Concerned Women for America - Crouse Laments the President’s Spin at Notre Dame

Search for on

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Home

Click here

Crouse Laments the President’s Spin at Notre Dame 5/19/2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The controversy over Notre Dame inviting a pro-abortion President to deliver the 2009 Commencement Address and award him an Honorary Degree has not abated following the President’s remarks over the weekend. In his typical way, the 44th President used his rhetorical skills to defuse the controversy and to seem to be “all things to all men.” He admitted that the two polar opposite points of view about abortion are “irreconcilable” and that while many people want to “fudge” the differences, our President believes that the nation can find “common ground” by reducing the “need” for abortion and by having, “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, “Sadly, the American public — especially the typical college student — has not learned to listen with discernment. So, an address that is carefully crafted to appear reasonable and thoughtful on a very controversial issue, glosses over decisions and policies that are profoundly pro-abortion. Once again, this President’s actions are inconsistent with the words that describe the Administration’s values and intentions.”

“In a sop to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups,” Crouse continued, “the President said he will stress ‘pregnancy prevention’ — which, being translated, means megabucks for condom-based sex education and contraception programs around the world. The President stressed the importance of ‘sound science’ when talking about his approach to ‘pregnancy prevention,’ which means he will buy into the scurrilous attacks on abstinence-based programs.”

Crouse concluded, “In short, the speech was a campaign event designed to win over cultural conservatives for 2010 and 2012. Even his nod about a ‘sensible conscience clause,’ offers him lots of political and philosophical wiggle room. His acknowledgement of the ‘moral and spiritual dimensions’ of abortion will be enough for some people to grant him points on the issue, even though he provided no substance for the meaning or application of those ‘dimensions.’”