Official House GOP Website Promoting Video Of Rep Saying Obama’s Mom Might Have Aborted Him
The other day, GOP Rep Todd Tiahrt sparked a firestorm by suggesting in a speech on the House floor that if the government had paid for abortions, Obama’s mother might have, well, had an abortion.
Wouldn’t you know it, but now the official Web site of the House GOP has posted video of Tiahrt making the eyebrow-raising suggestion.
In case you missed it, Tihart said last week that government funded abortions could encourage low-income moms to have more abortions, and then added:
“Our President grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother might have taken advantage of it?”
The House Republican Conference’s Web site has now posted video of Tiahrt saying this stuff right here, which seems to constitute something less than condemnation.
The video posted there does include Tiahrt’s whole floor speech, under the title: “Tiahrt’s Opposition to Taxpayer Funded Abortions.” But the vid does include, at the 4:15 mark, Tiahrt’s claim that Obama’s mother might have cut short her pregnancy.
Not to go too far out on a limb, but maybe this means the House GOP doesn’t see any need to distance itself from the remarks…
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Wow…how “mainstream”…combine this with the birthers that are starting to show up at GOP primary townhalls and you have got yourself one heck of a “base”…ahhh yes…abortion wingers, birthers, seccessionists and tea-baggers…an astounding intellectual base!!!
Uhmmm Greg, did you actually go to the site? Hell they have excerpted the very part of the speech where he insinuates that our President might have been aborted right above the youtube clip. There is no need for a limb or anything else, its ******* up there in black and white. And I am not even going to censor myself this time because i mean ******* UP THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE!
@JennD: Are you calling those who oppose abortion stupid?
@sbj: I specifically put “wingers” as the descriptive, because I would hope that you would agree that there is a vast difference between “those who oppose abortion” and the abortion wingnuts that plot to bomb clinics, pray for the President’s death and tell their followers that they may soon need to take up “arms” to battle the government over abortion (Randall Terry this weekend)…to me there is a big diffference…
@JennD: Whew! I thought you were one of those crazies on the left who think there’s no good moral reason to oppose abortion.
@ sbj, you make Republicans look so smart. I couldn’t imagine what you would be saying if a Member of Congress said your beloved George Bush might have been aborted, or dare I say, your super tough guy Reagan. I personally oppose abortion sbj, can I be a
Republicanconservative too?@sbj: Nope, I think there are plenty of good moral reasons to oppose abortion. I do not, however, think that it is the government’s right to tell a woman what to do in this situation. I have three sons, only one of them “planned” and I would never consider having an abortion (exception to some sort of life-threatening situation), but I do not think the government should make this decision for me or anyone else. And, sbj, that is not a “crazies on the left” point of view…there are many people who hold that point of view, just as there are “anti-choice Republicans”, there are also many “pro-choice Republicans” out there…
@jennD: I did not write of any “government right”to tell you what to do with your body. (I’m a Libertarian, remember?) I thought the point of the particular congress critter’s speech regarded federal funding of abortions through the proposed healthcare reform bill – I haven’t (and won’t) watch the clip, though.
The public option in health care is not a finished product but both of the ones proposed so far state that it would have to be self sustaining. That means no tax payer funding any damn way. So its a cannard at this point. But it for damn sure doesn’t have anything to do with why Tiahrt could only come up with two black men as examples of whom he thinks might have been aborted if their mothers had tax payer funded availablility to that option. And THATS what this post is all about.
This is total **** obviously, but I would still prefer that we accept leaving most abortions out of whatever health care plan emerges. Health care reform is just too important to be a victim of the culture wars. Abortion is still a relatively affordable procedure and paying for it is not usually the problem. We need to be focused on the major medical problems that are destroying families financially.
@sbj: Ah yes, a Libertarian, that’s right, or sometimes a conservative, anything but a Republican, right? (see @Chris)…a Libertarian that continuously links to Republican talking points and media sites, and takes issue with almost every post that Greg puts up…yep, that’s right, I forgot, sorry – anyhoo – relax, I know you are not trying to tell me what to do with my body…I was only responding to your descriptive “crazies on the left”…
@ sbj, what if a Member of Congress’ daughter has an abortion. Wouldn’t that be a tax payer funded option? I’m assuming since you are such a Libertarian, that you are against Members also having tax payer funded health care.
