if you witnessed their birth, your view towards abortion will have been changed from one of outright defense to one of discouragement. That is the purpose of my discourse. I make the moral argument, based on the value of life from Christianity, and I refer to the Constitution and its writers to point out their relationship with the Christian God in the formation of a government by consent of the governed, in whom they placed the responsibility and confidence to be guided likewise, or else, as they write in their personal observations, it will all fail.
            I hope this clears some things up about my writing. Perhaps I can learn from you to be more explicit in my writing. If I led you to believe that I insist that anyone do something or not do something, that is not my intent. I don’t recall writing so, but it seems you perceived it, or else chose to misinterpret my words to serve your argument in favor of the woman’s right to choose. Like you, I acknowledge that there is a legal guarantee for women to use abortion. I just don’t like it, and I attempt to explain my objection. There is no reason to fear that I am some kind of rising monster that will impose a strict ban on abortion. Words certainly mean things, but they are still only words. We have witnessed an explosion of words on the web, some helpful, lots of them wasteful. But in their entirety, they are still just words, just laying there waiting to be read. They change nothing unless acted upon. I have no army to march for me, nor would I consider using force. I hope that I might save a child or two with the force of my words. For that to happen, my words have to have an impact on a reader or two. Do you have to save them from me? Are you the hero of abortion? If you think that women need you to protect them from me, then which one of us must not trust women to make their own minds up? I can be a voice out there to be caught by an ear. That’s freedom of speech, and I exercise it. But it isn’t imposition of any kind. You can be rid of me in one click. And so can the women.
            Take care and keep thinking.

          • Steve

            BTW, no scatological reference meant. I think the centrist simply tries to avoid standing firmly for or against things. It seems to me to be more like standing in the wet sand at the surf. If you don’t stand on the solid earth, eventually the waves sweep you away.
            I also mean to say that rationalization is mental gymnastics. It sounds like logic sometimes, but it is an imposter. It Is a useful tool for taking a stand in the sand. I view logic as the operating system of the mind, which requires evidence to feed the curiosity inherent in our minds in order to reach conclusions that are not sandy.
            If I was confined to a wheelchair I would do this more, but my butt hurts and I want to go to bed and rest my brain. I have things to do tomorrow. Geez, I think we would have great chess games. Let’s not hate. Leave room for the difference. Strict agreement is boring.

          • drew

            The quotes represent your argument word for word. I countered it afterward.

            “A pragmatic centrist. So you stand solidly in between left and right, with your feet firmly planted in….something.”

            Nice. Good scatological reference to intone the rest of your argument.

            “But your reliance on rationalization as a substitute for logic reveals that you are a moral relativist, and therefore far left.”

            Interesting leap from relativism to ‘left’ but your initial argument is incorrect. Since logic is defined “as capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning or based on known statements or events or conditions” and you are posing your argument from a religious view this means you are presenting your argument from the same position. This rationale, as result, can not be defined as either left or right anymore than it can be clearly defined as right or wrong. The issue here is discussed as morality within the confines of the law and the governance of the community as opposed to the rules of a religious congregation in our society. I hope that is clear to you now.

            “The rights of the individual to choose in this country is honored and codified in the Constitution. However, I believe that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution meant for people to live first by a personal constitution, having a moral compass within, and they meant that people should honor a deity, heavily favoring Christianity. It is in the personal writings of the Framers. You can look that up.”

            Some of the more progressive authors of the Constitution were very universal adopting such ideologies as Complementary Dualism and the teachings of Dao as part of their inspiration. While they were all Christian by belief they never mention following a deity as any sort of directive [I would like you to point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where you found this]. Knowing from experience the damage that allowing any one religion to dictate laws was so important as to make sure that what governs the community and what governs the congregation should remain two different and very separate sets of rules. This is why it was the FIRST thing addressed in the Constitution. I believe you can look that up.

            “Moral relativism is at the core of the decay of our culture. One evidence of the decay of our culture is a reduction in the value of life, particularly of the unborn. Relativists such as yourself love to conjure rationalizations to create personal comfort with immorality, calling it “liberty.” On an unbridled level, certainly a Libertarian level, that works. But society suffers without boundaries.”

            Since the basis of your argument stems from ‘moral relativism’ I agree with the first sentence as it also needs to be applied to those who have the hubris to invade someones privacy and make a life altering decision for others by removing the choice based on a personal version of morality. Morality is as subjective and personal as one’s devotion to a god. I believe our society was created so as to not have any one faction interfere with those personal convictions so long as it does not interfere with others. As I already mention you are also arguing from a pulpit of ‘moral relativism’ giving you the moral charge of rescuing unborn children that you will not be responsible for. Subsequently, moral high ground cannot be claimed if after these children are born the responsibility is then relinquished to others. Child rearing is a fiscal, physical and time consuming burden on any person. As you say “society suffers without boundaries” and it is my assertion that you are attempting to legally and morally overstep yours.

            “The Framers envisioned a moral people who would self-regulate, with the basis thereof being Christianity.
            That would provide each person with the value of life presented mostly by Christ, but certainly that of a loving God.”

            This just simply isn’t true. They did envision a moral community; They also envisioned an intelligent one. It would be one that also understood the right to free speech as also taking responsibility for and having the ability to logically defend your statements with truth and logic. This is a bit of moral decay for another discussion, though.

            “If you don’t believe in a deity, that’s fine, and that’s also presented in the Constitution as a right. It doesn’t present any problems until the crisis comes, and you must choose between living your life as you please and the life of another.”

            Could you please point out in the Constitution where you derived this? I believe you are either misinterpreting or embellishing.

            “At the very least, even as a libertarian, you must understand that your rights end where my nose begins. You do not have the right to impose on another.”

            Precisely. In this we are in full agreement. Unfortunately your position in this matter on legal grounds is where you defy your own statement. You seem to think you have the right to stick your nose [blue or otherwise] into the private dealing of others and make life-altering and monumental decision for them because you feel your morality is offended. At this point your position becomes convoluted.

            “Ideally we hold others as equal or greater than ourselves, and assume a brotherly concern for one another. There’s your peaceful society in a nutshell. But when you discard a fellow human who is in the process of becoming, just as you did, a whole person, that displays a callous disregard for the value each of us has in the eyes of God as realized by the Framers and expressed to the world in the Declaration of Independence.”

            But what of the individual who’s rights you trample with your “brotherly concern”? You disrupt the tranquility of our society to satisfy your version of morality within a community or relationship that otherwise does not and in all probability will not concern you. Certainly that disregard for both the right of the birth mother or parents and the cavalier ignorance for the destiny of the child you then force by law into the world should also be considered immoral and a “callous disregard” for their ability to make this choice for herself or themselves. You keep imposing your God into this discussion as if it makes your ideology absolute. This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution feared.

