Revealing Quips on Abortion at the White House Correspondents' Dinner

[L] Michelle Wolfe [R] Sarah Huckabee Sanders WHCD 2018

During the 2018 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the headliner entertainer Michelle Wolf offered what was supposed to be a comedy routine.  Many have focused on the mean spirited ad hominem attacks on Trump White House Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  However, what was truly revealing was Ms. Wolf’s barbs about abortion.

Although she claimed to only be a comedienne making jokes, much of Wolf’s  material was pointedly partisan, mostly aimed at those on the right.  Since it has become televised, the White House Correspondents Dinner (a.k.a. “Nerd Prom”) has devolved into a mean spirited roast.  As elites have attempted to delegitimize the duly elected Trump Administration since even before he took office, the mainstream media (with few exceptions) has embraced the modus operendi of “The Resistance” and politicized everything as well as mainstreaming progressive politics

Ms. Wolf  claimed that she did not want President Trump impeached because it would mean Vice President Mike Pence would take over.  This opposition seem born from Mr. Pence’s deep pro-life position.  Wolf’s joke about abortion was grotesque but fascinating because the premise and framing of her presumed bon mot reveal the lies of the pro-choice movement.

America had been propagandized that the left wanted abortion to the “Safe, legal and rare”. Sure.  

So what about: “Don’t know it until you try it – and when you try it really knock it.”?  Obviously a crude play on words.  What was more revealing was Michelle Wolf’s admission: “You know, you really have to get that baby out of there.”    Isn’t abortion supposed to be about unviable fetuses, or lumps of tissues?  These callous comments reveal that progressives feel so comfortable with abortion that they don’t mind admitting that it is infanticide during rubber chicken dinner jokes.

The latter half of Wolf’s un-“funny” about abortion seemed ill targeted.  Wolf seemed to justify abortion if it was for your secret mistresses.  Mike Pence is an evangelical Christian who rightfully has a reputation of being a Boy Scout.  



  If there is one thing that a Philosophy of Humor class inculcated was that in order to be funny, humor must have an element of truth to it but approach it from an unexpected angle to catch an audience by surprise.  With that in mind, enquiring minds want to know if this was a contrast to Mr. Pence’s straight as an arrow reputation, or is she insinuating that he is a hypocrite and has sex on the side and paid to cover it up.   It may be more likely that Wolf forgot who she was insulting and wanted to impugn the elephant not in the room, President Trump and his messy personal life.

That being said, it is interesting that a roomful of elites were not scandalized about killing human life as they ate their desserts. Apparently, joking about abortion is just another laugh line for them.  To be fair, a few voices in the media have registered protest about how the White House Correspondents' Dinner has confirmed the caricatures of the media made by Trump supporters.  But on the whole, the press corps has rallied around the banner of the First Amendment and speaking truth to power.


One of the reasons that the left has fought so hard against legislative attempts to mandate ultrasounds before abortion is because many mothers to be see an unborn child in the x-ray and might change their minds about terminating their pregnancy.  At the very least, an ultrasound impeaches the lies that they tell themselves to justify termination as part of “Women’s Reproductive Health”. 

Michelle’s Wolf’s jokes about abortion have served as cultural ultrasound.  Humorists often push the envelope to get a laugh and her routine about abortion certainly looked about those lines.  But the way she framed it revealed the truth about terminating a pregnancy.  The left now seems to embrace joking about killing a baby with laughs.  Perhaps such a comedic routine might have been edgily acceptable during a stand up set at a late night comedy club.  But Michelle Wolf’s venue was as the hired help of Nerd Prom, elite swamp dwellering jo-whore-nalists (sic) celebrating themselves wrapped around the First Amendment. Is it any wonder that President Trump chose not to attend?

Of course the First Amendment gave Ms Wolf to say whatever she liked, no matter how offensive. However, that does not mean that it is immune from critique and criticism.  The White House Correspondents’ Association extended an invite to Michelle Wolf so they certainly knew her shtick.  The lack of verbal reproach or walking away from the abortion “joke” speaks volumes about the attitude of elites. 

Polling has shown that approximately half of the country is pro-life.  Hundreds of thousands gather each year on the National Mall in the middle of January under the March for Life Banner to protest Roe v. Wade (1973).  Pro-Lifers have a reputation for being one issue voters.  Now that the left has dropped their veil about pretending that abortion is not about killing babies, we will see if the silent majority will embrace the practice like our media "betters"  or if there will be marked push-back.

