NPR Changes Terminology

By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News 

Henceforth, government funded National Public Radio (NPR) will no longer use the terms “pro life” and “pro choice” to designate the opposing sides of the abortion debate. The new phrases to be used are “abortion rights advocates” and “abortion rights opponents.”

NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney explained that “the older terminology was misleading. While ‘pro choice’ accurately captured the thrust of one side of the argument, ‘pro life’ did not. It was clear that opponents of choice are ‘anti-choice.’ But the implication that the proponents of abortion rights are ‘anti-life’ isn’t accurate.”

“First, abortion rights advocates aren’t against all life,” Sweeney pointed out. “They themselves are living. And it’s not as if they’re indiscriminately opposing life for others.”

“Second, whether the aborted fetus is ‘life,’ per se, is one of the issues under contention,” Sweeney continued. “Many maintain that it is unwanted, and perhaps dangerous, biological tissue, much like a tumor. Removal of this biological tissue is a decision for the patient and her doctor to make.”

“The new terminology avoids confusion and clearly delineates a difference between those who are for rights and those who are against them,” Sweeney concluded. “The new terminology will make it easier for us promote a more socially constructive debate on the future of public policy on this issue.”

Obama Administration to Cut Mortgage Payments for Unemployed

The Obama administration announced it is cracking down on lenders who insist on being repaid for mortgage loans. Lenders will now be required to postpone or cancel repayment if the mortgage holder is unemployed.

“The idea that a debt must be repaid no matter what is simplistic and outdated,” said US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Shaun Donovan. “It assumes that a person can and should be permitted to make his or her own financial decisions without reference to social conditions or the nation’s collective well-being.”

Donovan defended the government’s intervention as “necessary to protect social justice. Just because a person can’t afford to make payments should mean that he can’t own a home. His lack of funds doesn’t negate his need. All we are doing is trying to inject this need into the calculus that determines who shall live where.”

To help “spread the burdens of home ownership more equitably,” Administration plans call for a surcharge to be placed on mortgage payments that are not delinquent. These charges would then be transferred to cover the shortages of mortgages that have gone into default due to a home owner’s unemployment.”

“This will allow for those with the means to help defray the costs of those without the means,” Donovan said. “It’s the strong lending a hand to those weaker than he. It’s brother helping brother. It’s a new paradigm for the new America the President has promised.”

President Dares GOP to Repeal Healthcare Law

Feeling chipper after Democrats prevailed over an ineffectively small Republican contingent in Congress to pass his multi-trillion dollar healthcare reform bill, President Barack Obama dared opponents to try to repeal it. Republican vows to repeal the law are fueled by polls showing a substantial majority of voters want them to do that very thing should they gain a majority in Congress in the November elections.

“They shouldn’t be so sure they’ll gain seats in the election,” Obama warned. “Voters love getting government handouts. Politicians who try to take them away usually don’t fare well on election day.”

The President added that “even if Republicans gain a majority it won’t be big enough to override my veto of any attempted repeal legislation. Remember, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to overturn a president’s veto. There’s no way they’ll win enough seats to do that.”

In related news, President Obama received a congratulatory note on the passage of his healthcare bill from former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Calling government control of health care “an essential building block for socialism,” Castro praised Obama as “the caudillo that America has long needed to forge a progressive future.”

Bid to Block Viagra for Sex Offenders Fails

A Republican led attempt to amend the recently passed healthcare law to prevent government funding of Viagra and related erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted sex-offenders was defeated by a 57-42 vote in the Senate. The amendment was proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) in an effort to highlight and remedy some of the lesser known outcomes of the passage of the “Obamacare” legislation.

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont) called the proposed amendment a “mockery of the seriousness of the healthcare legislation. Before the ink is dry on this law, Republicans are trying to pick apart its supposed flaws.”

Baucus maintained that “for us to dictate who can receive what kind of medication would be a gross invasion of privacy. Lord knows, it’s already embarrassing enough to have to discuss your ED with your doctor. Anybody who’s got the balls to do that ought not be denied a prescription by some do-gooder amendment we pass.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) argued that the proposed ban wouldn’t be necessary because “a government healthcare panel established by the legislation will decide who can and can’t receive what kind of treatment. Rather than a blanket prohibition, the law will allow distinctions to be made at a micro level. Whether a former sex-offender should or shouldn’t get Viagra will be made on a case-by-case basis by those with the medical and psychological expertise we lack here in the Senate.”

Constitution’s “Good & Plenty” Clause Cited

Contentions that the recently passed Obamacare law might be unconstitutional were met with disdain by House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich).

According to Conyers, “the government is empowered to do anything it deems necessary or useful under the ‘good and plenty’ clause. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize they couldn’t foresee the kinds of powers that would be needed in the future. So, they created language in that pretty much says we can do whatever we want if we think it’s for the benefit of the people. Forcing people to buy health insurance surely falls within this broad grant of authority.”

State Department Denies Passover Trip

A soldier’s request to visit Israel for the Jewish Passover celebration was nixed by the Obama Administration’s State Department. The terse rejection stated that “it would be inappropriate for active duty military personnel to travel to countries hostile to the United States.” The State Department letter cited “the incalculable damage done to US interests during the Vietnam War when uniformed American soldiers visited enemy territory.”

In related news, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cited Israel’s construction of new homes in Jerusalem as “the main impediment to peace in the region.” One might have thought that rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists might rank higher, but according to Clinton, “these attacks wouldn’t be necessary if Israel weren’t instigating them by settling on land that the Palestinians claim as theirs.”

Stupak Defends Healthcare Vote

After months of holding out for a ban on abortion funding in the healthcare legislation, Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich) went ahead a voted for the Senate version of the bill. This version allows federal funds to be used to perform abortions. Instead of a legislated ban on such funding, Stupak settled for a promise that President Obama would sign an Executive Order banning such funding and a $726,409 bribe for airport maintenance and improvements in his district.

“It’s the best I could do,” Stupak offered. “Look, the tide on abortion has been running pro-choice for decades. It’s only a matter of time before abortion anytime, anywhere is fully financed by government. It’s going to come regardless of where I stand on the issue.”

“On the other hand, the airport improvement funding is ‘found money,’” Stupak boasted. “It will be spent in my district, benefiting my constituents. It’s not the $100 million Senator Nelson got for his state, but it’s more than most of the others got for their votes. I could’ve gone down for a hopeless principle. Instead, I sold out for a decent payoff. I hope my voters appreciate that come November.”

UN Resolution Condemns Islamaphobia

The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution “condemning Islamaphobic behavior wherever it may be found” and prescribing that “the necks of offenders should be cut and their bodies cast into the fiery pit of Hell.”

The resolution was said to be sparked by “repeated moves on the part of Zionist apologists to infringe upon the rights of Muslims to freely practice their religion, including their scared right of jihad against unbelievers and infidels.”

John Semmens’ Archives

More Reading

Michelle Malkin: McCain Supported Everything that theTea Party Movement Stood Against

Arizona Overcome by Green Phobia

McCain’s ‘Seizure World’ Comment Comes Back to Haunt Him

2 thoughts on “NPR Changes Terminology

  1. I think we’ll lose our minds through this debate even though it must happen. Regardless of what’s right, we’ll never be going back to how things were, for better or worse.

  2. B. Johnson

    People who swallow Representative John Conyers’ wives’ tale about the so-called “good and plenty” clause need to consider Thomas Jefferson’s blunt statement about the limits of Congress’s powers where the General Welfare Clause is concerned.

    “1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

    It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” –Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

    Jefferson clearly indicated that legislation based merely on good intentions on Congress’s part are no substitute for enumerated powers.

Leave a Reply