            “Everyone likes to repeat,”…all men are created equal…” yet they somehow refuse it to all men.”

            True. Been fighting about it for years. In fact I think there was a pretty big war about it and Federal intervention about 80 some years after it was written. Perhaps you’ve heard about it.

            “Abortion is popularly used as a “cure” for pregnancy.”

            In fact abortion percentages are on the decline. I have never heard it called a ‘cure’ by anyone except those that oppose the right of women to choose to terminate. It’s appalling and shows a lack of character mentioning it.

            “It is, in fact, stopping the beating heart of a forming human. We can’t mince words to reduce the value of life simply for personal convenience.”

            This argument implying ‘inconvenience’ as the only reason for termination always comes from those who prefer to berate women and haven’t had the displeasure of being poor, destitute or perhaps having too many mouths to feed already. It is short-sighted and arrogant.

            “Motherhood is tough. Were it not so, mothers might not naturally care so dearly for their children, who rely entirely on nurture. But the mind is a powerful tool, and it enables behaviors that are contrary and counterintuitive to a peaceful society.”

            This is true and many women choose to become mothers even when the pregnancy was initially considered an inconvenience or, worse, a product of incest or rape. The mind is a very powerful tool. I would never chastise or question a woman who decided that the child that grows inside of her that was a product of a rape was worth keeping and raising. In this respect I believe my ‘moral relativism’ trumps your religious moral high ground. Why do you feel it is your responsibility to interfere with something that in all probability will never concern you?

            The balance of your soliloquy, while very lyrical and thoughtful, still never answers the most important question I posed. Do you intend to rally for this choice to legally be removed? If so, how do you intend to employ it? Moreover, how do you then maintain the very real separation of church and state when your imposition is based on a religious morality? {I cite the repeated mention of God in your discussion]

            I should underscore that I believe in choosing life at all costs. If more time was spent helping to create and maintain a country [and possibly a world] that could be considered equitable and safe you would witness the percentage of abortions go down even further than it already has in the last decade. If all of the money, time and effort spent by those who picket OB-GYN’s that practice abortions or Planned Parenthood, print flyers and placards, maintain websites and organizations like AbortionNo, National Right To Life, ProLife Action, etc and stopped spending all of this cash on lobbying lawmakers and spent it on assisting unwed mothers with low cost, non-denominational child care and healthcare not only would this be a better and more ‘peaceful society’ it would really be the Christian thing to do.

          • Adrian M. Kleinbergen

            You’re a real republican.

          • Steve

            Adrian, Thanks, I think, but I don’t know whether it’s flattering or not anymore to be called Republican. I draw conclusions guided by my identity in Christ as the moral compass, which leaves liberals scratching their heads, then attacking based on their belief in man as the only standard bearer. I am a Constitutional Conservative and I believe in Original Intent. The Founding Fathers warned that the Constitution was written for a moral people, requiring first a personal constitution in order that people live without direct governmental rule over every moment in their lives. The basis for that personal constitution was assumed to be at least a firm belief in a Deity, if not the Christ.

            So many Republicans in office at all levels depart from principal in order to posture as “statesmen,” and draw some of the left’s votes while abandoning their base. We call them “RINO’s.” That sort of compromise results in weak leaders who develop lukewarm legislation, leaving the citizenry holding the bag, no better off than under leftist rule. Some of them become relativist enough to compromise even their personal integrity, often resulting in personal scandal. Recall the last two Republican Congressmen, one caught buying cocaine, and the other caught smooching an aide even though he’s married. Great job representing, fellas. We are locked in a battle with them for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. The last great Republican president was Ronald Reagan, who gets the highest score as a Conservative of any president in our lifetime. We need a man to step forward in the next presidential nomination process who will stand on principal, not “go along to get along” with the left. Reagan didn’t need that, and he swept the vote twice.
            If you think of Republican as being clearly conservative, then I am flattered, and I thank you. If you think RINO when you say Republican, then I guess I need to try harder to define myself with my writing.

          • Steve

            I guess I ran out of space. Again, thanks for the inspiration. I think I have my new manifesto now.

          • drew

            “What actions have unborn babies taken that earns them an even more insufferable death than the botched execution?”

            Obviously you have seen that deplorable propaganda film ‘Silent Scream’ and have been fed some misinformation. At the legal point of termination prior to the third trimester a fetus does not feel pain as you think as the mental capacity for it has not yet been developed. The process usually takes much less time than that of an even smoothly run legal state sanctioned lethal injection. That question is misleading.

            “The same people who have declared that Conservatives are conducting a “war on women” themselves murder millions of women per year.” Please provide information and logic underlying that comment.

            To answer your question they are treating them like second-class citizens or children. However it is a damn sight better than some fool that wants to make them criminals and put them in jail simply for making a personal choice.

            “The same person who walked out on the practice of free speech in defense of unborn children can’t wait to increase federal funding for the practice of more state sanctioned murders”.

            She ‘can’t wait’? Proof and logic that secures the implication of your statement. Sounds like hyperbole to me. This makes her different than which politician?
            And wasn’t this clear to you that this meeting was supposed to be-and always has been-apolitical. [Just to be clear that word means the absence of political views.] The objection wasn’t to free speech but political posturing at an improper forum. You do understand this? If not I suggest you read the article above again. This time bring your dictionary and thesaurus as you seem to find these lexicons necessary for true understanding.

            “You libs are the ones talking out of both sides of your mouths. All your college degree has done for you is trained you to rationalize the absurd.”
            Again I’d prefer to see examples of dissembling by liberals in this case or in this string. As far as the rest, well, at least they are being rational.

          • LittleBritches

            You are correct….if you are for life, then you should be for ALL life. Jesus did not make a distinction. As my minister said today….you either for all life or none. There can be no exemptions.

          • EWS

            Yeah because you called an unborn fetus a person. Failed you big time it seems.

        • Layla

          Take your hate elsewhere, James.

          • James

            How does my comment have anything to do with hate?

          • ZeeGee

            James, you’re fine. You said nothing I can tell about hate. You are like the rest of us, looking for a clue and wondering about the incongruities of life.

          • Layla

            Reread your comments. Few are without name calling or hate. You’ve made some good points. Leave the hate out of it and people will read them. I am.

        • jstan442

          the Bible allows for the death penalty ex.21:12 ‘He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death’–lev.24:17 ‘whoever kills any man shall be put to death’–if God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow and says what He means then i guess you have it wrong(and there are other verses that say the same thing–when God repeats a thing it means to ‘stop and listen this is important’

          • stevenharnack

            Then I imagine that you are out stoning adulterous wives, shunning sea food, and following all of the other myriad arcane exhortations in your holy manual? You’re probably not so you can either give yourself up for execution now or wait for the lake of fire and all of that.

