Ad Morally Exploits Obama’s Life Story

During the President’s Inauguration, ran an advertisement on BET (Black Entertainment Television) that
used Barack Obama’s story as an anti-abortion tale.

My first reaction to this ad was,
"How disrespectful to Barack Obama! . . . to use him, an anomaly of history, to vilify women and men struggling to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy; to use a man who clearly has stood up time and again for abortion access
and women’s reproductive healthcare and choice; to use, and worse
to distort the circumstances of his birth all for an advertisement!"

Here is my second, third, and fourth

We do not know the potential fame or
folly for which our children are destined. To base decisions solely
on the unknown possibility of a pregnancy is flagrantly dismissive of
the other lives involved in that decision and sets up our children for
unrealistic, unattainable futures. We do not know who our children
will become; we only know how well we can support them, provide for
them, and give of ourselves to them. In our Open Letter on Abortion
as a Moral Decision
, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing
says, "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that
it is not created carelessly. It is precisely because life and
parenthood are so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry
a pregnancy to term. We support responsible procreation, the widespread
availability of contraception, prenatal care and intentional parenting."

There is no other visually indentified
person in this advertisement except a floating fetus. That’s
a medical impossibility. Removing a woman’s body from the visual
message does more than make us focus on the fetus; it forces us to create
a false separation between a pregnant woman and the fetus in her uterus.
They are inextricably intertwined as are their lives and decisions about
their futures. Abortion is not an abstract act. Why must we continue
to erase the physical presence of the moral agent in these decisions
– women? This separation diminishes our ability to grasp
the true moral complexity of an abortion decision. The advertisement
stressed "broken, abandoned and struggle" as the descriptive circumstances
into which Obama was born. Barack Obama’s mother and father
were well educated and had family support systems that allowed them
to make a choice about this pregnancy that is not the same as all unwanted
pregnancies. I don’t even think we can surmise (without hearing
from his mother, which is no longer possible) if this was an unwanted
versus unplanned pregnancy.

My fourth reaction is that the advertisement
is a new version of the old ethical argument that "absolute respect
for human life" is the only moral principle upon which to judge abortion
and its only application is to prioritize the life of the fetus.
In almost no other moral deliberations do we actively deny other moral
principles such as justice or love of neighbor. The advertisement
coercively limits the scope of our moral imagination and denies how
context influences moral choice. "The ability to choose an abortion
should not be compromised by economic, educational, class or marital
status, age, race, geographic location or inadequate information"
but in reality it is. The choice to have an abortion is
always a moral choice; women are always capable moral agents; moral
decision-making requires deliberation of multiple principles.

I haven’t even touched on the racial
implications of airing this advertisement on BET during the inauguration
of the first black President of the United States. This I think
has more to do with the racist and sexist moral character of the group
supporting and contributing to the ad, not the moral decision of women
to have an abortion.

Our moral struggle should be one that
sees racism, poverty, and heterosexism as factors that destroy our communities
and place women and men in uncompromisingly difficult moral decisions
– not one that uses historical events as an opportunity for moral

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • invalid-0

    “The choice to have an abortion is always a moral choice; women are always capable moral agents; moral decision-making requires deliberation of multiple principles.”

    That seems to be a stretch . . . what good reason do we have to believe that the choices women make are always moral (good) or that these moral agents will always make the “moral choice?” No one would make the claim that men are competent moral agents who always make moral choices, and aren’t women equal with men (in basic rights and abilities)? Of course, the author could be making the more narrow claim that when a woman makes a decision about her body, it is always “the right choice for her.” But this begs the question that a fetus is not a human being with their own body and subsequent rights.

    Arguments in support of legal abortion that show unborn children are not persons (whatever that means) or that they do not have a right to live in their mothers’ bodies (sorry kid, you’ve been evicted!) are welcome. But the argument that abortion is moral simply because “women are moral agents and you should trust any decision they make or else you are a bad, meany man” are just weak. I hope the author trusts pregnant women who take accutane or thalidomide and give their children horrid birth defects. If she were to reprimand their actions that would call their competency in being a moral agent into question.

  • invalid-0

    No one has commented on the fact that the vidio says “THIS (emphasis added) child’s future is….””

    The fetus being show is not “the child who will become the 1st African American President.”

    There is no telling who/what the fetus being shown may become – a great leader, a mass murderer, or a common everyday person.

    But the fetus shown in the vidio will never become the first African-American president.

