OBAMA: “I am pro-choice.”
REPORTER: “In all situations including the late term thing?”
OBAMA: “I am pro-choice. I believe that women make responsible
choices and they know better than anybody the tragedy of a difficult
pregnancy and I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to meddle in
that choice.”
You can’t be clearer than that. Obama, who has the state meddling in
virtually every aspect of our lives, doesn’t want the state to do
anything on abortion, except to keep it legal in all circumstances and
subsidize it. Surely there has to be a more compelling reason to kill a
child who is viable, or mere days from being so, than a difficult
pregnancy? I hate to break it to the president, but most pregnancies are
difficult to some extent. Is morning sickness a difficulty strong
enough to justify an abortion? Is financial hardship? Is a baby with a
disability like Down syndrome a future difficulty to be aborted? He’s
never said.
Late-term abortions are rarely needed for purely medical reasons, yet
there were around 18,000 late-term abortions performed in this country
last year. These are babies—or fetuses, if you like—with advanced neural
development, including, often, the ability to feel pain. These are
babies who are “viable” outside the womb but are denied the chance to
live.
Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who, among other horrible
acts, was killing babies with scissors after “botching” late-term
abortions. The doctor, it was reported in 2011, appeared confused by the
charges against him at his arraignment. (His trial that is now being rigorously ignored
by the media.) And if you’re the kind of guy whose idea of a “botched”
medical procedure involves someone surviving, well, perhaps being
charged with murder is a distinction without much of a difference. What
distinguishes a late-term abortionist from an abortionist who uses
scissors to sever the spinal cords of babies born alive is little more
than a matter of tools and technique. The results, and the facts, are
the same.
Gosnell was charged with his crimes only a week before the president
released a celebratory statement for the thirty-eighth anniversary of
Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared abortion a
constitutional right.
While the media was barely covering the Gosnell story, Obama hailed
“reproductive freedom” as a “fundamental principle.” Our rational
president, who lectured religious Americans about “universal values,”
voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois
senator. The same senator who voted “present” regularly to avoid other
contentious issues took time on four separate occasions to vote against
medical care for newborns who survived “botched” late-term abortions.
Later, when this became a slight embarrassment, Obama claimed that he
would have supported a born-alive act that didn’t weaken Roe v. Wade—an
interesting argument from a politician without any noticeable qualms
about weakening the First, Second, Fourth, or Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out,
the law did nothing more than extend the right to life for babies whom
physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability,” which shouldn’t
have endangered Roe v. Wade at all. Moreover, as a graduate of Harvard
Law School, we might expect Obama to know that the Bill of Rights is
integral to the Constitution, while Roe v. Wade, as even many liberal
legal scholars, like his former Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, have
confessed, is pretty hard to justify as constitutional law, essentially
having been confected out of Justice Harry Blackmun’s personal
preferences.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where a madman
massacred all those children in Newtown, Connecticut, the president gave
a heartfelt speech
that included this line: “If there is even one step we can take to save
another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try.” Wouldn’t
one such step be to ban the nihilist practice of murdering children
who’ve survived outside the womb? Obviously, as a state senator, Obama
was so ideologically wedded to defending abortion in all circumstances
that moderation—if you can call voting to protect a born, living child
moderation—was out of the question. As president he shows no signs of
changing his views—in fact, his hard-line position on abortion is now
Democratic Party dogma.
No comments:
Post a Comment