This fact was noted on the notorious Pharyngula blog of the nefarious PZ Myers, by a commenter, in a thread about a deeply troubled, delusional religious person (oxymoron?) who drove his SUV into the front door of a (St. Paul, MN) Planned Parenthood clinic several times while wielding a crucifix, and muttering about destroying "Auschwitz."
No, really. He smacked his car into the clinic door, backed away and did it again and again. Then when the car go stuck, he got out and started chanting "agitatedly."
This elicited the following comment (which in turn spawned the hed for this little piece):
Posted by: SHV | January 22, 2009 3:14 PMIt's now tomorrow, and still crickets, afaik ("Crickets" being blog-speak for the silence that attends the anticipated or solicited reply to a provocative query). That is, silence from the Obama-nauts on the matter.
Today is the 36 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I thought Obama was supposed to mark the day by rescinding the "Mexico City" policy and initiating the repeal of the "Right of Conscience" rule. So far..crickets.
Yesterday, when the anti-abortion loons were conducting their annual shriek-fest around the SCOTUS Building screaming about the 'sins' of Roe-v-Wade would have been the perfect day on which to actually cash-in one of those promises on the basis of which the progressive/liberal wing of the USer electorate contributed its resources and votes to Obama's election and affirm "choice" as the default Administration position. "We" put 'em over the top. Yet there hasn't been a single gesture from the White House, no nod to the prog/left for their aid. This would have been an important opportunity.
Addendum: Via ThinkProgress this morning:
President Obama “will issue an order restoring U.S. funding for international family-planning groups involved with abortion.” However, Obama broke with tradition set by recent predecessors to make an abortion-related order on the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade.That's what I'm talking about: Why didn't Obama make a positive statement FOR "Choice," which he is on record as supporting?
I'll take a guess: "Wouldn't be prudent. Wouldn't be inclusive. Wouldn't be bi-partisan." I.e., and excess of caution.
Here come the New Boss, same as the Old Boss, I guess...