@ jenn, you’re spot on. He’s so Libertarian that he publicly endorsed two Republicans in ‘12 for president earlier today.
@chris: C’mon now, think before you write. I pay taxes and that means I support all fed employees and their health insurance. I pay taxes to fund Medicaid. So far as I know, my taxes don’t go to support federal funding of abortions here in the US. According to sg the new public option – as planned – will not use tax dollars to fund abortions. I’m not even opposed to fed assistance for those who need it – I took issue with jenn because I sure thought she was calling those who oppose abortion on moral grounds stupid. She wasn’t. I’m not sure what you’re getting your knickers knotted up about?
Liberatarian, Conservative, two words that just mean to much of a punk to admit you’re a Republican. I don’t care what you call yourself you anti-choice hypocrite. I love how these Evangelical wackos are against abortion, but for war, torture, the death penalty, guns, but have the nerve to say they’re pro-life. Until you renounce all of those, I’ll call you what you are. An anti-choice hypocrite.
@Chris – oh I know and I haven’t seen him push the true Libertarian leader, Ron Paul, but he is always coming to the defense of Republican leaders…Ron Paul has some good ideas and is more of a true “conservative” on national security issues…he was against the Iraq War and states, truthfully by the way, that the true conservative approach to foreign policy is to show restraint – Republicans on the other hand, not so much on restraint, they like to make political platforms out of war these days…
on the Nixon tapes, abortion is ok in some cases,, like a black with a white. isn’t that in the Republican platform?
I guess that logic is why Ensign’s parents had to pay that $96,000 to his mistress and her family.
@chuck: I am not anti-choice. (I USED to be a new wave/punker wannabe – Dickies, Middle Class, Clash)
Isn’t it possible to argue that moral opposition to abortion is rather mainstream without being demonized as an anti-choice evangelical whacko punk hypocrite war monger closet Republican torture fan? (For the record I am a pro-choice agnostic gay white conservative Libertarian.)
Ron Paul is a Repub who ran for the Repub presidential nomination – he’s also fairly nutty.
So fitting for the House Republican Web Site.
It is as low and base as they are.
TACKY! TACKY! TACKY!
I’ll agree on that and see very little difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the Republicans that don’t have the courage to admit that the fringe took control of their party and is marching it over a cliff into the sea. I’m registered Independent and I’ll admit that my political leanings are further to the left although I havne’t been able to pull the trigger and register as a Democrat. What attracts me to the left however is a willingness to accept differing points of views even within your own party as is evidenced by the Fifth Column that refers to itself as Blue Dog or Conservadem. When it comes to choice however, I find it interesting that those that can not physically deliver a life in the world want to make rules to determine when a woman shall become a mother. It’s a CHOICE between that woman and her significant other and her doctor. Amazing how the right wants to get between a patient and doctor then but when it comes to making sure everyone is covered they say the gov’t shouldn’t interfere.
@ sbj, think before I write? Wouldn’t a true Libertarian be against using tax payer money for anyone’s health care? Yet you gladly pay for Members of Congress and their families to have health care just no one else? Could it be that you aren’t a Libertarian, just a Republican who is scared to admit it?
Besides, the Libertarian stance would be do away with taxes all together. Yet you love supporting socialized medicine for Members and federal employees.
You all miss the point! This is the LAW guys! Rov vs. Wade! They have to right/legally or morally to deminish this law! Session pounded Sotomayer on rather she would follow the letter of the law, or empathize with laws that come in front of her for ans. Yet, they feel they have a right to put ‘PUT THEIR FEELINGS INTO THE WORD OF THE LAW”, AND CALL Demacrates for doing it! Also, tear a nominee for supreme court down for empathy in letter of the Law!Yet here they do the very same thing they call against a nomanee for doing>
Chuck has no idea what a libertarian is. Go take the test Chuck:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
Although this is only an indicator, a lot more people will test Libertarian than you might think. Do you think Hannity or ex-abuser Limbaugh are for legalizing drugs? How about gay marriage? Libertarians believe in individual freedom for adults within the confines of laws that limit people from harming others. E. g. individual freedom to use certain drugs must be accompanied by employer ability to remove users from jobs that effect other people’s health and safety. But, the individual gets to choose what they do with the expectation of restraints.
