No Birth Certificate Required (http://freebeacon.com/no-birth-certificate-required/)
QuoteThe 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.
What? If so, a pregnant woman can drive in the carpool lane...claim as a dependant...(just off the top of my head) the list goes on and gets more weird as this "logic" is taken to its logical extremes.
Can anyone explain the 'logic' behind this?
Pad the stat sheet?
I'm curious, those visitor passes, you pin them to your clothes, right?
...So how are you supposed to get one on a fetus? And what manner of gynecology does the gate guard have to perform to check it? ???
In case the woman gives birth within the premises and the baby attempts to assassinate the president?
QuoteUpdate: The National Right to Life Committee released a statement on Tuesday afternoon about Shafer's email, highlighting the fact that the "Obama White House recognizes [a] 'baby that has not been born' for White House security purposes, but tolerates legal abortion to [the] moment
of birth in District of Columbia."
I can't argue with this update. I wonder when they will start requiring forms be filled out for parasites when visiting the uninteresting areas of the White House.
I would think it would be insurance reasons.
Quote from: hismikeness on May 09, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
I would think it would be insurance reasons.
If that were the case, wouldn't a pregnancy box be sufficient? Are you pregnant? yes or no...
The Secret Service had trouble with the brain controlling symbiotes that they routinely implant into all visitors to the white house. The symbiote would sometimes attach itself to the unborn child, leaving the mother free to think for herself. Now pregnant women are being identified through documentation and scans so two or more symbiotes can be implanted as required.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 09, 2012, 04:23:18 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on May 09, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
I would think it would be insurance reasons.
If that were the case, wouldn't a pregnancy box be sufficient? Are you pregnant? yes or no...
I was thinking more along the lines of fire codes and stuff. If you count the fetus as a person you're better of than if you didn't and got sued for not having adequate coverage for x amount of people. Or something like that.
Quote from: hismikeness on May 09, 2012, 05:50:26 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 09, 2012, 04:23:18 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on May 09, 2012, 04:21:26 AM
I would think it would be insurance reasons.
If that were the case, wouldn't a pregnancy box be sufficient? Are you pregnant? yes or no...
I was thinking more along the lines of fire codes and stuff. If you count the fetus as a person you're better of than if you didn't and got sued for not having adequate coverage for x amount of people. Or something like that.
This sounds the most reasonable explanation.
Update from the Huffington Post. Bizarre
This notation device "simply serves as a placeholder for the baby once it's born," Milien said. "All White House guests are required to provide information at the time of their request for the tour, including for children and infants, and those expected to be on the tour once born."
Milien said the White House has thousands of visitors every day and that people sign up for tours months in advance, often canceling and rescheduling. By having a placeholder ready for a baby-to-be, it prevents delays when people might otherwise show up for the tour with a child not previously listed, he said.
"This policy was implemented so if you want to bring your children on a tour, we can account for them," he said.
Ah! So if you're 6 months pregnant and booking 6 months in advance there is a high probability that you'll turn up with a 3 month old kid when you visit. Thus all one has to do update the details collected when the child was still inside mum.
I've heard of the baby bomb and they probably have too, they keep an ear out for that sort of thing.
Quote from: technolud on May 09, 2012, 08:29:53 AM
Update from the Huffington Post. Bizarre
This notation device "simply serves as a placeholder for the baby once it's born," Milien said. "All White House guests are required to provide information at the time of their request for the tour, including for children and infants, and those expected to be on the tour once born."
Milien said the White House has thousands of visitors every day and that people sign up for tours months in advance, often canceling and rescheduling. By having a placeholder ready for a baby-to-be, it prevents delays when people might otherwise show up for the tour with a child not previously listed, he said.
"This policy was implemented so if you want to bring your children on a tour, we can account for them," he said.
That makes more sense. Thanks.
Quote from: Tank on May 09, 2012, 08:40:59 AM
Ah! So if you're 6 months pregnant and booking 6 months in advance there is a high probability that you'll turn up with a 3 month old kid when you visit. Thus all one has to do update the details collected when the child was still inside mum.
That actually makes all kinds of sense.
Still seems like overkill to me. What do they think, people are going to try to sneak in un-registered 3 month old children?
Quote from: technolud on May 09, 2012, 05:57:45 PM
Still seems like overkill to me. What do they think, people are going to try to sneak in un-registered 3 month old children?
Yeah, I think it makes *more* sense, but still seems a bit silly. It's not like a 3 month old is going to require his/her own seat or anything.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 09, 2012, 06:04:41 PM
Quote from: technolud on May 09, 2012, 05:57:45 PM
Still seems like overkill to me. What do they think, people are going to try to sneak in un-registered 3 month old children?
Yeah, I think it makes *more* sense, but still seems a bit silly. It's not like a 3 month old is going to require his/her own seat or anything.
They might need a roll call just in case something were to happen that would separate the group.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on May 09, 2012, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 09, 2012, 06:04:41 PM
Quote from: technolud on May 09, 2012, 05:57:45 PM
Still seems like overkill to me. What do they think, people are going to try to sneak in un-registered 3 month old children?
Yeah, I think it makes *more* sense, but still seems a bit silly. It's not like a 3 month old is going to require his/her own seat or anything.
They might need a roll call just in case something were to happen that would separate the group.
Yeah, I suppose. Though, again, it's not like a 3 month old is going to answer roll call themselves or get separated from their parents. I don't think it's anything worth getting upset over, but it still seems a little weird to me. Would a last minute annotation to include a small baby REALLY throw off their mojo that much?
Again, not a big deal, and the explanation makes it seem a lot more reasonable, but yeah. Still find it slightly weird.