          • Mychele Hillary

            I have yet to see a televangelist’s wife manage to stay away from the adornment and fine apparel exhorted against in Peter, Timothy and Isiah . . . and for that matter, how often does the televangelist himself? Rules were clearly meant to be broken, and motes in other’s eyes to be pointed out first.

      • Teddy Simon

        WTF did I say , there was an agreement between all parties that this was to be about prayers not politics but I guess ignorant people just don’t get it do they

        • Layla

          I think you are talking about the same thing.

        • EWS

          You can’t reason with fanatics. ZeeGee just proved that point.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        The Nazis were pro lifers, just like you. They made abortion a capital offence.
        And like you, they claimed to be saving life, when actually they were killing life. You and the Nazis have a choice, you can save innocent born life or you can let it die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice?
        There are 1.8 born babies dying each second, if you spend even 1 second saving fetuses, then in that second 1.8 babies die.

      • http://www.eideard.com/ Eideard

        When was the last anti-war demonstration where you showed up? Like most RepubliChristians, you fight hardest under the banner of hypocrite?

      • BeverlyNC

        You so-called Pro-lifers only care about non-viable tissue and do not consider the person or the situation. Especially since as soon as the baby is gone you disappear. The child almost always ends up in poverty or abuse and then you degrade this child as a “taker” and want to end food stamps, hot school lunches, and Headstart programs to help these children enter school on equal footing. You want to destroy healthcare. You want to take away Social Security and Medicare which seniors depend on to live, literally. You support the death penalty and judge everyone except your own hypocrisy.
        You are NOT pro-life. You are destroyers of our social system of humanity and the rights of others.
        How many children in foster care have you adopted if you care so much?

        • Janet

          Thank you, Beverly. I was going to say some things you say. Right on! I replied to Steve, and want to know if he has read the gospels lately. President Obama is walking in the footsteps of Jesus. If Jesus walked the earth today, the religious right (Dobson) would crucify Him all over again.
          Just like they are trying to crucify President Obama.
          Obamacare, foodstamps, minimum wages, etc. would be the same things Jesus would pursue. THE REPUBLICANS DON’T CARE ABOUT BABIES. IT’S JUST AN ISSUE THEY USE TO CONFUSE THE FEEBLE MINDED. And the feeble fall for it every time it’s thrown into the ring.

      • Janet

        Listen, the GOPhers don’t shiv a get about unborn babies. Consider:
        Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so rabid about going to war and sending our troops to die on the battlefield. Or, paving the roads with opium drugs from Afghanistan…by freeing the hands of A-stan farmers to grow bumper crops after the “BUSH WAR” drove the taliban out….WHO STOPPED the farmers.
        Tell me what the difference IS, in the death of an dead unborn baby and a soldier who has a wife and children back at home,
        laying in a foreign land, dead? GOPhers DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE BABIES, they are just using that to STIR UP THE DUMB religious far right. That’s all!
        Get the far righters fired up, to attack over a ghost issue. aND, THEY THINK THEY’LL HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING AN ELECTION.

        • Steve

          Only the pinheaded can draw such parallels. Going to war is an unfortunate consequence of the aggression of evil people and governments against ours. Such was the just cause for going after the Taliban. What, on the other hand, justifies attacking an innocent unborn child in the womb? As for the volunteer patriot who has died in the defense of his/her country, I challenge you to find one soldier who would tell you that he or she signs a blank check for his/her life in defense of the “free modern woman who just prefers unprotected casual sex” and then “chooses” abortion over the consequences (which all that wonderful progressive government-sponsored education system somehow failed to impress upon the free modern woman). BTW, those abortions are paid for by people who would prefer not to, yet the progressive government insists on picking our pockets for that and many other nefarious causes, such as buying votes and lining the pockets of crony capitalists. It is issues such as these that will cause the liberal’s god, Big Government, to fall yet again into the hands of the told-ya-so’s on the Right. Your rabid socialism has done you in. You should fall on your knees and apologize to the God Who Is for the way you’ve (not) used that brain of yours. He designed it for more than video games, chanting humanistic mantras. smoking dope, and crafting ever more ways to control the affairs of other people.

          • Janet

            Steve, you miss my point completely. Killing life is wrong,
            unborn or a grown volunteer adult. MY POINT IS, THE
            GOPHERS HAVE DELUDED YOU INTO BELIEVING THEY CARE ABOUT UNBORN BABIES. THEY PREY ON FEEBLE MINDED RELIGIOUS FANATICS. LIsten to the rants of the kind of people like that self made preacher that just died recently….who used to line the roads where funerals of ‘patriots’ coming back in coffins.
            I AM SORRY I don’t think that is God’s way.

          • Steve

            I think that liberals routinely fail to make points. Your hatred of your political opponents causes you to rant incoherently. If you believe as you now say you do (and who knows what you’ll believe in next), then you would find nothing on the planet to be more reprehensible than the wanton, soulless mutilation murder of the most vulnerable among us. That would make you cheer what Dobson had the courage to state while standing right in the belly of the beast, Washington, D.C., within shouting distance of that despicable louse you voted for who led a revolution in murder from the hallowed oval office. What revolution, you ask? Put down the joint for a minute and try to focus. Obamacare requires all healthcare premium payers to subsidize abortion. And since Obamacare povides subsidies for people up to 400% of poverty level, that means that everyone’s tax money is now covering abortion, agree or not. Liberals should be ecstatic now. So if I had to lead you by the hand to reality, who is “weak minded?” Here’s another reality you should know but will also have to be led to: freedom of speech is enumerated in the Constitution, as is freedom to practice religion. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Learn to leave religious people alone and direct your hatred at abortion instead. Learn to recognize the real enemies who threaten all of us. That would be tyrants such as those who deny human rights and choose who’s life has value. That includes the mysogenists who attacked our nation and want to kill all of us, including liberals and babies. You have no beef with your fellow Americans even if they don’t share your priorities or even if they love God as you love whatever’s important to you. Learn to embrace the differences in your fellow contrymen and women. The things that divide us are specks of dust compared to what should unite us. That includes your spitting and hissing at religious leaders, who are no worse than our political leaders. Make room for religious folks just like they make room for everything that is thrown at them. The bad apples are just ranting fools. They don’t represent Christians.

          • Janet

            Steve you are so funny. You are ranting right now.
            Talk about ranting, just listen to the “conservatives”….They are ranting 24/7, Benghezi,
            Obamacare (how many times did the House vote to get rid of it? Over 50 times? What’s the definition for insanity? Repeating the same thing over & over, expecting another result! Give me a break.
            The conservative members of congress have done nothing but rant…but nothing to show for their time in the way of WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE. They just spin away, wasting tax money on ‘nothing’. Come over to the right side of life, you’re turning into a pickle.