    It’s an example of the twisting of truth and emotions used by both sides of the choice debate.

  • invalid-0

    has been made many times over on this blog. You sound like yet another misogynist male who’s peeved at the idea of female bodily autonomy.

    The line about “pregnant women who take accutane or thalidomide and give their children horrid birth defects” is a tip-off: You actually think that women would do that deliberately or negligently, rather than be misled by the medical establishment (which is still led by males). Next you’ll be dragging out that old chestnut about squeezing in the abortion clinic between the manicurist and the hair stylist.

  • invalid-0

    The use of moral to modify moral agent, moral decision-making, moral dilemma, etc. does not imply a meaning of good or bad – rightly-related or evil. It simply means that we are capable of applying values and principles to one’s actions, decision-making, and weighing of consequences.

    Yes, we are moral agents, women AND men. I do believe an abortion is always a moral decision. It asks us to weigh competing goods for fetus, woman, partner, family, and community. The answer to which goods will be chosen is not a simple formula of applying “absolute respect for human life” and “prioritizing the fetus” that is a prescriptive mandate it denies women the moral agency to come to their own decision. We need a process of ethical decision-making that takes into consideration other principles such as love and justice.

  • invalid-0

    The point that you are all missing is that this little person is living until we the adults decide this child is not wanted. Yes it is a child, it growing, has a heart beat and many times now can survie outside of the womb at 27 weeks and less then an ounce. So if this baby was born the Mom would be charged with murder if she did not seek medical help. It is amazing to me how you all have convince yourselves that something that has a heartbeat and feels and grows is not a living a child.

    • invalid-0

      So if this baby was born the Mom would be charged with murder if she did not seek medical help.

      Unless the medical help required includes anything that violates the moms bodily integrity, then no charges are filed against the mom for refusing this medical treatment – not murder, nor negligence.

  • invalid-0

    Oh my goodness, Kate – the great thinkers as Plato, Socrates, etc. would be amused at your logic. Truth and morality are not really as complicated as your rambling essay would suggest. The truth is, women will ALWAYS have a ‘choice’ to terminate their pregnancies. They can murder their unborn babies choosing any of the methods that women used years ago, before Roe vs Wade. The difference now is that women who want to kill their babies have doctors perform the murders for them. Tragically enough, some members of our Supreme Court agreed with this warped logic, and ‘voted’ that doctors can legally commit this kind of murder. So these women can now rationalize away their guilt by tranfering it to the doctors. In reality, a majority vote doesn’t mean you’ve made something morally right. (If there are 1,000 people in a room, and 999 of them agree to murder someone, is that OK?) I’m certain that when pro-abortionists strip away all the silly ‘women’s choice’ rhetoric, and look into their souls for the simple truth – that they want to kill their babies so their own lives won’t be disrupted – they’ll see things in a different light. ‘Abortion on demand’ is just a political term for murder. I hope you will one day pen an essay to help assure babies of their right to life, instead of one arguing a case for their death.

  • invalid-0

    I respect the argument made against this ad – However understand that more minority children are aborted in this country then white children – It is even encouraged for such women to do away with their children of color – This smacks of genocide as one racial group is targeted to abort its offspring over another – I fear racial motives are more on the side of the people promoting abortion of babies of color over white babies – That is very sad and a side to the above argument that is not fully explained by the author as it would be to taboo I fear. No matter how you feel on this issue – encouraging women of color to abort there children of color will result in fewer people of color. This is disturbing in a moral sense to say the least.

  • z3ncat

    It must be genocide?  It couldn’t POSSIBLY be the fact that a disproportionate number of those living in poor circumstances – with all the difficulties that encompasses both in preventing pregnancy and in being able to provide for pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing – are minorities? 

