President Barack Obama has made some major contradictions about the value of children’s lives during his time in office.
This summer, Obama said he believes “every child is entitled to life.” In a November interview, Obama said he encourages his daughters to “look out for the vulnerable.” But these feel-good statements mean nothing when they are compared to Obama’s record of overwhelming support for abortion.
Obama, who has been labeled the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, voted against protections for babies who survive abortions and admitted that he would support aborting his own grandchild. He also has threatened to veto just about any pro-life bill that reaches his desk.
This week, Obama’s Executive Office made another statement that directly contradicts the president’s record on abortion, according to CNS News.
In the document, “Long-Term Benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” Obama’s Executive Office inadvertently recognizes “children” in the womb and the importance of protecting their health as it argues for the expansion of the food stamp program, the news site reports.
The paper says women are “mothers” while still only pregnant. And one of the paper’s key points — printed in bold in the executive summary — is: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s “positive impact on children begins even before birth and lasts well beyond their childhood years.”
The paper elaborates: “Recent research focusing on the rollout of the Food Stamp Program in the 1960s and 1970s shows the benefits begin even before a child is born: mothers who receive Food Stamps during pregnancy have a reduced incidence of low-birth weight babies by between 5 and 12 percent.”
At one point, the authors of the White House paper try to build a rhetorical barrier between “children” and their purported precursors who once lived “in utero.” But even here, they use precisely one of the terms Obama used 14 years ago when voting against calling a born baby who has survived an abortion an individual.
“Individuals who receive food assistance in utero or as children may continue to reap the benefits decades after initial exposure,” says the paper.
Are these the kind of “individuals” Obama believes you can constitutionally kill?
The very next sentence of the White House paper says, “A growing body of research suggests that health investments in utero have important long-run implications.”
Do these latest words from the Oval Office signal a change in the president’s views? Probably not, given Obama’s close ties to the abortion industry; but there’s always hope that abortion advocates will see the truth about the value of life in the womb – just as there’s hope for the lives of every unborn child.