Ryan Bomberger on Adversity and Abortion

Ronald Reagan on Abortion

Raising Kaine on the Centrality of Faith in Public Life

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) was picked by Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) partly because he could appeal to some progressive Catholics who are drawn to his social justice warrior background.


 During the campaign, Kaine has claimed that he was a Pope Francis Catholic. During the Vice Presidential debate, Senator Kaine tried to do the typical CINO (Catholic-In-Name-Only) two step in which he claims to personally be a practicing Catholic but does not impose his views on others.

Even though Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin is not a Jesuit, he applied an Ignatian principle of discernment to Senator Kaine's contention that faith is central to his life. 

Perhaps between campaign stops, it would be fruitful for Senator Kaine to read Bishop Tobin's books Effective Faith: Faith that Makes a Difference (2009) and Without a Doubt (2001) to discern how the faithful can effectively form minds, change hearts and enlighten the world in which we live.

Justice Thomas Dissects SCOTUS Abortion Clinic Case Majority Holding

Ted Cruz on Supreme Court Ruling on Whole Woman's Health Abortion Case

Considering the Consequences of SCOTUS Holding on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

Despite the statistics which Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recites regarding womens' health and abortion, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 threw out a two provisions of a Texas law which imposed health regulations which put "an undue burden" on abortion providers that have resulted in clinics shutting down.

In the majority opinion for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Steven Breyer wrote:

There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure.  We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so.

Per the SCOTUS majority, requiring an abortionist to have admitting privileges to local medical facilities in case something goes awry and to maintain surgical standards in abortuaries is an undue burden.  Using this logic, it seems the only reason Dr. Gosnell could be convicted is for illicitly writing drug prescriptions.

Prima facia, the ironically named Whole Womens' Health decision drops the veil on so called reproductive rights being a womens' health issue and points towards abortion on demand, despite the medical circumstances. 

Last year in Obergefell, the Supreme Court usurped the rights of states to contract marriages as they saw fit.  Now, the Supremes have essentially mooted the role of states to regulate for health concerns.  Between the burgeoning bureaucratic state and a Supreme Court which is acting more like a legislative body than an impartial arbiter of law, elites may cynically question why we need states anyways.

So we should stop using the politically correct euphemism of "Womens' Health" when referring to Abortion Rights. It will be interesting to learn where presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump stands on the issue.  While Trump has promised to only nominate  pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, Trump also repeatedly echoes accolades to Planned Parenthood for all that they supposedly do for womens' health. 

Pondering Donald Trump's Present Pro-Life Pitch

 Fox New's  Bill O'Reilly used a viewer submitted question to press his personal friend Donald Trump about to name one specific thing Trump would do to protect the sanctity of life
Trump as the the presumptive Republican nominee proffered the so called No Spin Zone some soothing sentiments to pro-life partisans by claiming that he would appoint pro-life judges, but not necessarily commiting to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973).  Huh? How does that work?

Of course, the Trump's unequivocal utterance does not square well  with Trump's track record, even during this Presidential campaign.  Trump made headlines in late March when he mused that women having abortions should be punished.  Of course, this was one of only four different abortion utterances in one day, which eventually extended to changing the GOP party platform to allow more exceptions. Moreover, how does Trump's latest claim comport with his repeated assertions that Planned Parenthood does great things for women's health.





Trump spun the sanctity of life question into picking pro-life justices for Supreme Court nomination.  It would seem that made Trump's earlier idea of appointing his abortion rights sister who is a judge to the nation's highest court inoperative. If O'Reilly really did not want to be spun, he should have followed up on Trump's vetting process for appointing "conservative, pro-life judges", especially since Trump waffled on overturning Roe v. Wade.  To legally drill down, clarification is necessary to discern if there is a right to privacy embedded in the Bill of Rights and applied to the states.

In prior pressers, Trump opined that same-sex marriage is the "Law of the Land".  Well, Justice Kennedy's opinion on the same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)  is premised on a newly concocted "right to dignity" that reads things into the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment. As Trump was squishy about overturning Roe v. Wade which enshrined the judicial activist practice of forcing federal will upon states concerning matters of prior state jurisdiction, the same-sex marriage case law is directly relevant.

From a culture war standpoint, it is easy to see Trump's flip-flop on the Transgendered (well, actually transvestites or those claiming gender fluidity at a given moment) to use the opposite sex bathroom. The Trump Town Hall pronouncement is that North Carolina's bathroom bill hurt business and ought to be rescinded.  As Attorney General Loretta Lynch made clear in suing the State of North Carolina for respecting traditional public facility proprieties, Transgendered Bathrooms has been elevated into a civil rights issue, reading gender dysphoria into the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Once again, understanding the judicial philosophy of a hypothetical Trump Administration's judicial vetting would be instructive. Otherwise, voters are just being played and the Deal Maker in Chief could bargain with his cronies.