  • invalid-0

    Well said! All the rambling words in the world will NEVER make the facts at the core of this issue change: abortion means murdering your child… a person… how we all started out. Pro-abortionists are all just grasping at straws to try to excuse and justify what is punishable by jail if the same baby were allowed the time to develop, grow, and be born. I have a friend who murdered someone. Guess where she is: jail. Why then do we in America ALLOW the same act, murder, if only the victim happens to still be in the womb?!? Where is the logic in this? There is none. And something else that drives me crazy is that probably the same people that are for abortions get all up in arms when they hear of a dog being abused. They are outraged and want the animal abuser to serve jail time. WHAT?! WHAT?!! Do you see the disconnect there? You have to! It’s legal to KILL a baby, a HUMAN, but a crime to abuse animals.
    If you are pro-abortion, you truly need to search your heart and soul. Killing your baby because it’s not a convenient time to raise a baby is NOT a good or valid reason for committing murder. “Thou shalt not murder.” has no exception clauses. The answer is prevention, taking responsibility for your actions, and adoption when a mother simply cannot care for their child. There are many loving people just waiting for a beautiful baby to love. It’s God’s perfect plan to work all things for good. Wouldn’t you rather live knowing your baby has life with a good family instead of living with the fact that YOU CHOOSE to end their life brutally? The whole verbage about a women’s choice is ridiculous. I can’t legally choose to murder someone (after birth.) Even if murder did become legal… would that make it right? No. This should be clear. Morality isn’t complicated.

    • mellankelly1

      abortion means murdering your child… a person…


      Abortion is the termination of ones pregnancy wherein the zygote, embryo or fetus is killed.  Now, obviously you are free to write and/or say whatever you’d like regarding your personal beliefs when it comes to personhood and/or life.  However, despite your personal beliefs it is simply untrue that abortion is the murder of a child.

       Pro-abortionists are all just grasping at straws to try to excuse and justify what is punishable by jail if the same baby were allowed the time to develop, grow, and be born


      Those who respect the personal beliefs of each individual woman and who trust that each woman is fully capable of making the best, most moral and responsible decision regarding her pregnancy have no need to grasp at straws.  Particularly when there is nothing to be "excused" nor "justified" when a woman makes the decision to terminate her pregnancy.  I think it is wonderful that the legal system is capable of recognizing the value of women’s lives and trusting these women to make the best choices regarding their own pregnancy.

      Why then do we in America ALLOW the same act, murder, if only the victim happens to still be in the womb


      Hey, you are free to believe that the biological life of a zygote is on par with the lives of people… you are free to risk your physical, emotional and/or spiritual life for any and all of your pregnancies.  What you absolutely cannot do is force any other woman to take those risks.  Each woman is fully capable of making the determination of what is the best option for herself and her family.  Your opinions about some other persons pregnancy are completely irrelevant.

       And something else that drives me crazy is that probably the same people that are for abortions get all up in arms when they hear of a dog being abused


      What the…?  Yes, it’s certainly insane to fathom a person being upset by the abuse of a fully sentient being.  How nutty those animal-lovers can be, eh?  Hey, if you support a woman’s choice to decide if, when and under what circumstances to bring a child into this world… it would only make sense that you delight at the thought of animals being abused.  That whole reasoning is not only nonsensical but a ginormous man made of straw… lots and lots of straw.

      If you are pro-abortion, you truly need to search your heart and soul. 


      I would offer that those who do not trust women as moral agents, capable of determining what will or will not happen to their own bodies should search their heart and soul.

       Killing your baby because it’s not a convenient time


      Oh please… no babies are killed.  That is simply emotive nonsense.  And really, your opinions about what constitutes convenience are completely and utterly irrelevant to these women.  To casually state that a woman’s economic situation, her familial situation, her physical and/or mental health or any other matter which she deems important enough to consider when deciding the best course for her action are merely inconvenient is contemptible.  It says more about the person making the statement than it could ever say about the women facing an unwanted and/or doomed pregnancy.

      It’s God’s perfect plan to work all things for good 


      Oh please do prove that Gods "perfect plan" does not include women making the best, most moral and responsible decisions regarding their own pregnancies.

      Morality isn’t complicated.


      No, it’s not.  It would be just as immoral to force a woman to gestate her pregnancy as it would be to force a woman to terminate her pregnancy.  It would be immoral to hurt a person by forcing them to do something which will risk their health and/or life against thier will.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, let’s look at it this way…
    You are a person, right? Yes, of course you are. At one point in your life, you were what we call a fetus, like you mentioned. Well, let’s break this down into simple terms. If you would have been aborted when you were inside your mother’s womb, would you be here today? Of course the answer in NO. So therefore the “equation” goes like this: fetus + abortion = no “you”, or in other words, I’ve proven what I said and you denied. Abortion does mean the death of a child. It means interfering with the normal course of development and growth and STOPPING A BEATING HEART. -Killing something, a person, that is alive and thriving. To deny that is simple deception. Pure and simple deception. You’ve bought into the LIE that pro abortionists sell… to themselves first and then to others to help them justify the deep guilt and internal struggle they feel.

