ABC's Jaffe uncritically reported Cardinal Stafford's false claims about Obama and abortion
SUMMARY: ABC's Matt Jaffe reported that Cardinal J. Francis Stafford "railed against a speech Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters ... to be 'punished by a pregnancy.' " But Obama never said the word "punished" during the Planned Parenthood speech, and was referring to sex education -- not Roe v. Wade or abortion generally -- when he stated during a March 2008 campaign event: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
In a November 19 blog post on ABCNews.com, reporter Matt Jaffe uncritically reported that in a November 13 speech at Catholic University of America, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford "railed against a speech [President-elect Barack] Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be 'punished by a pregnancy.' " But Stafford's assertion contains several falsehoods, none of which Jaffe corrected or otherwise noted. Obama did not say the word "punished" - or refer to being "punished" with "a pregnancy" or otherwise -- at any point during his July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech. Obama did use the phrase "punished with a baby" during a March 29, 2008, campaign event in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but as Media Matters for America has previously documented, Obama was referring to sex education -- not Roe v. Wade or abortion generally -- when he said during that event: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
According to audio posted by Catholic University of America's The Tower, during the November 13 speech, Stafford claimed of Obama:
His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, quote, and I'm quoting, somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning, "We are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. The first thing I will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act -- FOCA. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. I don't want my daughters punished -- punished by a pregnancy." "On this issue," he continued, "I will not yield on the issues that we're going to [inaudible]." End of quote. Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be quote, "punished - punished," by pregnancy.
But contrary to Stafford's claim, Obama did not use the phrase "punished by a pregnancy" or even the word "punished" at any point during the July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech.
During the March 29, 2008, campaign event in Pennsylvania, while discussing sex education - not abortion -- Obama said:
So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions.
From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:
MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.
OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.
From Jaffe's November 19 ABCNews.com post:
Stafford, who has worked at the Vatican for 12 years and heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, said that, on Nov. 4, "a cultural earthquake hit America" when Obama was elected, after campaigning on an "extremist anti-life platform.
"He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed," Stafford noted.
"But under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness, to attack and resist any external influence that might affect his will."
Specifically, Stafford railed against a speech Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be "punished by a pregnancy."
Also last week, as reported here, a South Carolina priest was repudiated for saying Catholic Obama supporters need penance before taking communion, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
sounds like the good Cardinal should appear on bill o'reilly's show
It's pretty bad when a Catholic cardinal has to lie to advance his agenda.
Hey - Cardinal Stafford. Make sure you diocese is COMPLETELY free of pedophile priests before you open your pie hole again, Mkay?????
This little CYA move is very nice;
"There he asserted, quote, and I'm quoting, somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning...",
No, you're lying, ya bazzturd.
"Quote, and I'm quoting, somewhat out of context" Hmm. He's inventing his own definition of quoting. Guess in neo-con world that's part of their extraordinary new powers. Blessed by Jeebus and all.
But Jesus would kick his b*tt and throw him out of the temple.
Hi Mary,
This is a go-to move for Sean Hannity, especially on his radio show. He reads a quote from some evil-doer (Democrat or other non-Real-American). He says "quote" at the beginning, and "unquote" at the end, but in the middle he adds all sorts of insane editorializing and extra buzz-words that aren't in the quote.
I don't think a lot of these wingnuts are any more clear on the meaning of "quote" than they are on "literally".
I literally think that's true. And I'd like to respond to the Cardinal by a famous quotation from Co. Harlan Sanders: "No, you're lying, ya bazzturd."
I literally sh*t a brick over your quoting me exactly in context.
I'll bet you typed that while literally standing up.
Say, Col., isn't the proper use of quotes, in a statement, would be by beginning with the word, "quote", and when finished you say, "END quote", not "unquote". You can't "un-quote" something.
I thought both were legit. I could be wrong.
OK I checked, unquote is ok.
"It's pretty bad when a Catholic cardinal has to lie to advance his agenda."
