Abortion-Supporting Obama Makes Pregnant WH Visitors Register Unborn Baby as Separate Visitor

It is interesting that the Obama White House, a place where everyone thinks a pre-born baby is just a lump of “unviable cells” and not really a person, is now insisting that pregnant mothers must register themselves and their unborn baby on the visitor log when they visit the White House.

As noted by Steven Ertelt,

The Director of the White House Visitor’s Office, Ellie Shafer, today distributed an email newsletter to members of Congress and others providing detailed instructions on how to register an unborn child (“a baby that has not yet been born,” as Shafer puts it) into the security system the White House uses to arrange group tours.

“We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,” Shafer wrote. “Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process.”

My guess is these abortion-supporters don’t even get the irony of a White House that on one hand wants to devalue a fetus as not worth anything, a “lump of unlivable cells” that could be destroyed at will, yet want expecting mothers to register their unborn babies as a separate “person” when they visit the People’s House.

Ertelt report that National Right to Life’s Legislative Director, Douglas Johnson, is also rueful over this news saying, “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.”

In fact, it is worse than what Johnson said. The fact is Obama was the only vote for “abortion” on born alive babies when he was an Illinois Senator.

No doubt as soon as Obama gets his hands on the registration for an unborn visitor to his White House that baby will be mysteriously registered as a Democrat voter, as well.

Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee Saga Takes An Unexpected Turn
Obama Administration welcomes new French President ...
  • davidt

    An unborn baby is a security concern? WTF?

    • EricSteel

      No, its a voter.

      • jim_m

        It won’t be eligible for another 18 years (the dead vote but not the underage yet).  Plus in 18 years we probably won’t be voting for president anymore anyway, not if obama wins another 4 years.

        My initial thought was that the visitors to the White House declined so much that they feel some need to boost the count.  But seriously, who cares f it has?

    • It’s bureaucracy run amuck.  

  • AndrewX

    Yeah, this one loses me. The irony, better yet, the apparent utter obliviousness to the irony is a hoot, but let’s set all that aside, and even sideline any reflections on the administration for a moment…

    Can anyone explain this to me? At all? You have to register your unborn fetus as a separate visitor??  What possible even perceived purpose is this supposed to serve? I can actually understand a church doing it for forthright ideological reasons, but the White House? THIS White House???

    Can anyone figure the thinking here, whether you agree with it or not? It’s damn sure lost on me.

    • It’s a life form, visiting the White House.  Therefore, by the normal rules of bureaucracy, in which anything that doesn’t have paperwork attesting to it didn’t happen, it MUST be logged.  If they could figure out some way to attach a name(less) tag to it, they would.
      I’ve had a good bit of experience with that mindset – if the paperwork doesn’t exist, it didn’t happen – even if the physical evidence is to the contrary.  (Conversely, if the paperwork’s there it happened, even if physical evidence is to the contrary…)

      But this really is taking things a bit too far.

  • jim_m

    Since obama does not believe that the fetus is a person and has no rights, shouldn’t they be counting the unborn as less than a full person. Perhaps they could count every unborn baby as 3/5’s of a person.  Now THAT would be irony.

  • ackwired

    Mr. Huston claims that someone speaking for the White House called unborn children “unviable cells”.  I doubt that, and I can’t seem to find that term being used by anyone.  Could anyone help me with a source?  “Unviable cells” would by definition be incapable of life. 

    This is strange.

    • jim_m

       I don’t know about “unviable cells”, but obama, when defending his lone opposition in the Illinois Senate for he Born Alive Infant Protection Act, refused to acknowledge that children born alive during a botched abortion were, in fact, persons.

      You don’t get much more cold blooded than that.

      In fact obama fought and delayed this bill for three years even though NARAL publicly announced that it did not oppose the act.  I really don’t care what term obama may have used to refer to an unborn child.  He wants them dead and that is the salient point.

      • ackwired

        I know.  He’s evil.  So the truth does not matter.

  • Guest

    Obama nails another AQ plot to hurt Americans and Wizbang blogs childish rants like this.

    Who’s surprised? 

    • jim_m

       Wow!  I’m sorry that you are apparently incapable of thinking on more than one subject at a time.  The rest of us are capable of thinking about that as well as the silly sorts of things on this comment thread.

      Sorry you lack the “bandwidth” to deal with it.

      • Guest

        “More than one subject “suggests that Wizbang actually wrote about the AQ bomb plot.

        But they didn’t.

        So clearly, not only do you not have the bandwidth, you don’t even have the intelligence to know simple facts.

        Big news like an AQ bomb plot would have have been front page news at Wizbang during the Bush administration. It would have been the subject of Wizbamg blog posts for weeks.