As to abortion, women have and should continue to have the right to make the choice. As Virginia said, it is relatively inexpensive and as such does it really need to be government funded?
Having said that, most Libertarians don’t want government intrusion into their lives and tend to be fiscal conservatives. In 1993 the Republicans took control of congress with the smaller government mantra that they failed to live up to. Bush was way more like Nixon on fiscal issues than Reagan. Bush turned out to be a big disappointment to Libertarians for his militaristic policies and his failure to curb governmnet growth. These things also led to the disaffection of many Independents who are looking to Obama for “Change they can believe in”, but they are not getting it. As a result, they are about to turn away from Obama. The pendulum always swings back and forth between the two dominant parties and it’s not about to stop.
I think it would also be a fair question to ask the Congressman if HIS mother would have had an abortion had the government paid for one? But more important is this little overlooked fact: when President Obama was born, abortion was ILLEGAL. The Congressman fails to mention that fact. Roe V Wade (SCOTUS decision legalizing abortions)wasn’t decided on by the Supreme Court until 1973. The president was born in 1962. Stupidity by the G’Nopers runs rampant throughout their ranks, whether elected or not.
Isn’t it possible to argue that moral opposition to abortion is rather mainstream without being demonized as an anti-choice evangelical whacko punk hypocrite war monger closet Republican torture fan?
The American mainstream on abortion, since before Roe v. Wade was decided, is that a majority is simultaneously uncomfortable with it and does not want it banned.
(a narrow majority)
GOP Ignorance keep enlarging everyday, its like the GOPs are walking with their heads and thinking with their legs.
Reeves makes a good point! in 1962 when Obama was born his mom couldn’t get a legal abortion. So, he wouldn’t have been aborted in the first place. When Rov vs. wade pass it was legal, and it was LAW! Either way you look at it, this GOP Ad spits on the LAWS they are suppose to up hold! LAWS their own suprem court nomanee’s uphold as our true laws of the land! This is stupidity at it’s highest level! They say, “We’ll we don’t agree with this LAW that has been put into place, so to heck with it and we will act as we want when we want, and this law won’t stop us”. We after all are a lawless country,”Is that what they are saying, with this ad”?
@oddjob: Exactly. I didn’t write one thing about banning abortion – my point was centered around the mainstream viewpoint that abortion is morally troubling. I didn’t get into the legal aspects at all. Even when we talk about opposing federal funding we are still not addressing legality.
Women have had abortions as long as their have been women- if O’bamas mother wanted to have one – she would have had one
Men need to shut up on the subject
it is not their body, their choice
In answer to the actuator that said that I need to take a test, perhaps he should take one himself. He said that Bush was more like Nixon than St. Ronnie. He was more like St. Ronnie than you’d care to admit. Actually Actuator, he’s more like him on crack. Ya see, Ronnie was good at making you believe in his policies. Less taxes and smaller gov’t. Trickle down economy. How’d that work for us? Here’s what you didn’t know because you were worshipping at his alter. Under Reagan, he raised taxes every year except for his first and last. The moment that HW had to admit to raising taxes, he lost the will of the people and immediately got voted out. Who was it that felt they had to spend the Soviets into poverty? What did that do to the economy? Then 20 years later you’ve got the son of his sucessor taking those same mantras and repeating them. Only he didn’t realize that Reagan raised taxes even though he preached against them. What is it about you republicans that you don’t understand that the country doesn’t function without money flowing into the treasury? Start all the wars you want. Just don’t cut taxes at the same time. Oh, and don’t lie us into it and wrap yourself in the flag saying anyone that disagrees with you is unpatriotic. I volunteered to get back into the Corps for that one. I know Ron Paul is for a flat tax but tell me, when you’ve got corporations skirting behind those loopholes and not paying any, how can this country function with even less money flowing into the treasury. How about you learn some history before you tell me that I need to be educated?!
there is no republican party left – just some ignorant fringe nut cases
we need a new second or second and third parties!