Mmfa is lying to advance their agenda and you say nothing. What lie has the cardinal spewed that causes this response? I'll give you the lie mmfa is advancing: "But Obama never said the word "punished" during the Planned Parenthood speech, and was referring to sex education -- not Roe v. Wade or abortion generally -- when he stated during a March 2008 campaign event: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200811200009?threaded=1#410547 <-- that is just in case you didn't read the opening paragraph of THIS thread. NOW, what lie did the cardinal bring??
The summary itself says "railed against a speech Obama gave July 17, 2007...".
Then you quote "during a march 2008 campaign event..."
I take back what I just wrote. Maybe reading the summary will help your comprehension. It's a start, at least.
When mmfa says "during the Planned Parenthood speech", what do you think THE meant? Mmfa was talking about the 2007 speech then changed (mid sentence) to talking about a 2008 speech. So where's their quote from the 2007 speech? Maybe O'bama did say punished, as the Cardinal says so. Mmfa is the one using inacurate and missleading quotations to further a misinformation laden agenda they have against anyone not falling lockstep into agreement with their ideals....like you have. Need another cracker?
"The" meant the speech that Stafford was referring to. Obama did not use those words in that speech. They switched mid-sentence for the very reason that Obama did use that phrase at another speech, and they were explaining that.
They linked to a site which has video of the planned parenthood speech. Why don't you check it out for yourself? Until then you can't declare "inacurate [sic] and misleading [sic]".
I disagree with MMfA sometimes. I read the article first, though, since that's the fair and reasonable thing to do.
Again, if you read the article, it plainly says that the O'bama statement was made 'before' the speech that mmfa used as a reference. Where is mmfa's proof that O'bama did not say that? Right, they don't have it. And you defend them by saying that I spelled a word wrong?
Where does it say "before"? Please cite the passage you're referring to.
I defend them by pointing out that Stafford claimed that Obama made a comment in a totally different context from where the actual remark was made. Your misspellings were just to clarify I was quoting you exactly, not making the misspellings myself.
I'm wrong. I didn't comprehend that article, he did say it happened during the speech, not before. But, that doesn't change the fact that mmfa is providing misleading evidence to support a charge they can't prove.
What's the misleading evidence, exactly? They quote Stafford accurately. They show the July 17 speech. Did Obama use that phrase in that speech?
If not, then they've proven their point.
The source of this misinformation was most likely a column by Robert Novak, who I believe should apologize and issue a correction even at this late date, as should all of the newspapers who published that column.
Novak's column appeared on May 26, 2008. (Media Matters published an item about it the next day.) I believe Novak probably left his readers with the false impression that Obama would favor an abortion if one of his daughters faced an unplanned pregnancy. But rather than advocating abortion, Obama was making the case for avoiding unplanned pregnancies in the first place with sex education, including information about contraceptives.
Didn't we settle this during the campaign.
To all thinking people, Obama's statement was pretty clear. The mistake he's referring to is having premarital sex... the punishment is an unplanned pregnancy.
What is so controversial about that?
Haven't you heard? Every sperm is sacred.
The scary thing about this is no matter how these loons interpret what Obama said it conflicts with Church doctrine.
If abortion were to be outlawed, next up would be contraception. And after that pre-marital sex.
According to the Church, all three are mortal sins which condemn the unrepentant sinner to everlasting damnation.
You can't win with these people. And for me, hell won't be so bad because I won't have to listen to this nonsense.
I see these bumper stickers that say that you can't be Catholic and support abortion.
I say that works for me.
Remember that obnoxious Troglodyte, Randall Terry? He is on record declaring that, once he gets abortion outlawed, he's going after contraceptives.
These cretins need a hobby.
I'm not expert, but as I understand it, the Catholic Church teaches that the act of conjugal union is one of the highest expressions of unconditional love by each spouse toward each other and toward God.
To prevent the possible creation of life through contraception, diminishes this act of unconditional love and instead reduces this ultimate act of love into an act of self gratification. It alters the relationship between spouses and God and puts one's own desires ahead of God's will.