          • Steve

            Oh, I’m so glad I joined this circle. And I’m glad you have engaged without doing more of the typical liberal screaming and gnashing of teeth. I get gas when people lose their cool instead of admit they’re wrong. Yeah, I ranted. But I think I was firing on all cylinders all the way down the road, crossed the finish line, got the checkered flag. Gotta go to bed after this. I only dragged myself back for one more go at you because you sound as if the THC has kicked in, and you aren’t attacking me anymore as “simple minded.” By the way, words are fine. We can agree to keep our sticks as kindling for our fireplaces (unless you live in New York—sorry bout that). NOW for those wascally wepublicans. Sure they repeatedly voted to repeal Obamadon’tcare. That’s standing on principal and voting the conscience of the people. That’s their job. We elect our House Reps to carry our message to the government. And we will not be satisfied until the unaffordable care act is gone, like another liberal glass jar shattered on the road to destiny. And of course the repeal won’t make it past Harry Dweeb until we sit him down after the mid-terms so he can contemplate his navel, which would be time well spent considering how obstructionist he has been. If it’s insanity to repeal, rinse, and repeat, then call me crazy. (At least “crazy” is covered under obabycare, whereas simple-mindedness is not, unless there is something in those 3000 pages that covers the affliction of liberalism. I know, let’s ask Nancy Perplexi—she said we could find out after it gets passed. Oh joy!) Meanwhile, those Conservative members of Congress need to keep on ranting about this corrupt administration until they are either termed out or in jail, whichever comes first. As I revealed to you, the Conservatives ARE working for the people, doing exactly what we elected them to do. And it costs the taxpayer almost nothing for them to rant and vote, but obaby’s regulatory, social and economic terrorism is costing all of us dearly. If you are only in your 20′s or 30′s, you will be paying for the government’s credit orgy for the rest of your life. What has your organizer-in-chief done for your future, and the future of any children who just happen to slip past the womb?
            And hey, pickles are yummy. I think the reference you are shooting for is “old prune.” Guess again.

          • deepfork

            Bengazhi is huge…how can wax opine on soldiers and blow off Benghazi? They only intentionally killed a man (not to mention those in his service) who had himself spent most of his life in our service all because they needed the fact they were arming a group against we the people’s consensus to be kept secret. That group is also our enemy. Meaning they would not invite you for dinner Janet nor would they care about your last meal. They also intentionally fingered an innocent man as inciting such with a movie viewed by almost a negative number until they made sure to point it out to groups it would incite for their own purposes. He’s in jail now. Why should you care? Well you shouldn’t. Don’t worry your pretty little head. Those whom you recently feigned concern for will eventually shoulder the burden of this mess in yet another war with no true backing from you or your peers (is hung out to dry as those at home argue subjects they’ve no intent of educating. Themselves on) they’ll keep it from your door another day. But someday…you are going to just be in full on shock. Adieu…I’ve hit my limit.

        • deepfork

          When did zeegee say he was for the GOP? Quite a leap from stating conservative to toting a party line. When did we all get here to two sides only? This thread has great discourse…such an antique. I think we all know a story has at least 3 sides…maybe we are the third? And no, not a tea partier or any really
          They draw ridiculous lines. Last I noticed we are all very different and truly more concerned.

      • Tynam

        Oh, he was attacking the president in a *non-political* way. Right.

        (And don’t you _dare_ use the camps my family fought to end and died in as a prop for your petty religious bigotry. You are not worthy to speak on that subject.)

      • Patricia

        And why must the president’s name be included in his talk? The President is a greater Christian than James Dobson. Dobson has been a hateful “Christian,” spewing vomit for Fifty years. I don’t believe he speaks for Americans. The Congresswoman seems to have a better relationship with Jesus than James does.

        • ZeeGee

          Patricia, the Bible is specific about who is and who is not a Christian. Some arbitrary definition of Christianity is a fiction based on somebody’s arbitrary understanding of who Jesus is.

          Suggesting that Dr. Dobson spews vomit and is hateful is a subjective opinion. You would be hard pressed to find a quote of Dobson’s that is hateful.

          From my perspective, those who stand up for what is right and good are more apt to be Christian that those who stand for the arbitrary slaughter of the unborn.

          You are entitled to your opinion. But, who is and who is not a Christina is not arbitrary, not some subjective opinion. It is, in fact, objective and well defined.

          • Patricia

            Get real, the bible doesn’t know who or who is not a Christian! When you have seen Dobson as much as I have, you can tell me what I don’t know! The study of biblical history “proves” that being a “Christina” is definitely subjective and not objective or defined. If you can prove I’m wrong then prove it!

          • ZeeGee

            The Bible is God’s definitive instruction manual for mankind. It reveals the secrets of the universe. It tells the story of Jesus Christ who was from the beginning of time God himself.

            The term “Christian” originally referred to a Jewish sect that recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah from Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets who foretold of the savior of mankind.

            To the point where of the 960 prophecies in the Old Testament, more than 500 have come to pass exactly as prophesied. Mathematically staggering odds that that would come to pass without some sort of Creator God behind those prophecies.

            So, the Bible is the definitive guide as to who is and who is not a Christian by definition. It doesn’t look into somebodies soul, it defines what is and is not a Christian.

            Not in the least subjective or arbitrary.

          • Patricia

            The fact that he called the President the Abortion president is hateful!

          • ZeeGee

            From Dobson’s perspective and mine, it is a statement of fact and not the least bit hateful. How is the truth ever hateful? It may hurt sometimes and will always set you free, so to speak. But, hateful?

          • Steve

            Geez, Pat, must every objectionable word be ascribed to “hate?” Can’t it just be, in the words of the president himself during his first campaign, “…just words, just speeches…”? Sticks and stones….good grief…

      • Mama62

        That’s your opinion. It isn’t anything more than your opinion. When you are asked to speak to a gathering where you know it is to be non-political in nature, if you can’t keep your mouth shut on political subjects, you should not accept the invitation. How is bashing the President no political?

        • ZeeGee

          Yes Mama, you are correct. Bashing the President is political. Dr. Dobson took upon himself to speak about a national tragedy when he had a national audience.

          My opinion, I am glad that he did. Highlighting the needless slaughter of 55 million innocent babies is a good thing.

      • catgrrrl

        The federal government does not fund abortion. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds for abortion except for cases of rape and incest. Dobson is just wrong when he claims that the ACA pays for abortion. It doesn’t. And saying that the IUD and the morning-after pill cause abortion doesn’t make it true.

    • mikem42

      Is anyone surprised that it was Dobson. His life story and affiliation with Family Focus is rife with scandal. A nasty example of Christiandom.

    • Sally Gill

      Mr. Simon, did you hear the whole speech? You do not know but Dr. Dobson may have brought it up to ray for the aborted/murdered babies.

  • camdenme2

    Get over it Janice !

  • voxon123

    Wow!… the Obama administration just forced Dobson’s organization into court to fight for its life. If they lost their case they would now be paying thousands in fines to the government, or violating their consciences, or closing down. The President could care less, or he would call of his dogs! Many Christian organizations have spent large sums of money in the last two years over this issue. Religious freedom in America… oh ya… if you are ready or fight or die for it. The barbarians have returned to the land, so the war rages once again. Quit ye like men!

  • voxon123

    They speak about the woman having the right to do with her own body what she wants. The problem, the scientists tell us that there is another little body forming inside her body. That the abortionists actually kills this particular body. If it were the woman’s would she too not die? She destroys another life, plain and simple. Even the scientists agree! The problem is people do not want science… they want their way. So enjoy it, and as for our President he is another barbarian wearing pinstripe suits and carrying a briefcase. Make no mistake about that! The clothes have changed but the heart is the same.

    • James

      And how do you feel about the death penality? Anti abortion, so are you anti death penality. Just curious.

      • GFRF

        Are you just plan uneducated?
        You compare a rapist and a murder with an innocent unborn person?
        Wow, our education system has really failed us!

        • James

          The word is plain not plan. I guess the nuns and priests that taught me all human life had value were uneducated. .

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            The nuns and priests, when they said ALL human life has value, didn’t make an exception for criminals, no matter how vile the crime.

          • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

            Indeed. Pope JPII was fairly clear on this point.

        • stevenharnack

          I think that it was your Jesus that did the comparing, not James, and I believe that he did find them to be equal.

  • jan

    Dobson is a self-aggrandizing zealot, and he violated the spirit of the event to put the spotlight on himself and his agenda. Hahn was correct to call him on it.

    • Layla

      NO, this was his event, God’s event.

      • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

        Actually, you don’t sound like you understand what the prayer breakfast was supposed to be.

        It was supposed to be a place where *all* people of faith, no matter what their politics, could gather for an ecumenical, politics-free prayer, along with other activities meant to encourage comity and good will.

        Now you may view religion as a tribal purification procedure, whereby outsiders are separated from insiders. Setting aside the anti-Christian spirit of such practices, it goes against the idea of the prayer breakfast.

        • Layla

          Who said anybody believes in a new religion, a tribal purification procedure?????? Because abortion is murder? That’s going to be between you and God.

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        The event did not belong to Dobson. The faiths represented there were not all Christian, and some don’t consider abortion a sin, because the soul doesn’t enter the body till the quickening, if then. This forcing of the tenet of some people’s faith on those of other faiths is why the Founders established Separation of Church and State in the first place.

    • LittleBritches

      Dobson beared false witness against Obama.

  • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

    Dobson is a ridiculous douche bag. I don’t think these people know how much harm they do religion and its role in our society with cheap stunts like this.

    • Layla

      I gave you the point for stating that racism is something personal, not religious. Nothing religious about it.

      • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

        How soon they forget…

        Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

        Judge Leon M. Bazile, Loving vs Virginia, 1959

  • James

    I guess if he believed in racism that it would also be okay to bring up since it is personal belief.

    • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

      Racism is a personal belief?

      • James

        Considering the basic tenets of Christian beliefs makes me think that believing in racism is more personal than belief related. In Catholic school I was taught all folks were the same. I’m assuming that this is a basic Christian belief and that someone who believes in racism does not believe that because of their faith.

        • Layla

          Bingo! Somebody who gets it.

        • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

          OK. But you suggested that it is a matter of personal belief whether there is in fact such a thing as racism.

      • Layla

        Yes, it is. Respect must be earned, no matter what color you are. The Nazis attempted to force people to think.

  • Dave Knight

    I’m just surprised a democrat could attend it in the first place given how intolerant 99.9% of Democrats are today. A family member of mine was a democrat two-term state rep in the late 50′s…an era when being a democrat was both respectable and was still congruent with Christianity. Sadly, those days are long gone.

    Fortunately (and hopefully), they can choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and ask Him for forgiveness of their sins. All of us are weak and sin
    regardless of political persuasion. Seek His forgiveness. Amen!

    • DoodyDoo

      i’m surprised that they would want to..they hate god..they removed him from their platform then booed when trying add him back…..

    • DoodyDoo

      i agree…political persuasion means nothing…we all need to repent and seek God now……i however do not see how any born again believer could be a democrat..

      • LittleBritches

        How sad you are that you have no knowledge other than your narrow little world. There is a Christian Left….we have a few big differences. We preach about the truth in the bible, we preach Gods love, and his grace. We don’t turn his word into hate for fellow man or about greed as your side does or use it as a weapon. We actually try to help the poor, sick and elderly. And we sure don’t to bear false witness as Dobson did regarding Obama.

        • DoodyDoo

          I am not on a side..I follow God..if you followed the God of the bible you would call tell them tor repent of sin flee God’s wrath..The wrath of God abides on the unrepetnant..also, there is no forgiveness promised apart from repentance..how do you know what i do for the poor? go judge yourself and repent..seek God while He can be found…be like the bereans and search the scriptures……

  • jIMR123

    Why would she be outraged?. President Obama told women that he would support abortion. Rep Hahn also is pro abortion.

    She agrees with what he said so why storm out?

  • GFRF

    He IS the abortion president!
    It’s the truth.
    He flipped on that issue too!
    An egregious hypocrite!
    Thank you Mr. Dobson.

  • ZeeGee

  • BobbyB

    You mean the Christian Party Mrs. Hahn? 0_o

  • michaelW1966

    Abortion is murder, however Dobson was wrong to use that day and that moment to say what he said

    • Layla

      No, he was not wrong. We still have freedom of speech, do we not?

      • Cambel

        They agreed no politics, so he also is a liar.

        • Layla

          Ah, here comes the name calling! Right on point, Cambel!

      • LittleBritches

        It was agreed to be non partisan and non political. Dobson hijacked it, he did more damage against a National day of Prayer because of his political speech. This was suppose to be a day of bringing people together NOT make a rift. He did more damage in the name of being a Christian to rally his base. I don’t understand what part of that you do not get…all your posts do nothing but criticize other peoples views. Not only that Dobson beared false witness against Obama.

      • Su Wu

        Do you have nothing better to do than expose your ignorance all day long? Non-partisan seems to escape your grasp, yet you’ve commented endlessly. Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Shut up.

    • BumpIt McCarthy

      I don’t agree with your position on abortion, but props to you for recognizing and acknowledging the nature of the gathering and who transgressed, rather than falling into mindless endorsement of whatever the guy with your beliefs does.

  • Andre Leonard

    “We have this annual, national day of prayer, which is supposed to bring the whole country together to pray for our nation, and typically you put politics aside and you come together,” Hahn told CQ Roll Call

    What a crock. Janice is a politician and so rightly stands for nothing that true religion stands for. Mr. Dobson is a Pastor who does stand for something. Family values.