    I am sympathetic to women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. It must be a very, very difficult place to be in. But to truly think that it’s ever a good and moral decision because it’s a personal inconvenience is deception and delusional. First off, abortions in the case of rape and incest only account for about 1% of cases. Your last statement was about forcing women to do something that would risk their life/health against their will. Are you aware that those cases account for only 2.8% of abortions? Therefore, for the MOST part, women are killing babies because of “personal inconveniences.” The most common reason given for having an abortion is “wanting to postpone childbearing”, at 25.5%, the largest group of people who responded with the same reason. The question that begs to be asked is why are “inconveniences” a valid reason for our country to support killing babies?? Instead, women and men need to take more responsibility for their actions. In life there are serious consequences for certain actions. People need to understand that they should not be having sex if they are not in a position in their life to take responsibility for the possible outcome: a pregnancy. If we all took these precautions, we wouldn’t be facing this agonizing decision and debate. No one wants to face this. It can be avoided.

    I know you don’t like me voicing my “personal beliefs” but the facts are the facts, whether or not you CHOOSE to believe them. God created sex for marriage not as a punishment or to restrict us, but He knew of all the problems that stem from sex outside of marriage: unwanted pregnancy, STDs, heartache, struggles, remorse, guilt…. He wants to spare us from those pains because He loves us so incredibly much.

    I have a question for you… What is the source of your “moral compass?” Where do you look for iron-clad answers to moral questions? From the media, Oprah (God help us), magazines, the stars, your opinion… where? When you stand before God one day, without the aid of any of these “resources” to back you up, what will you fall back on? Where do you get solid and trustworthy moral answers? I’ll tell you what I know the truth to be, my friend. The only solid moral foundation we can ever build our life upon is on the words found in the Bible, God’s Word to us. This isn’t my opinion or my “doing.” It’s just the way it is. God loves us enough to have not left us on our own without a trustworthy resource and guide for life. The Bible is our Guidebook for life. God loves us and wants what’s best for us, so He’s outlined the best path for us to take. It has nothing to do with politics or man-made religion. It’s basically just our Father Who has all wisdom and knowledge and is gracious enough to pass it on to us. We can choose with our free will to take it or leave it, but really, we’d be a fool to “leave it.” We’ve got “pea” brains compared to the One Who created the Heavens and the Earth… the One Who knows exactly how many hairs are on my head and the on the heads of everyone on this Earth. My brain’s big enough,though, to tell me that it’s in my best interest to acknowledge, listen to, and follow His lead. And when I do, it’s clear to me that abortion is the murdering of a life with untold potential… a life that deserves to live. A right that YOU enjoy.

    And by the way, to all the women who live with the guilt and pain of having an abortion, there is freedom from the condemnation, and it’s available to you. There is One Who has already paid the punishment for you… for all our sins. One Who wants you to gift you with forgiveness and wash your sins away… yes, even the sin of abortion. That One is Jesus. His death on the cross was payment for our sins: past, present, and future… IN FULL! He died a humiliating and agonizing death so you wouldn’t have to serve out the punishment your (and my) sins deserve: eternity in Hell in complete separation from God and all that is good- a very scary place to be!). He did this because He knew we couldn’t cure our sin problem on our own, so out of an incomprehensible love, He sacrificed Himself for us. All we need to do to receive the gift of forgiveness and salvation (and receive “the keys” to Heaven/paradise) is simply believe with your whole heart that Jesus is your Lord and Savior and repent (turn from) your sins and trust Him with your life. When you do, you go from death to life and are COMPLETELY FORGIVEN AND FREE!

    If you have had an abortion, God wants to forgive you and help you heal. He has great plans for your life if you follow Him. He offers all of us unconditional love and eternal life with Him. The world can’t give you anything close to this. The gift is yours to receive. Now THIS choice is truly yours! Choose wisely and God bless you.

  • invalid-0

    One embryo can split post-conception and form two different embryos which develop into different babies. Two separate embryos can join and develop into one baby. The rate of conceptions that fail is toward 80%….God is the biggest abortionist, He prefers abortion over a conception developing into a baby. Want to actually provide a quote of Jesus about this topic instead of your own rambling?

  • mellankelly1

    If you would have been aborted when you were inside your mother’s womb, would you be here today?