First Lady Senator Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has made clear that she wants to strengthen pro-abortion rights under the guise of women's health.  Trump's laurels to Planned Parenthood, his penchant to flip-flop, his eagerness to cut deals and populist proclivities informed by New York Values really does not give comfort that Trump's pro-life rhetoric will become reality.

While it is quixotic to be a one issue voter, especially on anti-abortion issues.  But Trump's word seems to be worth little on fundamental issues.  Moreover, when Trump was asked what he would do specifically, he relied on labels "I'd appoint conservative, pro life judges" but won't bother with the details of reversing Roe v. Wade.  

On the Politics of Punishing Aborting Mothers

While Donald Trump was on a MSNBC Hardball Townhall with Chris Matthews, made some extraordinary ejaculations about abortion.  Pro-Lifers have been chary about Trump's recent conversion to being against abortion, especially as the Manhattan mogul had labeled himself as being "very pro-choice" in the past.  Moreover, Trump continues to speak highly of Planned Parenthood's contributions to womens' health during Republican debates, even after the Center for Medical Progress' investigative videos implicating Planned Parenthood Clinics trafficking baby body parts for sale and altering abortions to get the most optimal harvest.

Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate  himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary.  When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).



More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics. 

The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues.  On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.

The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states.  But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.

CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon.   Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women.  Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.

This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.


In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.

While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters.  According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men.  Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice.  However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.

Marco Rubio on Life

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Roe v. Wade

Dr. Ben Carson Equates Abortion Attitudes to Slavery

As Dr. Ben Carson was surging to the top of national political polls for Republican primary preferences, he was interviewed on Meet the Press by Chuck Todd.  Dr. Carson dared to gently touch a third rail of politics, by comparing attitudes about abortion to slavery in antebellum America.

These viewpoints are nothing new, as he stated them publicly a couple of years ago at the Value Voters Summit.  What is notable is that Carson was not popularly pleasing an evangelical crowd but standing firm to his values with a soft spoken voice as the general populace gives his candidacy scrutiny.

Dr. Carson's strong pro-life values are in contract with Donald Trump's evolutionary anti-abortion ethos.  In 1999, when Trump was reading himself for a presidential run through the Reform Party, he declared that he was "very pro choice".  As he toyed with a run for the Republican Presidential nomination for the 2012 cycle, Trump told CPAC 2011 that he was pro-life.  In the 2016 primary campaign, Trump claimed that he was pro-life because of personal friends testimony during a primary debate.  Later, Trump clarified that he believed in abortion  in cases of rape incest and the health of the mother (which is little different than current late term abortion loopholes).  Maybe if Trump repeats that mantra often enough, like "I'm a Presbyterian" his followers will be believe it.

As Planned Parenthood funding continues to be under assault, it is likely that the Lamestream Media will spin Dr. Carson's principled comparison to an outrageous "War on Women" meme. But at least we know where Carson stands and based on his history doing neo-natal pediatric brain surgery, he has credibility for his strong stance. 

Joe Biden on Abortion

 So Natural Law is applicable only to those who intellectually adhere to it.  This sort of compartmentalization is common place among liberal Catholic politicians.  But if Vice President Biden is bidding to appeal to real Catholics in a proto-Presidential campaign, he has some soulful promises to keep.

Profiles in Cowardice: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Planned Parenthood Funding

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)  gave a revealing interview to a Kentucky television station regarding his "leadership" style and priorities.

McConnell bragged how under his helm in the 114th Congress, the Republican leadership has brought order to disorder and been more productive.  There are 10 times the number of roll call votes than under the last term with ex Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Senate is on the road to passing a budget on time, which Democrat Senate had been unable to do five of six years under the Obama Administration. Furthermore, Senator McConnell bragged about allowing for bipartisan votes, and he specifically cited the Iran Nuke Vote.

Consequently, Leader McConnell will not fight to stop Planned Parenthood funding. The so called Leader lamented that the votes simply were not there to override a veto. Too bad, so sad.

Apparently, Mr. McConnell does not appreciate the overwhelming anger of the Republican base about a do-nothing Congress which stands for nothing.