    Shame on Janice for being such a hypocrite. It’s not like her neutrality prayer would accomplish anything anyway..

    • Cambel

      Family Values? Ohhhh, you mean bigotry and hatred. Hmm, you might want to rethink that, you guys keep on losing elections.

      • Andre Leonard

        I’m not the least bit religious, but in my studies of the Bible, it did predict that the immoral would be the majority in the end. The decay and immorality are all around us..

      • Layla

        Cambel, you want separation of church and state, yet you persist in attempting to link the two. This was a National Day of Prayer. If it offends you, stay home! It has nothing to do with elections!

  • Layla

    More tolerance from the “new” Democrat party.

    • Cambel

      Sorry, didn’t you get the memo? When somebody attacks somebody else and you object it isn’t being intolerant. But then again, seeing as how opposed most of you right wingers are to school funding I’m not surprised that your critical thinking ability isn’t able to distinguish this simple fact.

      • Layla

        I don’t want any of your “memos”, Cambel. People like you are not interested in hearing the comments of others. You need to move down to item 3 on the Democrat talking points list. Must be racism. So far, you’ve accused me of being against gays, then school funding, so the next must be racism!

        Am I right?

        • James Donnaught

          You tell us.

  • Prismatic

    In no sense is Obama “the abortion President.” Dobson might have mentioned the issue without pointing at the President, which is precisely the point where he brought politics in. The contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act is identical to the mandates in the insurance laws and regulations of 28 states, so there is nothing new in it except fundmantalists desire to make it a political issue by conflating contraception with abortion.

    • Layla

      Fundamentalists? You think we are all fundamentalists? BIG mistake. You have become the party of abortion and murder because of your own policies. When others try to talk to you about alternatives, you do not want to listen. You talk about a war on women, but think nothing of murdering babies. You preach poverty and food stamps and think nothing nor care about whether or not it is sustainable or not.

      The “new” Democrat party? God, I hope not.

      • Cambel

        Why should anybody think anything else about you? You haven’t offered anything constructive politically, all you do is rant about gays, abortion, and prayer. But please, keep it up and lose more elections.

        • Layla

          Excuse me??? I haven’t ranted about anybody. Trying shut me out, Cambel?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Search “Scientific Abortion Laws”

      • Prismatic

        It would be more effective to respond to what was written rather than just run through a litany of unrelated political points.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Layla, —-party of abortion and murder—-

        Pro lifers have a choice, they can save innocent born babies, children and adults, or they can let them die and save fetuses instead. Pro lifers of course choose to let the babies die. That is far worse than abortion. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

  • Cambel

    Louie Gohmerts defense of Dobson was idiotic. If everybody agreed that it was supposed to be non-political then Dobson broke that agreement. Gohmerts assertion that Dobson’s religion and his political beliefs are the same also then demonstrates where legislators like him come from in their opinions. If they want to live in a country with Sharia law then they need to move to Saudi Arabia.

    • Jeremiah_the_Bullfrog

      Has Gohmert ever said anything that was not idiotic? I swear that man is the least distinguished person elected to Congress in modern history.

  • View From The Left

    James Dobson is merely one of the many backwoods, backwards, vile, vulgar, repugnant and repellant, unAmerican, unChristian, bigoted haters in this country. There are many of them. Thankfully, there are many more of us than them.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    The greatest sin is by— Dobson— and the rest of the pro
    lifers that have never really saved a life. The fact is that there are 1.8 born
    humans dying each second. Dobson and the rest of the foolish pro life movement
    have a choice, they can save the innocent born babies that are dying or they
    can save a fetus instead. The can’t save both, because if they spend even 1
    second attempting to save a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies die. How
    may seconds do you think Dobson has spend in his life allowing born babies to
    die? Millions? http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

    • Mark Drummond

      Your math doesn’t jive. Go back to school.

  • http://www.eideard.com/ Eideard

    The Republican Party has succeeded in gathering together the greatest number of useless, reactionary and hatefilled ideologues since George Wallace. Credit where due, etc..

  • BeverlyNC

    The Billy Graham Ministry has become a political organization. This is against everything Billy Graham stood for and he would be furious if he knew what was going on in his name. His son, Franklin, came out for Mitt Romney and now his daughter is attacking the President with ridiculous and slanderous comments. God is not political. The Billy Graham Ministries should lose their tax-exempt status since they have become very involved in politics and make political speeches and endorse candidates.
    I grew up when Billy Graham did his city revival meetings and sang in the choir when he was in Charlotte. He was a friend of my grandfather and a very honorable and genuine man.
    Franklin is a charlatan using religion to make a living.
    The whole association has been destroyed by his children and it is sad and shameful.

  • travelingprincess

    I think it is completely inappropriate to have prayer meetings intertwined with anything political. You want to have a prayer meeting, go to a church. Or the nearest Hyatt. Completely off campus and away from the den of thieves that comprise this or any other Congress.

  • Greene

    Regardless of what one thinks of Dobson, and I’m not a following of Janice Hahn, I do agree that this event and meeting was not the place for Dobson to air his letter on the Affordable Care issue and his lawsuit – he has a radio program for that. Rather, as I heard on the radio during the day, the event speeches should have been about the history of the National Day of Prayer, when/where/who started it and it’s purposes, with invited speakers praying openly for our country, it’s leaders and peoples – regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on.
    * If you can find it, Billy Grahams daughter’s prayer was very well delivered and was what was called for.

  • billybob

    Shame on Rep Hahn…i hope Dr Dobson DID do some damage to “what we’re trying to do in Washington

  • http://socialmarketingfella.com/ Andre F. Bourque

    Nothing more sacred than the Republican agenda.

  • Plow Comms

    As part of his personal jihad against Christians & Christianity, Hussein Obama actively neglected to appoint a religious freedom ambassador.

    • prado4587

      It’s even worse…Nobama’s state department continues to issue its annual religious freedom report which includes criticism of Muslim countries treatment of christians. Nobama must be stopped http://www.state.gov/j/drl/irf/

    • Su Wu

      troll

  • Neil Schmidt

    Pro lifers are one trick ponies who in reality don’t give a toss about children other than to exploit the unborn for purposes of political gain. Thank you Francis Schaeffer. The saddest part is having watched the Religious Right manipulated into a frenzy over this single issue simply to get Reagan elected. I support Congressman Hahn on calling that scumbag out. I’ll quit trying to end Christianity when it quits being so arrogant to assume that it has any business telling other people how to exist and using the power of the State to do so. Your faith is irrelevant to me.

  • KatieAnnieOakley

    Which part of “non-partisan” did Dobson not quite understand? WWJD?

    • James Donnaught

      The three-letter part.

