Sick… Obama Says Abortion “Enables Our Daughters” to “Fulfill Their Dreams”

Barack Obama released a statemtent this past weekend on the 39th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision. Obama said abortion “enabled our daughters” to “fulfill their dreams.”

Previously, in a speech endorsing abortion, Barack Obama told an audience that he didn’t want his daughters punished with a baby.

CNS News reported:

President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

The 1974 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter. In his written statement, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been a divisive political issue.

Obama, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature and as president of the United States, has taken a hard line on abortion rights.

In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • GrandmaC

    Obama is very evil . How anyone with moral character can support him is beyond me.

  • Missy8s

    President Downgrade’s job plan:

    Murder your baby, go to college at the expense of your neighbor and get a non-existent “green” job at one of his taxpayer funded shell corporations.

  • Mama Grizzly

    Yeah–why IS that?

  • FurryGuy

    I find it amazing and more than a little disturbing that this administration willfully ignores its Constitutional duties by gutting the military (defense of the US being a duty explicitly outlined in the document) to further an agenda only penumbraed into US law.

    Why is Scot V. US considered a bad decision when at the time it was adjudicated slavery was still legal and provisions for it written into the Constitution, but Roe V. Wade is good law when there is no language at all directly guaranteeing it?

    Just as with Obamacare, a gross misreading of the Constitution happened to discover out of whole cloth a “right”.

  • Bunni

    Spoken just like a demon, minion of satan. He’s going to hell for sure on this alone…..not to mention all the other crap he does on a daily basis.

  • pagar

    I’m not sure that most daughters dream of killing inconvenient kids.


    Calling 0BAMA and the CINO’s what they are… MUST SEE –

  • Thomas

    “…but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said.”

    Hmm, so why is it, the more liberal-progressive controlled an area is, then the more it will have in place:

    – draconian smoking-bans, indoors and outdoors, into privately owned homes and with hundreds to thousands of dollars in fines, including for outdoor smoking under the auspices of the smoke-police (San Francisco, good example).

    – draconian eating-bans, school lunch codes, foods prohibited, children ordered to eat under scrutiny of lunch-police, watching to make sure they eat as they are told, not as they like (Los Angeles, good example).

    – draconian national propaganda campaigns of hate and discrimination against the (naturally in some instances) “obese” (Michelle Obama, good example).

    The list goes on. The point is, why when it comes to normalizing sinful murder of unborn children, does that need constant encouragement as the best thing to do with no government intervention at all, while all the other things previously considered normal such as smoking, eating, drinking, etc. – those things all need constant government regulation and interference into even our own homes, being told how to behave to fit the government mold.

    In San Francisco, BTW, they made it a city law that no family planning clinic or organization in the city is permitted to offer services if it does not also counsel and offer abortion services. Therefore, ALL family planning will require abortion be offered – even if it’s a church – they will need to offer abortion.

    This is how liberal-progressives think – it is a pick-and-choose form of illiberalism-regressive – where they get to pick-and-choose – and everyone else must obey.

    It makes me wonder too. Back in Jesus’ day, there were several instances of Pharoahs and Emperors finding reasons to kill all the little newly born male babies – out of fear that Christ would enter into this world. Given the way things are today, especially in this country, with a bunch of illiberal-regressive sinful anti-Christ types running the show – could this incessant pressure for more and more and more abortion – just be the same fear as back in Biblical days, that Christ is going to come a second time – and this time around they are also trying to kill him off, before he gets a chance to get outside the womb.

    I know that’s fantastical to think that way, but I’m just saying, it’s something I wonder about, when I hear all that fanatical demands for freebie abortions on demand round the clock 24/7/365 like it was some wonderful thing to do, some marvelous right (to murder for the convenience of the selfish parents).

  • Agathon

    #$54, it’s because most Catholics are smart enough to know that the Pope is a senile old coot in a dress who is totally out of touch with their own values.

  • Liz

    This does disgust me. IMPEACHMENT solves the problem.

  • 11B3V

    Pure evil.

  • Patty

    Gee, this coming from a person who wasn’t aborted. Isn’t it odd that those who are here on God’s earth are so poetic and profound when it comes to killing others. Shameful comment we are well aware of his intentions.

    Boxer, Pelosi, Sebilus all are alive because the mothers decided to keep them.

    Woman are successful with babies, I am watching one right now, the main thing that Obama is missing is parents with intelligence can teach their children in a level where they can understand without the help of Obama. His opinions are this matter don’t matter to anyone of us. It is like he thinks we are the child and he is a supreme leader. Go away, please just go away.

  • Patty

    And my mother had six children and very lucky that she was so pro life, for her last baby because, if she had listened to doctor, after the fifth child, who said no more, my wonderful youngest sister would not be here. And by the way she was the first to go to college and now a teacher.

  • gee!

    #33 bing………

  • Patty

    Mother or murderer, that is the choice? Babies have no say, adoption is the other option.

  • StrangernFiction

    Come on folks, he’s “well-meaning.”

  • USMC Thomas

    Shame his mother wasn’t able to fulfill her dream.

  • Militant Conservative

    Evil endorses evil acts. Nuff said.

    Obama is evil

  • FurryGuy

    No wonder Barry expressed a desire a while back he was the President of China, the ChiComs have one of the most draconian population control policies ever enacted.

  • Patty

    A person has rights, and a non-person doesn’t, so if the issue is framed only as a contest between the rights of a person and a non-person, the person wins. However, (state) law may protect things that are not persons, essentially as a kind of public property. It may also restrain the ways a person with superior rights may exercise those rights against another entity, person or non-person. Thus, the owner of a piece of property who has consented to another person visiting him there, then orders him to leave, does not thereby immediately acquire the right to shoot him. He does not have the duty to allow the visitor to stay if the visitor will die of exposure if evicted, but he should still be alive when he is evicted. Thus, without violating the rights of the pregnant person, a state could require that the abortion be conducted, if possible, in a way that would leave the fetus alive at the point it is ejected, presumably into the care of others. However, this requirement could not constitutionally “burden” the right of the person to eject. It would have to be at least as easy as killing the fetus, and any additional expense would have to be borne by the party seeking live termination. Now, admittedly, there is presently no way to do that in most cases, but as a theoretical proposition, it is constitutionally permissible.

    In this statement it makes you feel that they are talking about a piece of property (Land) Yet, even government can come in and take your land, if the wish. Supreme Court called the last property fight with a couple and EPA dismissal. The case was nonsense and the couple won.

    With abortion the Congress needs to look at the wording of Roe vs. Wade and change this.

    this fight is one that has continued for years. But Obama and his comments will not after 2012 elections. His opinion on Social issue are the very reason Newt is winning. Freedom and America and for me the unborn should have rights. Telling this nation a baby is a punishment by a President has never been said before. He is catering to his base and political career. And using the unborn to do it.