Everyone should get out of politics if they are two stupid to understand the issuses- or they intend to work for a corporation or themselves- instead of the American people
Give O’bama a chance it has taken 30 years to get us into this mess
@ sbj, it’s good thing we aren’t talking about federal funding, because you, as a great Libertarian, don’t oppose federal funding. Interesting take from a very mainstream Libertarian like yourself. You sure you aren’t a Republican in hiding waiting for Jeb Bush in 2012? Wait tell us again how you aren’t a Republican. Hey next time you guys do that revolution thing again let me know. I want to be part of it. I’m busy on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and have a few petty things on Thursdays so anytime Thursday or Friday afternoon just let me know!! I CAN’T WAIT
i am appalled that we are calling a paid for abortion a financial incentive. anytime a women has to chose that option it is a heartbreak. no matter what the political affiliation. it is an extremely personal and difficult decision.
Imagine if someone in Congress made a comment about Sarah Palin having an abortion?
Oh noes! They are attacking a white, Christian family!
But the rightwingholes feel they can say anything about Obama and his family because they don’t really count as real Americans.
Todays GOP/Conservatives/rightwingers—racist, ignorant and damn proud of it.
-G
Chuck, When I said Bush was like Nixon, I was referring to growth of the federal government. Nixon didn’t care how big the government became and under Bush government spending was going up big time and he was the champ ’til Obama came along and stole the show. Bush never made an effort to live up to the smaller government mantra. On top of that he was dumb enough to go to war in an area that has a history of war, tribalism, and corruption where imposition of democracy at the point of the U.S. gun won’t work.
Are you saying that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 raised taxes? Hmmmm, sounds like some revisionist history to me.
Did you go to the web site and take the test. It is really not complicated. If so how did you register?
Please don’t refer to me as one of “you Republicans” as there is much about them to despise, just as there is much to despise about Democrat/Liberal types who believe it is OK to use the government gun to take from those who are willing to apply themselves and are successful to redistribute their earnings to those who have no intention of making the effort. You lable the achievers as “fortunate” when in almost all cases they took risks, worked diligently and acquired wealth the “old fashioned way”. You are so quick to tax the wealthy and drain the money from the private sector that is invested to grow additional wealth. You support misguided policies that will ultimately increase poverty and you do it intending to help the working poor, who will ultimately suffer more.
Meanwhile, you worship at the feet of a Chicago style politician whose smooth, hypnotic rhetoric drives any hint of analytical ability from your mind. I hope you’re much younger than me so you can live with the costs of this administration for a long time. Long enough perhaps to see through all the Bravo Sierra.
Suggestion: Many of you should share your personal email accounts with each other and keep the personal bickering off of a public blog! It is REALLY getting annoying! Your views and opinions are no better than the rest of us! So don’t crusade your views and arguments!
In regards to the subject/article, someone or perhaps the democrats should place a come-back ad to this weirdo and say, YES Mr. Tiahrt, the President’s mother HAD A CHOICE, whether legal or not! But, please note the choice that she made!
As far as abortions before Roe vs Wade… there were abortions going on. They just didn’t happen in public clinics. So Obama’s mother could have received an abortion despite it was not legal yet.
sbj
I’m not sure how you rationalize the position that the government should not be in the position of determining what a woman can do with her very own body with the position that the woman’s decision to have an abortion should not be funded. Seems to me that this would be the same as saying that the government should not determine what you eat, but then sets the price of French wine so high that only Wall streeters can afford it.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is arguing backward, which is never effective. To wit: it can also be stated with certainty that had abortion remained illegal, there would be millions more destructive types wreaking havoc on our society. Now defend that.
I would call anti-abortion people stupid NOW. Look at the nut cases in their crowds. If they would support abortion, less nut cases in their ranks, more respect for there views. Overpopulation is causing damage everywhere, abortion should be kept legal. With complete overpopulation, whhat will be our survivor options, Soylent Green, age destruction?