“A new birth of freedom”, but not for everyone

There’s probably no way to improve up on Nat Hentoff’s column about Barack Obama’s stalwart support for abortion of all kinds. The President-elect has promised that his first deed as President would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” into law.

Per usual, the name of the FOCA obfuscates the truth. For one thing, the child in question has no choice and never did; he or she is simply there, regardless of “viability”. The woman’s “right” to select life or death for the child is tantamount, and her choice is viable whether the decision has to do with physical, emotional, psychological, or familial concerns. As Hentoff points out, this means nearly anything, anything at all, can be cited as a reason for ending the life of an unborn human being. Don’t want to lose your figure? Here’s your ticket, ma’am.

No less (well…a bit less) distressing, however, are the other choices denied. Parental-notification laws will be thrown out, negating the opportunity (and, some might say, responsibility) parents have to change their minor daughter’s mind about following one bad choice with one far worse. States will no longer be required to provide patients with information regarding the physical and psychological risks of abortion, and even laws allowing only licensed physicians to perform abortions will be struck down—lest, of course, such regulations prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion without bureaucratic distress (of course, with that national health care plan coming down the pike, maybe this won’t be such a problem, since one will have to wait 7-8 months to get an abortion, at which point many previously condemned unborn children will have been born. Or is that wishful thinking?).

Moreover, and quite distressing for many in the medical field,

Also disposed of will be the “conscience rights” in many states. They include, Mr. Johnson reminds us, “all laws allowing doctors, nurses or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.” What about religiously based hospitals and clinics that refuse to perform abortions?

Funny, isn’t it, that conscientious objectors to war are vaunted hailed and cheered as valiant souls, unafraid of retribution, while those whose consciences object to rather non-political issues such as life and death are ridiculed, threatened, and disdained as party-dampening moralists—and worse?

Of course, if abortion becomes a government-sanctioned “right”, taxpayers, too, will probably find themselves paying for abortions at home and abroad, regardless of their own conscientious objections. Indeed, one can’t help but wonder just how much federal funding would be available for this act were taxpayers given the choice of “donating” to the “cause” or not. My suspicion is the federal abortion coffers would be quite slender (actually, that goes for most entitlement and other government programs, though it’s beside the point of this post).

Finally (dare I suggest this?), we leave out what should be the most compelling input of all: that of God, who clearly allowed that tiny life to be conceived. Even as a Christian, bringing this up makes me nervous, but God is real, He has thoughts too. This isn’t a theocratic power or guilt swipe, just…wondering. Does He have no say? Does His position not even give us pause as we rush to open the clinic doors wide for all comers, requiring nothing of them but a turned head from Him?

It seems to me that having done our best to shove God out of the public square at all, man is responsible to and answers to no one but himself or herself. This is a very unpopular opinion, but could it possibly be a root of the evil? It used to be that, believe in Him or not, the mere spectre of God was enough to keep many people in line. Having removed that safety, we now stand with the knowledge that millions of human beings were never given a chance to live.

Reminder: I know even the suggestion of God is verboten in this of all discussions, but the question is on my mind.

Again, abortion is not a political issue. It is one of life versus death. But in our world, it seems the the issue is more one of desire versus responsibility, and somehow, such matters inevitably do become political in our day, no matter how absurd it is to suggest the federal (or even state, in many cases) government should arbitrarily decide the case for all of us.

Hentoff’s entire column may result in a turning stomach, but this will turn you absolutely green:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, heralded the election of Mr. Obama as “a new birth of freedom.”

Indeed. Not for everyone, though, as Hentoff reminds us. *sigh* The gall of these people…! Freedom for the “viable” only, I suppose.

Having become overwrought regarding this topic many times previously, I’ll spare you.

Of course, there is a chance Congress would eschew passing the bill, with members afraid to further muddy their cloven hooves on such a hot topic. For once, we might find it reasonable to pray that the Congresscreatures (at least those on the other side) actually lack spines due to the prospect of an enraged populace. We can hope, right? (Isn’t that what the BHO administration is all about? Hope and change and stuff?)

On Jan. 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Mr. Obama said with pride: “Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice and have consistently had a 100 percent pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America … To truly honor (Roe v. Wade), we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves and their children from violent relationships.”

Please do not ask me what in the world “reproductive justice” means. Chances are, we’d rather not know. Furthermore, if aborting a child is the only way to “free” them from violence, we’re in far more trouble than I thought.

What, Mr. President, can be more violent than murder by abortion? Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, said on Nov. 11 (Lifenews.com) that “his dream of full equality remains just a dream as long as unborn children continue to be treated no better than property. The elections are over. The pro-life battle begins anew.”

So it does.