In other words, the act of creating life is so sacred that to alter its intended function is to go against nature and God's will. To purposefully put barriers between one's self and God is considered sinful.
Therefore the Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is a grave sin as it puts distance between people and God. However the Good news is that God loves us so much, that if we wish to be closer to God, He will forgive our sins.
"the act of creating life is so sacred that to alter its intended function is to go against nature and God's will."
That would be why so many liberals hate God so much. They only desire the self gratification, that's why so many liberals are gay. Liberals are only interested in ONE thing---'self'. As long as everyone else can do for them, they are happy. It's when they have to do for themselves is when they get P'd off.
"If abortion were to be outlawed, next up would be contraception. And after that pre-marital sex."
And if abortion were to be legalized you would end up with unwanted babies being killed. After that unwanted elderly being killed. After that handicapped being killed. Well, looks like legalized abortion has already achieved 2 of their 3 goals.
Just for clarification. Do you REALLY think killing babies, elderly and the handicapped is a GOOD thing?
What a crock. We are supposed to take moral direction from an organization loaded with pedophiles and a fella such as this joker who has become fixated on a single issue like the right wing Evangelical nutjobs?
Where is his outrage at the GOP over the war in Iraq and the dealth penalty, also railed against by his Pope?
Oh, I get it ... just another religious zealot trying to work his will into politics without regard for the rest of the country. What a surprise ...
Wouldn't we LOVE to see someone, ANYONE, say, "Ahhhhh, shaddup, already!" Nobody cares what you think anymore, you has-been prelate. Go back into the sacristy with the altar boys.
"We are supposed to take moral direction from an organization loaded with pedophiles...?"
You really don't care where the morals come from as long as it isn't the right wing. If you think about it, these pedophile members you hate so much are actually part of the group you want to give us moral direction from---sexual deviants. Unless you consider homosexuality not deviant. But, if that was true you wouldn't be whining about the pedophiles. Since they do it with boys, they are homosexual too (your beloved homosexual). So why are you whining??
When you get over your hypocrisy, give us the real reason you hate religion.
There's a huge difference between people who abuse children and someone who has a consentual relationship with another adult. It's not "part of the same group" for that reason. What "moral direction" do you think anyone wants from homosexuals anyway? It's not about any sort of role model, it's about letting people live their own lives.
"There's a huge difference between people who abuse children and someone who has a consentual relationship with another adult"
Immorality is immorality. You can dress it up any way you want and explain it away as you please if it makes you feel better. But, both are immoral. You just choose to agree with one lifestyle and not the other, which makes you feel one is more immoral than the other. I'll bet you think Bernie Ward should be set free, since he is one of your heroes.
"it's about letting people live their own lives."
So, poligamy should be legalized?
The immorality of homosexuality is your opinion, nothing more. Interracial marriage used to be considered to be immoral, and slavery wasn't. It's not like these things never change over time.
"You just choose to agree with one lifestyle and not the other, which makes you feel one is more immoral than the other."
No, one is abuse and the other is not. Why would I think anything positive about someone involved in child porn when I just told you that pedophilia is abusive? You really aren't very bright.
There's no reason to legalize polygamy. There are abuse issues there as well, and anyone interested in that can marry one partner and keep the others as well without any sort of legal recognition. Homosexuals don't have any such option, without legal recognition they have no rights as partners.
"Interracial marriage used to be considered to be immoral, and slavery wasn't."
Neither slavery (employment) nor interracial marriage is considered immoral by Jesus. Homosexuality IS. So, it's more than just opinion.
"Why would I think anything positive about someone involved in child porn"
Because your parameters are 'whether someone gets hurt'. Who gets hurt when pictures are taken? Why would you consider that harmful, while giving someone HIV is not harmful? You have a very tweeked sense of equality.
Homosexuality is considered immoral by Jesus? Where did he say that?
