|
NRL News
PRESIDENT
OBAMA PUSHES “CHANGE” WE CAN NOT “BELIEVE IN” Before the presidential election, pro-lifers had determined that candidate Obama would make the most pro-abortion president yet. Unfortunately, as developments since the election have shown, our judgment was correct. And our opponents are delighted. Hard-Core Pro-Abortion Agenda Barack Obama, as president-elect and as president, has drawn heavily from the ranks of NARAL; Emily’s List; and grimly pro-abortion academics, lawyers, and politicians to staff his administration. The pro-abortionists even provided him with a 55-page action plan for enacting their wish list of extreme pro-abortion policies. Planned Parenthood types are very hopeful: Susan Cohen writes, “The early weeks of 2009 constituted proof positive that with strong supporters of reproductive health and rights occupying the White House and leadership positions in both houses of Congress, policy change for the better is possible” (“The New Day at Its Dawn,” Guttmacher Policy Review, Winter 2009, Vol. 12, No. 1). Yes, it is as bad as we had feared. President Obama has developed a talent of proposing and supporting extreme policies in the most soothing, “moderate” tones. He speaks of “common ground,” ending “the politicization of this issue,” and reducing “the need for abortion” [italics added]—not reducing the number of abortions, though. But so far, he has been busy promoting full abortion rights, here and abroad, and dismantling existing pro-life polices that actually reduce the likelihood that abortion is used as a method of birth control. Commitment to Roe v. Wade After his inauguration, the President began making good on his pre-election promises with regard to unabridged abortion rights. Take his statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade: “On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands on the broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.” One’s “principles” can’t get much “broader” than considering the killing of an unborn child as “our most private family matter.” A woman growing in the womb has apparently no “right to choose” staying alive. President Obama should have been more honest with this statement: “I am committed to protecting a woman’s right to have her own unborn child killed in privacy.” In the same statement, President Obama speaks of “common ground” on the issue. For the pro-abortionists, “common ground” always seems to come down to this in the end: We “pro-choicer” get to keep the full array of abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and you “anti-choicers” agree to pay for abortions with your tax dollars and stop agitating about abortion. Rescinding “Mexico City” On January 23, 2009, President Obama rescinded the “Mexico City” policy. The policy—first established by President Ronald Reagan, cancelled by President Bill Clinton, and re-instated by President George W. Bush—denied tax dollars to organizations promoting or performing abortions abroad. Our president failed to make clear whether his action was based on his desire for “common ground” or to “end the politicization of this issue.” In any event, hard-core pro-abortion organizations like the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation will now be able to get a good share of the nearly half a billion tax dollars marked for “family planning” in foreign countries. One result is certain: there will be more abortions—and your taxes will go to organizations that perform and promote them. But be assured, President Obama has “no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate” about the issue. This is the equivalent of “shut up, they explained.” But wait, he “will initiate a fresh conversation” anyway. Whatever, as the teenagers say. Rescinding the “Conscience Clause” Washington Post writer Rob Stein informed us (2/28/2009) that “the Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.” The “personal, moral or religious beliefs” of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists seem to be an immense problem for President Obama, the former law professor. Wasn’t it just a few weeks since he spoke an oath promising to uphold the Constitution? Has the First Amendment been “rescinded,” too? Apparently, it can be undone by executive order. That’s the kind of “change” his pro-abortion supporters “can believe in.” We can’t. The sheer irrationality of the president’s action invites ridicule, but this matter is very serious. The idea that one’s religious beliefs and one’s constitutional freedom to act according to them are subject to regulation by a presidential executive order, no less, ought to be beyond the pale. Initiating the “process of rescinding” freedoms under the First Amendment by executive order is a sign of immense presidential arrogance. You and I must voice our strongest opposition to this “process of rescinding.” Naturally, there will be those who will draw a false parallelism: Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion against his religious beliefs is (supposedly) no different from prohibiting a woman from having an abortion in violation of her religious beliefs. Wrong! Our constitutional right of adhering to a religion does not protect the “belief” in a right to kill, intentionally and for convenience, an innocent human being—privately, without due process, no less. Obama’s Extremism on Abortion The recent case of a baby having been delivered alive (because the abortionist failed to show up) and subsequently thrown out to die demonstrates the importance of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama opposed a state bill that had been amended with verbatim language, copied from the federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002. During the presidential campaign, he falsely claimed that the Illinois bill lacked this language—and accused those who truthfully exposed his opposition to the protection of born-alive infants as “liars.” Apparently, Barack Obama believes that a woman must have an absolute right to have an abortion under any circumstances. This is not the “common ground.” This is “ground zero.” |