Louisville, KY -- The Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against a pro-life protester who was given community server over a minor charge associated with his efforts to help women find abortion alternatives.
Not amazing at all. There is a law, and as is the job of the US Attorney General's office, they have filed suit over an alleged infraction of that law.
Fortunately, if it is in fact frivolous, we have a legal system designed to offer ample opportunities for a defendant to prove their innocence. Judges also have the ability (in federal courts) to challenge the constitutionality of laws via their rulings.
What is amazing is that the author of this piece is able to get away with attaching the suit to President Obama... who probably doesn't even know it exists. You might as well blame him for any speeding tickets you get, too.
You wanted to attract as many people as possible to read your screed with its intellectually dishonest title? Why? If he's as bad as some imply, you could just use the facts to draw us into the thread.
Not following you here, it seems that you are being inconsistent and a little dishonest. You said "I put Obama...as to attract people, the title is Obama's Administration, not Obama in the original" and now you are saying "When I put the original title it just said "Obama Administration Sues Pro-life..." which I thought was worse".
Your title is misleading and not the same as the title of the article you link to. It was done to get people into your thread - you know Obama doing it directly is very different from a law being unforced while he is in office. If you wanted to have a discussion about the merits of the law that was unforced, that would be admirable but I'm only getting the feeling that you are anti-choice and posted a skewed title to get us to go to lifenews.com and read up on their anti-choice agenda.
Therefore my use of screed is both literal and metaphoric.
Didn't know I could only have one reason for a decision, but next time I will divulge all reasoning all at once, for everything I do, and then you'll see a screed.
I suppose it could be misleading, but did Obama not appoint the Attorney General? Does Obama's name not appear on the case? Is he not the Executive of the United States Government? He is responsible for those underneath him. I am responsible for my employees, why is Obama not responsible for those who he directly appoints.
No, I am very pro-choice. I whole heartedly believe that an innocent child should have the choice and opportunity to live, instead of having his choice to live forcefully taken away from him by those who are responsible for him. I whole heartedly believe that a woman has the choice of acting like a responsible adult and make the decision to have sex or not. And if she does have sex and God blesses her with a gift of a child I expect her as a responsible adult to act like one and to not shun her responsibilities and consequences of her choices and preserve the life of her child as the best she can.
If a woman or anyone is raped, it is a horrible situation which something was forced on an innocent person and something was taken away from them against their will and the person who did this cruel and destructive damage should be dealt justice.
However, the innocence and dignity of the unborn child does not disappear just because the method of which the child was brought about is different or has changed from the first situation. The woman in this case has some options, if she really feels she is not able to care for the baby, she can give her child up for adoption to someone who wishes to adopt a child.
This is an admirable sentiment, Chris. But, it is not one shared by victims of rape... The depth of negative feelings associated with rape - shame, guilt, helplessness, anger - Would make something like carrying a child to full term effectively impossible.
Perhaps if our society had a better safety net of services such as mental health care, child care, etc... for those who need it, we could attempt to do a better job with these types of situations.