D.C. cops ban pro-life messages /Obama backed infanticide

January 17, 2009

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATHD.C. cops ban pro-life messages 'Is this the future of free speech and political dissent under President Obama?'

Posted: January 16, 200912:10 am Eastern

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view & pageId=86217

White House

The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department has forbidden a pro-life gathering and chalk display during Inauguration Week – and now the group is fighting back with a lawsuit against the District of Columbia.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the department is banning the event because of its message.

"For over 16 years, law enforcement officials have given permission to the Christian Defense Coalition to use public 'sidewalk chalking' as a part of their demonstrations and vigils in the nation's capitol. The City of Washington, D.C., has also allowed numerous public 'chalk art displays' throughout the city," he said in a statement. "It is therefore most troubling that for the first time the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department is banning this practice when it involves a pro-life display in front of the White House."

Thursday, Jan. 22, marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Since 1974, pro-life activists have gathered in Washington, D.C., each year to protest the decision and call attention to millions of lives lost.

The Christian Defense Coalition and Generation Life and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust asked for permission to meet and draw sidewalk chalk messages on the sidewalk near the White House, as many groups have often done during public assemblies.

However, Commander James Crane denied their request in a Jan. 7 letter. He also said applying chalk to Pennsylvania Avenue and adjacent sidewalks "would constitute defacing public property in violation of D.C. Official Code 22-3312.01."

James Matthew Henderson Sr., senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, immediately responded to Crane's letter, claiming the commander applied laws intended to prevent graffiti to the group's chalk display.

Washington, D.C., 2005 event invited children to "chalk for peace."

He cited other cases where sidewalk chalking was permitted – including a youth chalk art contest the city hosted for three years, and a D.C. event in 2005 where children were invited to "chalk for peace." He included pictures of the incidents.

Ryan said permission was denied to Rev. Mahoney based on the groups' viewpoint and content of speech.

Now the Christian Defense Coalition is filing a lawsuit in U. S. District Court on Friday, accusing the police department of infringing on First Amendment free speech rights. The pro-life activists are seeking a temporary restraining order against police.

"Is this the future of free speech and political dissent under President Obama?" Mahoney asked in his statement. "The streets in front of the White House should be open to all views, opinions and thoughts. It should not be a place of censorship and intimidation. I hope this was not the kind of change President Obama was talking about."

WorldNetDailyUnearthed transcript shows Obama backed infanticideHas insisted his concern was abortion rights, but floor comments in 2002 contradict claimhttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view & pageId=73040

Sen. Barack Obama has insisted he did not back a state bill protecting babies born alive from failed abortions because it would undermine Roe vs. Wade, but a newly unearthed transcript of his arguments from the floor of the Illinois Senate indicate otherwise.

Arguing against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, after even Planned Parenthood had dropped its opposition, Obama expressed concern that the bill might burden abortionists, reports blogger Erick Erickson on RedState.com.

Erikson, noting Obama was the only lawmaker to speak out against the protective measure, summarized the senator's concern this way: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

According to the transcript, Obama said:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Erickson points out that when the Illinois legislation came up in 2001, Obama was concerned about its impact on abortion rights. But when the bill resurfaced in 2002, that issue had been redressed.

1558159516

ELECTION 2008WorldNetDailyUnearthed transcript shows Obama backed infanticideHas insisted his concern was abortion rights, but floor comments in 2002 contradict claim

Sen. Barack Obama has insisted he did not back a state bill protecting babies born alive from failed abortions because it would undermine Roe vs. Wade, but a newly unearthed transcript of his arguments from the floor of the Illinois Senate indicate otherwise.

Arguing against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, after even Planned Parenthood had dropped its opposition, Obama expressed concern that the bill might burden abortionists, reports blogger Erick Erickson on RedState.com.

Erikson, noting Obama was the only lawmaker to speak out against the protective measure, summarized the senator's concern this way: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

According to the transcript, Obama said:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Erickson points out that when the Illinois legislation came up in 2001, Obama was concerned about its impact on abortion rights. But when the bill resurfaced in 2002, that issue had been redressed.

(Story continues below)

1573978513

Last week, the National Right to Life Committee publicized documents showing Obama backed the Illinois bill even though the National Abortion Rights Action League took a neutral position.

Obama previously explained his vote by arguing the state and federal Born Alive Infant Protection acts were different. He would have supported the federal plan, he said, but had to oppose Illinois's plan because it could have been used to undermine abortion rights.

But the two measures were nearly identical, and Obama, furthermore, voted to include in the Illinois bill a "neutrality" clause that stated the definitions were not intended to impose restrictions on abortion. He, nevertheless, later voted against the protective bill.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Obama had concocted a "manufactured" and "highly implausible" excuse.

"There is no way that the [state] bill would have had any effect on any method of abortion," he told the New York Sun.

Johnson also challenged Obama to back up his statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network that people were "lying" about his support for what would amount to infanticide.

Obama, according to many analysts, took a political hit on the issue of abortion at last weekend's joint appearance with presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California.

Asked by Warren at what point a baby "gets human rights," the Democrat did not answer.

"Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," he said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view & pageId=86220