Senator McConnell conveniently forgot about Senator Rand Paul's effort to attach a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment to the highway bill, which was virtually a must pass piece of legislation. The Republican Majority Leader followed his predecessor's practice of filling the amendment tree so that no amendments (other than what the Majority Leader preferred) could be attached.  

Instead, Senator McConnell promised a "stand alone" defund Planned Parenthood vote, which inevitably fell short of attaining cloture, meaning that the bill would never be finally voted upon, but phony conservatives could still say that they voted against Planned Parenthood to their gullible constituents while on the hustings or in town hall meetings.

For budget reconciliation votes, there is a special mechanism (the Byrd rule) which does not require a cloture vote to cut off debate.  So theoretically, a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding rider could pass and land on  President Obama's desk, where it is likely that America's most pro-abortion Chief Executive would veto the budget.  Which would mean that Mr. Obama would be responsible for closing down the government to support Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts.

But the Republican establishment is scared of its own shadow much less the prospect of having a government shutdown blamed on them. So seemingly, the GOP Congresssional "leadership" (particularly in the Senate) will acquiesce to anything to avoid that outcome.

Senator McConnell's profile in cowardice in prematurely waving the white flag on the budget shows that he cares more about a hollow set of accomplishments instead of standing for life, law,  or principles.  Aside from more roll call votes, how can Senate leadership in the 114th Congress be distinguished from the Democrats.  President Obama gets everything he wants.  If there is legislation which rubs him the wrong way, the Republican establishment in the Senate caves when Mr. Obama "threatens" to take out his veto pen.  

At this point, Mr. Obama is a lame duck who should have waning influence even within his own party. Admittedly, Planned Parenthood funding might be a major fight, but it would be worth it to a principled party.  This is not a new law outlawing abortion, it is enforcing existing law on fetal pain partial birth abortion and outlawed abortion practices, which the Center for Medical Progress have show that Planned Parenthood is flagrantly flouting the rule of law. 

During the WYMT-TV  Issues and Answers interview,  Mr. McConnell seemed proud to endorse upcoming Iran Nuke Vote.  There are strong prospects for passage but it may not garner the 2/3rds vote for a veto proof majority.  Using McConnell's same logic, Republicans should fold up tent and give up because it will not be signed into law.  

Of course, the Corker/Cardin procedure ignores proper procedure that a binding international agreement (treaty) must have 2/3rds yea votes (instead of disapproval by 2/3rds). But even if the Iran Nuke vote fails to block enactment, a strong show of disapproval would give the next President indication of the unpopularity of the Executive Agreement.  Similarly, passing a budget with a Planned Parenthood defunding amendment might not stand in the short term, but it would lay down a marker for the future.  But that involves standing for principle and not feathering one's nest for the next time to try and hoodwink Republican primary voters.

As elites in the District of Calamity (sic) seem increasingly out of touch, it is worthy to point out some guide posts.  Senator Ted Cruz's July floor speech exposing the perfidy of Mitch McConnell regarding the Ex-Imp bank showed the duplicity of establishment Republicans to the base.  The current front-runners in the Republican Presidential race are all outsiders (Trump, Cardin, Fiorina and Cruz) running on a Washington Is Broken meme.  Avoiding hard votes, like Defunding Planned Parenthood may make big time contributors happy but it bodes poorly with the well-informed base who vote in primaries.  And in the end, when it comes to choosing between a progressive and a progressive lite, why not choose the real thing, because you know what you are getting and it won't be a lie.

Bobby Jindal on Planned Parenthood

Kirsten Powers on Planned Parenthood Expose

Bobby Jindal on Political Reeducation

Hlilary Clinton: Woman, Myth or Deity?

Aside from making headlines by stopping at Chipotle in the Scooby Mystery Machine en route to structured campaign stops in Iowa, former Secretary of State Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) made headlines with her first campaign speech at the Women of the World Summit in New York.

 A candidate's maiden campaign speech can be fraught with symbolism and meaning.  Mrs. Clinton's address was an homage to feminism.  But what really made an impression is when Hillary suggested that in order to ensure full access to womens' "reproductive health" (read abortion), we could have to change our laws, morals and religious beliefs.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

 This proposed progressive pogrom did not play well among Pro Lifers here and abroad.  The Bishop of Oyo, Nigeria Emmanuel Badejo analyzed why the Democrat candidate thought she should say such things.  

Questioning NOW's Dirty Labeling

During a tough interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News Channel, Patricia Ireland speaking on behalf of the  National Organization for Women (NOW)  sought to justify NOW's labeling of the Little Sisters of the Poor as part of the "Dirty 100" in light of the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) Supreme Court ruling.