  • betsym

    This was a nonpartisan meeting. Dobson was wrong. Whether you agree or don’t agree those politcal points weren’t supposed to be brought up. First of all he’s wrong because there is the Hyde Amendment which will not allow federal funds for abortions. I’m really tired of the religious right constantly saying that this President is responsible for people having free abortions.

    It’s so sad that this country can’t put their disagreements aside and pray for our country and our military. That’s what it’s supposed to be for. And as Teddy Simon said, one person ruined it.

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

    I think that’s proof that it is no longer possible to have an “annual, national day of prayer, which brings the whole country together to pray for our nation,”

    The concept of concentrating solely on common ground is lost on too many. It’s their way, or the Highway.

    So be it. It was an idea worth trying.

  • Hadris Ellsberg

    If Hussein Obama will lie about everything else, it’s certainly reasonable to conclude that he is lying about being a Christian.

    • Marty Martin

      “Tax cuts for corporations create jobs.” — Republicans, HAHA – in China

  • Marty Martin

    The Republican Taliban makes a mockery of America.

  • Mychele Hillary

    Oh, so it’s explained away by his buddy saying that, “I can also well understand Dr. Dobson’s frustration because it is their belief that assisting in any way, including providing funding, for abortion, is a sin. It’s not something that he should support and so he felt like this was a good time to let people know what he was going through. So I understand that.” Well how nice. “What he’s going through,” is not the purpose of the National Day of Prayer for EVERYONE. He hijacked the event, just like his lousy partisan wife hijacked the event and made it Evangelicals Only, all others to the water fountain down the hall. He should be banned from future events, they should be banned from future events, and other faiths should be able to take turns organizing this event in the true spirit of its founding. Seriously, the Dobsons are a joke and so is our continued putting up with their antics.

  • silverbackV

    Mychele, Teddy, you are wrong abortion is one of our national disgraces, as is homosexual marriage, it’s not a political thing and it shouldn’t be a political thing. It has been made a political thing by the left. The murder of babies is a national disgrace, it is a matter of prayer to correct it. There is no true faith or denomination in the Judeo-Chistian world that endorses the wholesale murder of babies. Nothing was high jacked, it is a matter for prayer.

    2 Chronicles 7:14
    King James Version (KJV)
    14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    • Su Wu
      • ThisNameInUse

        Of course it did. There are scriptures in that barbaric document that explain how conquerers of new territory are free to rape the women there and take their male family members as slaves. And other similar dictums.

        It also reminds you (Deut. 21:18-21) that “the Lord” commands you to stone your misbehaving children to death.

        This is the book these wretched primitive peoples of our backwoods red states consider their “handbook for living”.

      • silverbackV

        It does speak a lot about the “shedding of innocent blood” and causing “children to walk through the fire”. National repentance is necessary and in order.

    • http://www.aclu.org i1n1f1o1m1a1n1i1a1c1

      No, it has been made political by the right as they pass laws to shutdown clinics that provide abortion and requiring a woman seeking an abortion to get a medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasound, which the doctor must then show to her.

      • silverbackV

        It was political long before Roe vs Wade. Your scope of reference is very narrow. That is not surprising. The left has lied through the whole process and the weak of mind has bought in.

        • http://www.aclu.org i1n1f1o1m1a1n1i1a1c1

          The right is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

          • silverbackV

            Nor is the wrong.

  • texasaggie

    When both Dobson and Gohmert make the false statement that taxpayer money is being used for abortions, then you know exactly what type of individuals they are. Both of them are well aware that it is illegal for the government to fund abortions. And Dobson is well aware that Obama said nothing of the kind when he accused Obama of advocating abortions during his campaign. They are such low-life scum that they would need a step ladder to reach the belly of a worm crawling over top them.

    • http://www.aclu.org i1n1f1o1m1a1n1i1a1c1

      Wait, are you implying that God fearing Christians are lying?

  • glogrrl

    I don’t blame her…..I am sick of these “religious” hypocrites bashing our president…..suppose he got on the White House lawn and condemned the Christians in this country who perpetrate war and racial animus in this country? I’m sure they would be “scandalized” and a great uproar would ensue. The Bible says NOTHING about abortion or the viability of a clump of cells as a human being, so those who hew to Biblical teaching should just keep their mouths shut.

  • tmf354

    Just goes to point out the ridiculousness of even having a national day of prayer. Abolish it already. It’s unnecessary.

  • Patricia

    Why couldn’t he just state his views regarding abortion. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Isn’t this racist?

  • Mama62

    Hopefully he will never be invited to speak at that function again. He can’t be trusted to keep his personal opinions to himself and participate in a prayer function that is all inclusive. Sounds like the typical “my way or the highway” frame of mind. People like Dobson do not respect others right to participate in a non political prayer gathering. He had no right to speak the way he did and she was right to get up and leave. Sadly others didn’t have as much integrity.

  • mulwillie

    Tell me what’s the magical transformation, that happens in conservative minds, when a fetus travels through the birth canal and goes from being a gift from God and the most valuable thing in our country to a mooch / taker and a burden on society?

    • zaphod703

      Probably the same magical transformation that liberal minds see baby inside a woman not being alive and just coming out of the womb creates life. thats it. So its just when does life begin? Both Sides have FAITH they are right… not proof. Democrats support Abortions… Republicans oppose it. I will say at least GOP can admit they oppose it… THis politician getting upset over ‘Abortion President’? Obama supports abortions. He wants them to continue to happen. He has never said he doesn’t. If you called Obama the Same Gendered Marriage President… is that bad? Only if you take it as an insult. Obama now supports same gendered marriage (but was voted into president opposing it)…. its only an insult if you think its wrong. Do you think Obama is for or against the practice of Abortions? And than followed up…. Do you take it as an insult to say someone support its?

      • mulwillie

        The point of my previous statement was – Your position of no choice for a woman should also require no choice for conservatives but to give legitimately needed support to families who decide to have children. Unfortunately the only thing you hear from conservatives is the 47% mooch / takers to justify cutting even more to poor families.

  • wiseaker

    Back to the original topic. Rev. Dobson made a mockery of himself by failing to follow the agreed-upon format. It is not the first time I, a Christian but not a Republican, have been embarrassed by the behavior of a self-righteous ideologue. I resent the fact that such people dare to suggest that they represent me. Not all Christians behave the way he does nor believe everything the same way he does.

  • ThisNameInUse

    Dobson and his fellow Taliban sympathizers here in our country are a constant insult to every one of our men and women in the Armed Forces who risked their lives to fight this faction’s Central Asian contingent in Afghanistan all these years. If they really feel this strongly that women shouldn’t have a say over what goes on in their own bodies, they should be compelled to expatriate themselves to join their beating-stick bearing brethren over in the hills of Tora Bora. There (or in Iran, or Saudi Arabia for that matter), they will find their ideological soulmates who share their loathing for our liberal Western freedoms. Or they should emigrate to Uganda or Somalia, where gays face the death penalty. But they clearly, clearly don’t belong here in this country.