Children are hurt by being made to pose for pornographic pictures. The issue with HIV isn't homosexuality by itself, it's having unprotected sex. Heterosexual people do that too. If you sanction gay partnerships, you'll cut down on the risky behavior.
I'd rather hear the political opinions of any one of the St. Louis Cardinals, than listen to the political opinions of a guy who wears a funny hat, while droning on in Latin as he performs strange and smoky Rites, and who believes he has the power to cleanse your Soul of the stain of sin.
Speaking of stains, I hear it is difficult to get stains out of a cassock.
Speaking of stains, I hear it is difficult to get stains out of a cassock. - maddog
I wonder what kind of stains those would be?
Lunch stains?
Like from an alter boy sandwich!?
The difference between an "altar" boy and "alter" boy? An "alterboy" is an "altarboy" who has been "altered" behind the altar.
Or perhaps a bad speller (spellar?).
Goon Show line, Characters slightly altered.
Proprietor of local "Rent a Hasock", "There is a deposit."
Satisfied customer,"Oh don't worry that'll wash right out."
Someone's always gotta go too far ;)
What do you have against Carlos Santana? Oh, the Cardinal.
Didn't the Pope refer to American Democrats as "the Party of Death" ?
Didn't at least three Archbishops threaten to withhold sacrements from politicians who were not avid pro-lifers (Delaware, Colorado. S.C.) ?
Can they imagine that they're still role models for ethics and/or morality ?
Surely it's been Secular Humanists who've rooted out their pedophiles and set them on a righteous path - Cardinal Stafford here asserts recalcitrance, arrogance, self righteous, self justification. If it were not so terribly sad, it would be funny . . almost.
Does anyone else notice the intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry in the posts above against those who hold religious beliefs?
No, your hallucinations are your own. The persecution complex is really coming along nicely, though.
;0)
The only thing I can see is a potentially unfair association between this Cardinal and the pedophilia problem in his church. That's not really the same as anything against "those who hold religious beliefs". It doesn't say anything in general about people who are religious, as your question suggests.
AA, you've got to be kidding! The blind cannot see what they do. They can only see what others do. If they do it themselves, it is expected and acceptable. If others do it, it is despicable and immoral. What surprised me was that even mary59 (self-proclaiming good Christian) is one of the first to participate in these actions. The others I fully expect them to do it. It would surprise me if they didn't. Remember the story about the camel and the eye of a needle, or the one about the narrow/wide paths. Some find it easier to stagger on wider roads, than to follow skinny lanes. But, they have no problem whining about you walking the straight line.
Now that EVERYONE has ignored the topic and done nothing but whine about religion, let's do an about-face and talk "on topic".
Did you notice mmfa whined about someone saying O'bama didn't use the word "punished". In fact they even highlited it in their headline paragraph. Then they use the direct quote of O'bama. Guess what word is IN the direct quote provided by mmfa while whining about the use of "punished"?? Yep, you guessed it; "punished". O'bama DID in fact say he didn't want his daughters "punished", even though mmfa insists he did NOT. I wonder if anyone besides myself noticed this misinformation.
No, nobody noticed that. You know why?
Stafford was referring to a speech that was specifically about abortion rights. Obama did not use the word "punished" or talk about anyone being "punished with a baby" in that speech.
On another date, in a speech about another topic, Obama used that phrase. Stafford claimed the usage from this speech was made in the previous speech mentioned. In other words, he lied about the context of the quote.
Maybe reading the article would help your comprehension a little.
Too bad mmfa can't provide proof of their claims. The 'speech' link they provide is different than what they claim Stafford says. Yeah, read the story and pay more attention to your reading comprehension.
One day you'll learn how to discuss facts WITH facts instead of learning from mmfa.
The speech is different from what Stafford claims because Stafford wasn't telling the truth. That's the whole damn point. If Obama had actually said "punished" in that speech, then Stafford would have been right.
You are hopelessly lost.
And just in case you're arguing that Stafford didn't make the comment, I listened to it myself. He did claim that Obama's "punished" comment came during the July 17 speech, and it did not.