The truth is often like a big beach ball being held under water. You can only hold it down for so long before it comes bursting out.
Even with the most ardent abortion supporters who have to be extremely careful with how they label and define what a person is inside the womb and out, the truth still finds a way to leak out. Maybe instead of the beach ball analogy, we can think of a leaky dam.
Everyone knows the Obama Administration’s official stance on abortion. They say that women have an absolute right to do with their body what they want without interference from anyone else, including the government. In order for that line of reasoning to work, they have to consider the baby inside the mother to be a part of her body. They have to be careful with making sure they never refer to a fetus as a person, a child, or an individual. They know that as soon as they do, then logically, they’ll have to acknowledge that that person deserves the protection of the law. If those unborn children deserve the protection of the law, then the government could never allow abortion. So, they have to play word games to get around those inconvenient truths.
But every now and then, they make Freudian slips. CNS News reported on a document released by the Administration having to do with food stamps and why their value needs to be increased and why they need to be made more available:
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.”
There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. Even the pro-abortion Obama Administration acknowledges that “fetuses” are individuals and children. I’m sure it was just a minor slip of the tongue.