    Yes, of course.  I just might not be "Kelly" and perhaps I would’ve been born to the "Jones" rather than the "Smiths."  But I don’t see why my personal beliefs regarding life should have any bearing on some other woman facing an unwanted or doomed pregnancy.  Perhaps you could explain why my beliefs (or your beliefs) regarding life, pregnancy, parenthood and/or personhood should be relevant to any other person.

    I’ve proven what I said and you denied

    Um.  No, you haven’t proven a thing as of yet.  Perhaps I should just read on a bit…

    Abortion does mean the death of a child.

    No, abortion is the death of a zygote, an embryo or a fetus (effectively terminating a pregnancy.)  Abortion means that there will be no child (that’s kind of the point, eh?)

    You’ve bought into the LIE that pro abortionists sell

    Actually, I’m just not buyin’ what your selling and I think it really bothers you.  I simply will not put aside my personal belief system in order to accommodate yours… plain and simple.  Much in the same way that you do not put aside your personal beliefs in order to accommodate mine, right?  And that’s okay.

    But to truly think that it’s ever a good and moral decision because it’s a personal inconvenience is deception and delusional

    Right, except that you don’t get to decide what is moral or good or convenient for any person other than yourself (and perhaps your loved ones)… you’re just not that important.  I’m not trying to be flippant, it’s just that you must understand that your personal opinions about morality and/or convenience are utterly irrelevant to a woman facing an unwanted or doomed pregnancy.  Some women feel that abortion is the best, most responsible and moral decision that they can make… whether or not you support that choice is immaterial.

    Are you aware that those cases account for only 2.8% of abortions?

    You’re mistaken.  You need to research the risks involved with pregnancy.  Any pregnancy can risk a woman’s life and/or health… the person most qualified to decide whether or not she is willing to take these risks is the pregnant woman.

     What is the source of your "moral compass?"

    I figure that most people are aware that it would be immoral to cause harm to another person or force another person to risk harm (whether the harm is physical, mental or spiritual.) I suppose you may believe it is moral to force a person to take these risks provided that no harm came to a zygote, an embryo or a fetus… if this is the case, we are going to need to agree to disagree on that matter.  I would not risk my life for a pregnancy… I wouldn’t do that to my family. However, I see nothing wrong with you risking your life for your pregnancy… neither one of us should be able to force our choice(s) onto any other person. 

    When you stand before God one day

    I believe that God has stood next to me since the beginning of time… God has experienced everything I have experienced right there with me.  I can’t imagine not having God in my life.  And I will be welcomed home to God when the time comes.  Having said that, the only faith that matters is the faith of the woman facing the unwanted or doomed pregnancy. 

     I’ll tell you what I know the truth to be, my friend

    Your truth is meaningless to me.  It’s all well and good that you feel so passionately about your biblegod, but your opinions are of no importance within the realm of my life.  Sounds harsh, but it is the honest Gods truth.

    This isn’t my opinion or my "doing."

    Yes, it is.  The bible may be your "guidebook for life" but in my opinion, it is about as relevant as the latest Stephen King Novel.  the bible was not penned by God… I do not believe that it is inerrant nor the word of God.  It’s lovely that you put some much faith into these words, but I just don’t.  And that’s okay too.

    He died a humiliating and agonizing death …


    Hey, it’s great that you believe that God killed Jesus for you… I will simply have no part of that.  I find it abhorrent and completely contrary to God.  God and I are just fine… there is no need for forgiveness and I’m already completely free.  References to your bible and your Jesus are not relevant to me and certainly have no place in the personal and private decisions that women make regarding their pregnancies. 

  • invalid-0

    That’s funny how they’re criticizing people for supposedly perverting Barack Obama’s life story, by twisting it to argue for the pro-life side, yet they have no problem exploiting Norma McCorvey’s (a.k.a. “JANE ROE”–as in ROE V. WADE) story even though she is now a staunch pro-life activist and was used by those two lawyers, Weddington and whoever else argued that monstrosity of a case. I’d like to see these “Save Roe” types talk to Ms. McCorvey directly now.

  • invalid-0

    And another nice little irony for you regarding the hypocrisy of willingness to exploit something while doing the same with others is the part in this article that complains about the “racial element” of airing this on BET, but doesn’t bother to mention that African-Americans have been shown in numerous studies to be overwhelmingly pro-life. Inconvenient little fact there, isn’t it? They generally don’t vote on this issue, as their overwhelming Democratic majority indicates, but most of that community believes their hero Obama is wrong on this one.

