Why can't Obama say the word 'abortion'? 

Today's National Review editorial on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is well worth reading in it's entirety, and I encourage you to do so. There's one key point that I would like to highlight: 

The case of Kermit Gosnell reached the newspapers just a few days before the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. President Obama did not mention Gosnell in his official statement celebrating the anniversary. But the case sheds more light on Roe’s import than the statement did.

Obama did not refer to the word “abortion,” preferring instead to discuss “reproductive freedom” and the “fundamental principle” that “government should not intrude on private family matters.” The stories about Gosnell were a little less abstract. They told of a clinic where dirty instruments spread venereal disease, cats roamed and defecated freely, and some patients died. The state government conducted essentially no oversight; administrations of both parties wanted to keep abortion as free from governmental intrusion as possible.

Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic’s lack of hygiene is not the detail that has captured the most attention, or inspired the most outrage. It turns out that Gosnell frequently, perhaps hundreds of times, fully delivered intact fetuses and then used scissors on the newborn. In his words, he engaged in “snipping” to “ensure fetal demise.” In many cases, the fetuses were in the third trimester.

Why can't Obama bring himself to say the word 'abortion'? That's what he supports. Perhaps contrasting the harsh reality of abortion versus a woman's "right to choose" so obviously undermines the case for killing unborn children on demand that he'd prefer to stay in some abstract fantasyland.

About The Author

Mark Hemingway

Pin It
Favorite

More by Mark Hemingway

Latest in Nation

Friday, Apr 20, 2018

Videos

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation