The president, whose administration last Friday declared that religiously-founded institutions — schools, hospitals and charities — have no right to their own consciences when it comes to paying for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization — dropped these pearls for us on the occasion of the anniversary of Roe v Wade, a law passed some 40 million abortions ago:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Shall we look at that more closely?
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
This comes out of the chutzpah-laden mouth of a man whose administration just last Friday — on the third anniversary of his empty, meaningless inaugural address — defined down the whole notion of protecting freedom by declaring that religious schools, hospitals, charities and more — any religious body that employs people outside of a very narrow scope — are no longer free to live by their own consciences, but must instead violate those consciences by order of his own government.
Color me a cynic, but I wasn’t as as shocked as some to see this Administration double down against the churches. And I’m not sure I want to take my definition of “protection” or “freedom” from a man who seems to pick-and-choose what the words mean — and from a very illiberal perspective, for that matter.
I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.
The president is a man who is committed to protecting “rights” that are not specifically enumerated within the constitution, while equally committed to disregarding or limiting rights that are fundamentally and specifically stated; rights upon which the nation was founded and which, indeed, are so crucial to America’s understanding of who she is and why she is necessary that they are the very first rights mentioned.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
Take note of his priorities. They do not speak of an understanding that life is a gift to celebrate; it is — first and foremost — a thing to be prevented. But yeah, if an unintended pregnancy happens, and the woman insists on having the thing, we should “support” the women in some vague way and oh, yeah, there’s adoption! Increasingly, the churches (who, in many cases offered adoption and child-placement services before the states were even thinking about it) are being disinvited from involving themselves in that worthy act, unless they will — here we go again — deny their own consciences and cease to be who they proclaim themselves to be, in order to conform to the government’s ideas of who and what they should be.
And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Let’s spell this out; let’s clarify this vague, euphemistic line, for the sake of transparency, shall we? Because this dual-mouthed president is all about transparency — he even won an award for it, which he received without press — the fulfillment of our daughter’s dreams lie in the freedom and ease with which a sucking hose or a scraping curette may introduce violence and slaughter within their wombs, at the very core of their beings, in order to shred their children to pieces. For this 100% NARAL-approved president who passed up every opportunity to show even a scintilla of mercy for a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, our daughter’s dreams depend on their being able to find someone who will burn their baby in utero, or shove a pair of scissors into the partially-delivered child’s skull, or to close the lid on the garbage pail until the bothersome crying ends.
In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.
Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny; some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.
Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance given by any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.
Moloch couldn’t have said it more cunningly.
Today I feel great sadness and compassion for all of the women who have bought into this at some point in their lives and aborted their children, and who have suffered — often for decades, often in deep loneliness — for their babies. The lie that abortion provides, at it’s core, some ultimate “good” is a lie that has stood too long.
Some Perspective: Thanks to Ed Morrissey (and ABC!)
Danielle Bean: why we march!
Peter Kreeft: The Apple Argument against abortion
Holy Courage: what it takes
Kathy Schiffer: Benedict XVI’s prayer for the unborn
Robert Royal: Divine Impatience
The silliest pro-abortion argument: is the one you hear all the time
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Suing Sebelius
Tina Korbe: March for Life expected to draw 100,000
Picking a fight with Catholics?: No, with all the churches, and people better realize it!
First Things: The “R” word
Frank Weathers: The Life at Conception Act
Powerlineblog: Obama’s words about government intrusion on family matters are laughable and phony
Deacon Greg: “It’s life; you do what you have to do”
Running Roughshod: Over the Constitution
Mark Shea: not a man of few words and what the press is covering instead of the march
First Things: On and For Life, The “best of”
Michelle Malkin: a great roundup
USCCB: vowing to fight
Steven Greydanus: liveblogging the march
Msgr. Charles Pope: Experiencing life
Public Discourse: The Unbearable Wrongness of Roe