What’s wrong with this?

From the Washington Free Beacon:

The White House Visitors Office requires that an unborn child—still residing in utero—must be counted as a full human being when its parents register for a White House tour, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

White House Visitors Office director Ellie Schafer sent an email to a Capitol Hill staffer Tuesday morning explaining the process for registering an unborn fetus for a White House tour:

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

Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process.

LAST NAME: The family’s last name

FIRST NAME: “Baby” as a first name
MIDDLE NAME: NMN as in No Middle Name
DOB: Use the date you are submitting the request to us as their birthday
GENDER: if the parents know put that gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we’ll ask you to update it at the time of birth
SOCIAL: As they will not have a SSN and are under 18, you will not need to enter this field. Again if the spreadsheet asked for a social enter 9 zero’s (not the word nine zeros but 000000000 and yes it happens!)
CITIZEN/CITY/STATE: The citizen, city and state should be entered the same as the parents

The White House of the most aggressively pro-abortion President evv-errr.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to What’s wrong with this?

  1. Ben Trovato says:

    It takes some President to be thicker than the bureaucracy!

  2. wmeyer says:

    Unbelievable! Getting baby on the list for potential abortions? Perhaps ensuring the mother can be counseled while at the White House?

  3. rcg says:

    How to Solve This Problem: Introduce legislation that mothers, whilst carrying the infant, may cast a vote on behalf of that infant in all Federal elections. Also could be introduced on the local level. Abortionists would go out of business in less than a year.

  4. Someone in a comment box on another site points out that this instruction could be for the advance registration of babies in the womb who will be born by the time of the tour. Say you’re 6 months pregnant, and want to register now for a tour 6 months in the future to make sure you get a spot on that day. The baby will (if all goes well) be part of the tour, too, and must be registered now because the coat room doesn’t hold babies for those on tour. Then it makes sense.

    Obama has pushed the envelope on the meaning of “ridiculous” and “hypocrite,” but to register babies in the womb who will be still in the womb on the tour date would be idiotic. If any president would do that, it would be he, but it’s probably not the case.

    I am no Obama fan, by the way, and have been very vocal on my blog about his contraception and sterilization mandate. But fair is fair.

  5. pm125 says:

    Someone, please implore for an answer:
    the Dept. of Health and Human Services heads, The Supreme Court, The Obamas, Ms. Fluke, Planned Parenthood, the VP, Mrs. Pelosi, and on to Congressional voters of pro-abortion, and on to campaigners, the media journalists, the comedians and slanderers, and supporters of ending the lives of little ones of the same age as those required to be registered as visitors. Symptom of madness. ? Too much party joking to notice?? Giving platitudes to visitors excited about family?

    Just what is the legal definition of a person after all???

  6. Mrs. O says:

    Privacy. That would be my biggest complaint. Unless there are areas harmful to unborn children!

  7. Maggie says:

    Doc Angelicus, what you’re saying makes a lot of sense (most people have to schedule a White House visit many months in advance).

    But it’s still a really weird irony. Maybe the worst part is that if an unborn child is, in fact, considered a human person…. that still doesn’t matter to those with an iron clad pro-abortion philosophy. Child or not, it’s still not worthy of life until the mother deems it so.

  8. anilwang says:

    Reminds me of why the liturgy is a good source of doctrine. After the Arians split, they continued to use all the Marian hymns from the Catholic/Orthodox Church. There was a huge inconsistency between “Lex orandi” and “lex credendi”. Eventually, they changed the liturgy to match the theology since the liturgy discredited Arianism. Something similar happened in Protestantism.

    Don’t worry, White House tour registration will eventually be consistent with the law.

    Hopefully, some enterprising lawyer will be able to use such inconsistencies to prove in a court of law that an unborn child is a person before common practice catches up with the ideology.

  9. anilwang says:

    Maggie “Child or not, it’s still not worthy of life until the mother deems it so.”

    That’s the fundamental ethos of the culture of death. You’re only deserve life if you’re wanted. The eugenics movements of the 1930s never really died out.

  10. Martial Artist says:

    @pm125,

    You ask

    Just what is the legal definition of a person after all???

    Embedded within the answer to your question lies the source of a sea of logical confusion within the laws in this nation. Contained within the text of the Constitution of the United States, including the text of all 27 ratified Amendments, there are 49 occurrences of the term person, in either singular or plural form. But nowhere in the Constitution is a definition of a “person” to be found. The authors and ratifiers of the Constitution presumably assumed that everyone shared a common understanding of what was the meaning of the word person, both denotationally and connotationally.

    Given the events of the intervening two hundred twenty two and a fraction years, it would seem that they were overconfident about the lasting validity of that assumption. Hence we now have a situation where the governing document in our nation is silent, and therefore ambiguous, on who is to be considered a person under the law. I strongly suspect that it is the very lack of a definition that has prompted some to enter into the project of attempting to introduce and have ratified a “PersonhoodAamendment” to the Constitution, which, as I understand it, would define the fertilized human ovum as a person and thereby remove the ambiguity inherent in the drafters’ assumption. Clearly, the adoption by at least 38 US States of a fetal homicide law, despite the the fact that some of those laws exempt abortion from inclusion as homicide, makes abundantly clear that many share the Catholic understanding of personhood and of its sanctity.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  11. Son of Trypho says:

    It might have something to do with insurance and legal liability requirements?

  12. wmeyer says:

    Son of Trypho:
    Insurance? It’s the FedGov. Think self-insured, by taxpayers.

  13. Son of Trypho says:

    wmeyer

    I’m not in the US but I do know that in other countries a Govt. often has to have independent insurance policies in place for public meeting places/locations in case of accidents, to limit liability etc.

  14. Pingback: No Birth Certificate Required, no, really, no joke, not kidding « Over the Rhine and Into the Tiber

  15. Reginald Pole says:

    Federal visitor centers will go to any extreme to boost their head count numbers and hence their funding.

  16. PostCatholic says:

    What’s wrong with it is that the story is a lie.

  17. Supertradmum says:

    Narcissists create their own bubble worlds of unreality. Schizophrenia sets in and this is an example of such duplicity…

  18. sisu says:

    This brings to mind Micracle on 34th Street…
    “Judge Henry X. Harper: Uh, since the United States Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.”

    Since the United States Government declares this to be a baby, this court will not dispute it… :)
    If only!

  19. Maxiemom says:

    I can understand asking if a woman is pregnant for liability reasons, but beyond that, they are asking for too much unnecessary information. Unless they are planning on handing out voter registration forms for the unborn in an attempt to stuff the ballot box.

  20. PostCatholic says:

    What the White House Visitor’s Center ticket application requests is that if a pregnant woman intends to visit the White House after her delivery date and to bring the baby, that the child have its own ticket. The balance of this story is a naked lie, and shame on Rev. Zuhlsdorf for not correcting it.

  21. Pingback: CU Weekly 195: I Left My Server Yacht in San Francisco | The Catholic Underground