  • invalid-0

    So Ms. McCorvey feels regret about her abortion NOW,well,that’s her perogative.But she did want that abortion THEN,otherwise she wouldn’t have had one.Why she now chooses to paint herself as a poooor widdle victim of those evil lawyers who defended her right to privacy (those bastards!)is something she needs to sort out for herself.So she made a decision she came to regret.That doesn’t mean it’s legitimate to take the right to make that decision away from other women,who may have a better idea of what they want or don’t want and don’t blame other people for their own “mistakes”.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see any “inconvinient little fact”,actually.Your alledged vast majority of African-Americans can be as “pro-life” as they wanna be as far as their own lives are concerned as long as they don’t try to impose their choice on others.Which,apparently,they have no interest in doing,hence that overwhelming Democratic majority.The point of pro-choice is not “Terminate that pregnancy NOW!!!”,but freedom of coice to terminate or continue.The point of this ad is to sell a fairy tale of a magic fetus that will go out into the world and make you so proud,give you so much and make everything so wonderful if only you continue the pregnancy.It’s an aluring tale,but not a realistic one.

  • invalid-0

    Actually, Ms. McCorvey never actually had the abortion she was seeking in that case (or rather actually that those two lawyers were seeking for her), nor does she say now she ever really wanted one. She was approached by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee–two young, opportunisitic lawyers looking for an easy target to use as a pawn for their agenda of a radical definition of the right to privacy to have it include the right to infringe on someone else’s right to life and now Norma McCorvey doesn’t want you people citing her case as some great triumph. She chooses to paint herself this was because this is precisely the facts. She now sees it for what it was, one of the darkest days in the past half century.

  • invalid-0

    You know what I mean by pro-life. The vast majority of African-Americans believe abortion should be illegal and disagree with their hero Barack Obama on that. They aren’t single issue voters and tend to vote more on race than anything else, and the Democratic party has been seen as the “party of civil rights” since the 60’s, thus their overwhelming Democratic majority. But that doesn’t mean that they “apparently have no interest in doing” that (making abortion illegal) it just means their willing to overlook that area of disagreement with their party and its candidates. Some people actually will vote for someone with whom they strongly disagree on this issue. I know plenty of pro-choicers who have voted for pro-life individuals before, and as pro-life as I am, I have voted for pro-choice candidates before. Some of us look at more than one issue. But the fact still remains that survey after survey shows that a large majority of African-Americans oppose LEGALIZED abortion, and disagree with Barack Obama on that topic, despite their votes for him.

  • colleen

    "You know what I mean by pro-life."


    People mean different things by ‘pro-life’. In your case I’m assuming that you mean you would like to see the procedure criminalized and women and Dr’s jailed or dead.

      I’m not going to try to clear up your clueless and bigoted understanding of racial politics. You don’t get it,  you will not listen and why waste my time. I will point out that you keep mentioning some "vast majority" of black folks who in "study after study" wish to see abortion recriminalized and women  and doctors jailed.

    I call bullshit. Find me three cites to any studies  from somewhere other other than an anti- choice web site backing up your lie about a "vast majority" of blacks who would like to see abortion recriminalized.

  • invalid-0

    Here you go, read ’em and weep.

    This is from Zogby, an independent, well-respected polling company–Blacks oppose legalized abortion by a 62-38 margin (and actually hispanics oppose it by an even greater margin though of course you’ll blame that on their Catholicism, but the point is, they too typically vote Democratic in spite of their disagreement on this issue, not because of this issue).

    This one only refers to Black protestants, under the section titled “Political and Religious differences”, but this one puts this group at a 59-36 pro-life majority, and I’d say it’s a pretty fair assumption that black Catholics would be even more overwhelmingly pro-life than this, and there aren’t too many black atheists or Jews.

    This one doesn’t give specific figures, but it cites a Gallup poll (again, non-partisan, well respected)that finds African-Americans “more aligned with Republicans on social issues, including abortion.”

    Notice that none of these sources have ANYTHING to do with any “anti-choice” groups or websites.

    So again, I fail to see how my understanding of racial politics is in any way “bigoted” or “clueless.” Just acknowledging the facts. You can’t deal with them, no skin off my nose.

  • invalid-0

    Oh, and if you intend to dispute these figures, I will hold you to the same standard (in the opposite direction) to which you held me. It’s not enough to just cry “these figures are bullshit.” I now challenge you to show me any studies or polls that directly contradict these which don’t come from radical feminist or pro-choice websites or organizations.