[My thanks to Indiana Right to Life‘s Lifeline Report for pointing me to this story!]
Apparently, on May 8 Ellie Shafer, Director of the White House Visitor’s office, distributed an email newsletter to members of Congress and others, detailing the correct way to register an unborn child into the security system used for arranging White House tours.
Read that again. Our virulently “pro-choice” (read: in favor of killing your baby for any reason whatsoever right up until the moment before it’s born) President wants every unborn baby included in the overall count of guests on a tour. Here is the full text of the email (courtesy of LifeNews.com)
We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born.
Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process.
- LAST NAME: The family’s last name
- FIRST NAME: “Baby” as a first name
- MIDDLE NAME: NMN as in No Middle Name
- DOB: Use the date you are submitting the request to us as their birthday
- GENDER: if the parents know put that gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we’ll ask you to update it at the time of birth
- SOCIAL: As they will not have a SSN and are under 18, you will not need to enter this field. Again if the spreadsheet asked for a social enter 9 zero’s (not the word nine zeros but 000000000 and yes it happens!)
- CITIZEN/CITY/STATE: The citizen, city and state should be entered the same as the parents
My mind is boggled…what is the purpose for this? I assume that the unborn baby is not a security threat? Unless, taking a page from the TSA handbook, White House security wants to make sure that an apparently pregnant woman isn’t smuggling explosive watermelons. If instead the concern is for the security of the guests, and the unborn child is being treated as one of the guests to be protected, that is laudable but ironic, to say the least.
Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life’s legislative director, commented on the juxtaposition between the White House visitor log policy and its abortion policy.
“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” he told LifeNews.
Still trying to figure out what this has to do with security. I would assume that President Paranoid and his staff would be very worried about potential crazies (other than themselves) in the Oval Office. Not convinced that it has the security of its visitors primarily in mind.
Which leads me right back to my first question: how is an unborn baby a threat?
Just by being an unborn BABY, rather than a faceless blob of tissue.
As if the baby had a choice.