Ireland deflected the denigration of the Catholic nuns as being like the "Dirty Dozen" with other corporations, presumably for fundraising efforts.  But Kelly does not let her off than easily, suggesting that the nuns be considered "Groups with whom we disagree".

The former NOW President kept insisting that the Little Sisters could "opt out" of the Obamacare contraception mandate.  Except the alleged work around forces the Sisters to sign the Form 700 document permitting others to provide the abortifacients which are anathematic to their faith. 

Ireland offered patronizing lip service to the nuns' living their faith and helping the indigent infirmed. But what she does not realize is that if the Little Sisters of the Poor are eventually forced to pay for such unwanted services ordered by former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius then they will move out rather than contravene their consciences.  

Ireland insisted that I.U.D.s, which is one of the abortifacients in question, does not kill eggs in the uterus.  Well, that's not quite true.  Generally, inter-uterine devices act as spermicide to prevent fertilization but copper I.U.D.s are touted as an emergency contraceptive for five days after intercourse.  Most sperm dies within two days after ejaculation (even in the uterus), thus the emergency contraceptive quality of such I.U.Ds intimates that it prevents the implantation of the blastocyst thereby killing a fertilized egg. 

Ireland incorrectly asserted that the Supreme Court had ruled on the "opt-out" provision.  Hobby Lobby covered closely held corporations with conscience objections but Obamacare opt-outs for non-profits has not been decided yet (although SCOTUS has offered a unanimous injunction pending appeal on January 24th, 2014). 

Ireland's fatal rhetorical faux pas was her bon mot that Supreme Court decisions do not affect the reality.  The hostess of the Kelly Files jumped in and asked if Roe v. Wade affected the reality. T o borrow an oft uttered Ireland phrase from the interview "Bless her heart."

A Bit About Whether Dr. Dobson Unduly Politicize the National Day of Prayer?

To commemorate the 62nd consecutive year of the National Day of Prayer, there certainly were different approaches.  Unlike his predecessor, President Barack Obama has not hosted an ecumenical service to commemorate the National Day of Prayer, the 44th President does issue proclamations each year.  Mr. Obama's 2014 proclamation paid lip service to the importance of respecting religious liberty, which struck many political observers as ironic considering the manner which the Obama Administration has rolled out the Contraception Mandate portion of Obamacare.

On the other hand, Dr. James Dobson chose to play the prophet who will tell truth to power.  Dr. Dobson was quite clear in labeling Mr. Obama as the "Abortion President".  Dobson detailed how President Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2013 Planned Parenthood convention to brag how an expanded "womens' health services" would be part of Obamacare. Dobson also noted that Planned Parenthood garners $250 million a year for "reproductive health".   

Dobson's group "Family Talk" recently won an injunction to block the Federal government from forcing it to impose the Contraception Mandate (which includes abortifacients).  Dobson tearfully proclaimed: So come and get me if you must, Mr. President.  I will not blow before your wicked regulation."  Dobson urged his audience to fight on as: “We can win. And keep prayer because that’s what really made a difference here.”

Dobson's directness did not settle well with Representative Janice Hahn (D-CA 44th), who wagged her finger at the speaker and said "This is inappropriate" as she walked of the event held in the Canon House Office Building.  Later Rep. Hahn, who co-chairs the weekly Congressional prayer breakfast claimed: "James Dobson hijacked the National Day of Prayer -- this nonpartisan, nonpolitical National Day of Prayer -- to promote his own distorted political agenda."

[***]

Dobson's pointed speech was not partisan in the sense of party politics or advocating specific legislation but he did detail real world challenges to living  a morally inspired life.  

[***]

There are thousands of National Day of Prayer events throughout the United States, but activities in the Federal City tend to dominate the spotlight.  So having issues that are uncomfortable or contentious can threaten the non-political comity of the National Day of Prayer.

[***]

The question is-- Did Dr. Dobson unduly politicize the National Day of Prayer?

SEE MORE at DC-LausDeo.US

Did Dr. Dobson unduly politicize the National Day of Prayer?
	No since speaking prophetically truth to power about important moral issues is honoring prayer
	No as Dobson did not endorse political candidates or particular legislation
	No but attacking the civic sacrament of abortion made elected officials uncomfortable
	Yes as Dobson spoke about a real moral issue not simply spouting pretty platitudes
	Yes as the National Day of Prayer should bring together believers and not divide them
	Yes because politics and prayer should not be mixed together
	Don't Know
pollcode.com free polls