        But then, the reality is… that never happened. And never would.

        And here the right used to want us to believe the “GWOT” was important.

        It was just more right wing partisan bullshit.

        • jim_m

           If you don’t like it get your own blog.

          I did not mean to suggest that the issue was discussed here as you are correct it has not been mentioned.  However, there are any number of other topics being discussed.  Perhaps you should complain to Kevin that the caption contest is not devoted to worshiping “the won”.

          • Blogger.com is ready when he is.

            But then, like any good leech he’d rather exist off of others.

    • retired.military

      Wait a minute.  Why are we going after terrorists.  Obama says the war on terror is over.  He is talking to AQ and smoking the peace pipe ala John Kerry.

      We need to talk about more important things.
      Like free condoms for all.
      After all they prevent unwanted pregnacies and help improve women’s health by preventing STDs.
      The Obama administration is guilty of practising sexual discrimination.

      Free condoms for all
      Free condoms for all

  • 914


    nuff’ said

  • Hank_M

    “We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,”

    I find this really hard to believe.

    Are White House staffers subject to random drug testing?

  • Sanity519

    I love it!  I was re-directed to Warner Todd Huston’s blog doing some research on the King Street Voter Supression organization and the original blog was about how sad and disappointing it is when the “Democrat” party lies to achieve a goal.  And THIS tripe is the latest post??  LOL!!  Thanks I needed the laugh!

    • warnertoddhuston

      I don’t know how you could have run across my work when looking for the “King Street Voter Supression organization” [sic] because there is no such organization.

      • Guest

        Lol… no such organization — more laughs

        The database was reportedly developed by “True the Vote,” a project of the Texas Tea Party group King Street Patriots, which has been accused of a variety of voter suppression tactics, and is working with a national right-wing organization to purge voter rolls in several states.

        • warnertoddhuston

          LOL. So you pick a fake story that says they were ACCUSED of something and you don’t note that no proof or convictions of them on such have ever come about. In other words, you are a blatant liar. Figures.

          • Guest

             Compared to your declaration that the King Street Patriots doesn’t exist I’d say you’re looking pretty foolish here, mr Huston.

            But at least I got you out of your hiding place.

          • warnertoddhuston

            You aren’t too bright, are you? I said the “King Street Voter Supression organization” [sic]  doesn’t exist because there is no such “voter supression” organization. The King Streeters don’t “suppress” anything. Never have. There’s no proof they ever have. There’s been no official government charges, no lawsuits that proved they did. Sure their enemies make all sorts of accusations, but accusations don’t mean anything for truth. But since you can neither read, nor reason, nor tell the truth, I guess I don’t blame you for your blatant stupidity. It’s obviously some mental condition that stops you from properly using your brain. I suppose I should just pity you. Lastly, you may want to look up what [sic] means. If you truly can learn something, it might be something new for you.

  • Guest

    Do Republicans really think that President Obama personally has formed this policy? Like he has time or would bother with such trivia? He would decide on this policy?

    Abortion-Supporting Obama Makes Pregnant WH Visitors Register Unborn Baby as Separate Visitor

    Lol, apparently some do – but I guess when your work experience consists of running the fry machine at the local McDonald’s or being the greeter at the local Wal-Mart you develop pretty naive ideas about what the POTUS does in a given day.

  • TomInCali

    When I saw the news stories about how some right-wing sites were jumping on this story, I have to say I never expected this site to be one of them. Are you really that out there that you believed this crap? And so gullible that you didn’t even bother reading up on the truth before posting it? Or do you just willingly do whatever you can to invent manufactured outrage?

    The policy is to list a placeholder for the unborn child if they will be born by the time you show up for the tour. In other words, you can’t sign up three people and then show up with four. For White House tours, you need to reserve tickets months in advance. So if you’re pregnant when you reserve the tickets, and the baby will be born by then, just make sure you reserve one for the baby too. No different from if you’re pregnant and buying plane tickets, you’d better buy one for your baby if they’ll be born by the time you get on the plane.

    Feeling silly now?

    The article that started it all quotes the first part of the email it uses as its source, but conveniently omits the rest of it. Which is:

    Once the baby is born, you should send an email to the [Visitor’s Office] inbox with the tour request ID number, the baby’s given name, their actual birthday and gender. We can then update the newborn guest’s information within our system.

    But it’s easier to stir up controversy when you use deception, isn’t it?

    I don’t know what’s more ridiculous… that some crazy person actually invented this stupid story just to make this ludicrous claim about the White House? Or that so many people actually claimed to believed it! (Notice I said “claimed”, because I can’t seriously imagine anyone to be that dumb.)