    The free, modern West is no place for these fundamentalist throwbacks to the twelfth century.

  • James Donnaught

    Gohmert? Enuf said.

  • Sally Gill

    The whole point is that Dr. Dobson was quoting what President Obama said about himself. That isn’t political. Dr. Dobson also spoke for more than just a minute but the only thing that he said that is brought to the forefront was quoting Obama. Truth hurts, Obama IS THE ABORTION (MURDER)N PRESIDENT. Abortion is murder. The basic definition of murder is to “stop a beating heart”. The heart beat of a developing baby can be detected 18 days AFTER CONCEPTION, before many women even know they are pregnant.

    • Chubby Rain

      By that definition, any cardiovascular surgeon who stops a patient’s heart in the course of performing coronary bypass surgery is in fact committing murder.
      It is also a fact that approximately 50% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. If your God cared so much about human fetuses, you would think he would have designed the human body to have a higher success rate when it comes to pregnancy.

    • LittleBritches

      Can you provide a link with statements of Obamas statements to the fact him saying he was the Abortion President….funny I find no statements of this. Otherwise it looks like Dobson needs to re-read the 10 commandments as it appears he broke one…..thou shall not bear false witness.

  • Christine smith

    The irony here ! ” A-NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER” so people of all faiths gather together to PRAY to the creator of the universe for the clarity wisdom and guidance of this nation . So ,dobson shines a light on a moral issue before God ,(not a political issue mind you) because it says PRAYER! But you have one person who says” God I’m praying to you for this nation but I don’t like the abortion issue ,so tell me about other things ,if not I’m walking out” this is laughable ,but disturbing ! Any other meeting ok,but a PRAYER meeting really? Regardless of what any one thinks of Dobson or his views .he shines a light on a MORAL issue .maybe just maybe God HAS expressed his view through Dobson .it speaks volumes that Hahn couldn’t get anyone to walk out with her and I’m glad

    • http://www.aclu.org i1n1f1o1m1a1n1i1a1c1

      People of all faiths are not against abortion, and the fact he singled out President Obama did indeed make it political.

      • Christine smith

        ” founded 1954 on the constitutionalnrights of freedom of SPEECH and freedom of RELIGEON to be celebrated by all Americans ” not to mention that Obama IS the “abortion president ,whether you want to believe it or not .he has been a very vocal president who has not hid ,applauded ,supported or fought for abortion rights ! Abortion aside ,PRAYER ! His right of speech to single this subject out that goes against the majority of people that feel it needs to be addresed .kudos to him

        • http://www.aclu.org i1n1f1o1m1a1n1i1a1c1

          You’re off on a tangent. They agreed it wouldn’t be a political event and he violated this by targeting the president. It’s that simple.

          • Christine smith

            Oh? is there a law on this non profit PROMISE? How sad ,people look at the letter of the law and not the spirit . No depth ,no understanding of a deeper issue ,but a typical left wing fanaticism .

          • LittleBritches

            So now we can trust you all are liars and will not hold to be nonpartisan or political when agreements are made. Dobson did a disservice to NPD by his statements, he also broke one of the Commandments….bearing false witness.

  • Beatrice Pryor

    Marxism, the ideological precursor of today’s liberalism, originated as a reaction against Christianity in early 19th century Germany.

    • Chubby Rain

      Really? It seemed to be more a critique of Capitalism to me. Is it hard taking the view that everyone who disagrees with you must be “anit-Christian”?

  • Mystyryman

    I’m going to see if my community might like to hold town counsel meetings during Mass at church. Pass out communion wafers while collecting ayes or nays.

  • Christine smith

    Ok so why is everyone upst by what dobson said? Put aside politics and religion for a minte . If abortion is your issue ,why not shout it out . And what’s wrong with admittining obama is THE most vocal pro abortion president in the history of USA . C’mon pro aborts ,speak out .hail to you .I am doing the same but on the opposite side .speak ,applauld , don’t get indignant ,why so angry ? Hmmmmmmm speaks volumes

  • blfdjlj

    Complete nonsense. An evangelist who repeats blatant lies should be treated the same way we would treat Iran’s Ayatollah if he came to Congress.

    • PT

      Should we treat a president who repeats blatant lies this way also? At least 36 times Obama said you could keep your insurance, knowing it to be a lie. Not to mention lying about not having said it despite video proof.

      • blfdjlj

        36 times? really that many?

  • zx74125800

    Separation of Church and State, may the NeoCons will finally see that removing the tax exempt status of a organization violates this concept would get everyone’s attention. This country like the Iraqi war, is mired in a religious civil war. The US citizens versus the religious evangelicals looking to overthrow this country’s political foundations, history.

    We are at a very dangerous place. Pull all tax exempt status until a religious organization proves they will adhere to the guidelines.

    Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned. Again when the 2020 Census is the catalyst for real congressional re-districting, eliminating districts with no competitive races. I am much more concerned about the separation of church and state, we are a secuilar country. Historically and for the immediate future.

  • Carl Christensen

    Sanctimonious Jeezus is really angry! Only in the US do you get such a shrill Jeezus that really loves the rich hypocrites…..

  • Judith_Priest

    She was an awesome LA City Councilmember. Glad to see her stickin’ to her guns.

  • Oscar’s Wilde

    Quasi-marxist dictates issued by the Army at Walter Reed Medical Center actively obstruct service personnel’s rights of religious freedom.

  • PT

    So now we are suppose to believe that a liberal has standards? So the there was a lapse in not being political. Big deal, this is politics, no reason to make a spectacle of herself. Now if only she would worry about Americans half as much. You remember, don’t you Hahn? Transparency in the WH, lies about Benghazi, IRS, NSA… Or is it only when the dems do NOT get to make the changes it is bad? Not much different than when Rep Wilson called Obama a liar, both of them were disruptive and out of line. How would Hahn react if the same were pulled on her?
    Publicity stunt is all it was on Hahn’s behalf.

  • TLCTugger

    Act of God kills 5 times as many American preborns as act of Man. This God has proven over and over He is the murder god.

  • MikeyDe

    The liberal baby killers just do not wish to be reminded that every abortion is the wanton murder of a human being. They think its a tadpole in there.

  • disqus_at95K9bcZs

    I am actually on the same side as Dobson but he has morphed beyond any possibility of influence in politics. No one cares what he says anymore. He himself carries too much baggage. I wish he would just be quiet and enjoy his retirement.

  • nanotab

    I have no idea who invites the person who leads the prayer(s), but that person or group made a mistake in inviting Dobson or any person who can’t offer remarks and prayers that bring people together rather than offering divisive remarks.

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...