Obama warns that he will veto Republican bill that would ban third trimester abortions

Here’s a story from the Weekly Standard that makes clear where the President stands on abortion.


Last week, Jay Carney ducked a question on President Obama’s position on a bill banning elective abortions during the final four months of pregnancy. The White House issued a statement Monday saying that the president would veto the bill:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose.  Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose.  This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution.  The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion.  At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.

If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

H.R. 1797 prohibits most abortions that take place later than 22 weeks into pregnancy (20 weeks after conception), the point at which some babies can survive long-term if born. The bill contains exceptions for when the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or when a physical health condition puts the life of the mother at risk.

In addition to that, Obama supports abortions where the baby is born alive (infanticide):

When Obama opposed a bill to stop infanticide as a member of the Illinois legislature, he said he did so because it reportedly contained language that would have contravened the Roe v. Wade decision. However, documents uncovered during the 2008 election show Obama has misrepresented his position.

Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

It also protected babies who were “aborted” through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

On the federal level, pro-abortion groups withdrew their opposition to the bill after a section was added making sure it did not affect the status of legal abortions in the United States. Ultimately, the bill was approved on a unanimous voice vote with even leading pro-abortion lawmakers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing it.

And finally, Obama very likely supports sex-selection abortions.


President Barack Obama appears to oppose the ban on sex-selection abortions that the House of Representatives debated yesterday and will be voting on today.

ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper posted a new report indicating President Obama opposes the bill to prohibit performing or coercing abortions to eliminate unborn babies of an undesired sex. Tapper raised the question at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, but did not receive a respond to his question about Obama’s position.

[…]White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith told him in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson was upset to learn Obama opposes the common-sense bill, telling LifeNews:  “It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”

The Democrat Party also  supports sex-selection abortions. Their view is that the mere fact that an unborn child is female is sufficient reason to kill that child. Is that pro-women? What could be more discriminatory and anti-women than that?

In case you didn’t know, Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion President that we’ve ever had, a fact that you can verify by skimming over his pro-abortion record. The man has essentially the same view of abortion as Kermit Gosnell. This is a person who does not have moderate, common-sense views on moral issues. If he ever acted on his radical, extremist views, like Gosnell did, then he would be thrown in jail, like Gosnell was. Instead, a bunch of people who claim to believe in God voted this man into office, twice. How is that even possible?

5 thoughts on “Obama warns that he will veto Republican bill that would ban third trimester abortions”

  1. How is it possible that we elected Obama twice? Apparently, being a Christian, to a lot of people, is about your personal beliefs and feelings, not about facts and evidence. And, of course, your personal beliefs, apparently, aren’t supposed to affect how you live your life, much less how you vote. Voting is a political thing. Christianity is a spiritual thing. To these people, those two things are different spheres that don’t influence each other. Thus, you have people who live and vote without ever asking themselves how Christians should see political issues or how the candidates line up with Biblical values. They don’t live out their Christianity in the rest of life. They relegate it to just something they do on Sundays and Wednesday nights – an emotional feeling about God they like to have, but which doesn’t change their life in any way. And so they vote for the candidate who has popularity or looks or sounds good without ever evaluating how his views line up with God’s. It’s sad that we have come to this.


    1. I fear that it is so. I attened a conservative church with a pastor who is well known for his excellent preaching. He considers it a horrible thing to connect what the Bible teaches to anythig in the outside world. For him, it is actually a BAD THING to use evidence to confirm the Bible. So you have people in his church who affirm pro-life and pro-marriage because the Bible says so, who nevertheless voted for Obama twice because politics and religion are two separate spheres. That is what my pastor accomplishes.


      1. I hear and see the same things you are describing and I think to myself how can your faith not influence over all spheres? If we have the Truth and do not let it transform the whole of our lives then we have denied the Truth.


  2. The man is nauseating.

    And this sentence is telling:
    “The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, *and minimize the need for abortion*.”

    Why would they want to “minimize the need for abortion” but still want to place no legal restrictions on it? They know there’s something wrong with it. But they cannot bring themselves to enact legislation that results in consequences for adults’ sexual activity. Adults have an inalienable *right* to sex without consequences. Who cares if children have to suffer and die, right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s