Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade

Barack Obama Celebrates the Slaughter of 55 Million Americans

55 million

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Today marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade: 41 years over which 55 million human beings have been systematically slaughtered.

And on this infamous occasion, Barack Obama, abortion’s most ardent advocate, had a few words to say in favor of disposing of 3,000 American babies a day.

Here’s the president’s full statement:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

And THIS from the man who has severely impacted the right of Americans to exercise choice in every area besides abortion.

Just like his definition for ‘Hope and Change’ is nothing of the sort, his definition for health is Baby-killing.

While access to healthcare is slowly being frittered away, Barack Obama is doubling down on his commitment to ensure access to abortion. Moreover, as he circumvents the fidelity of the US Constitution, he exploits the right to privacy, which has nothing to do with destroying the unborn, just to give credibility to bad law.

Then, like an executioner pretending to have a vested interest in the living, the president “resolves to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies” with taxpayer dollars. In addition, he vows to “support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.”

Translation: Push free contraception and deny Second Amendment rights.


Because according to Barack Obama, ” this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams” — as long as the freedoms and opportunities are controlled by Government Central.

And as long as the dreams yet to be fulfilled don’t belong to the unborn.

A Murder Worth Committing?

marybeth-williams-for-excerpt1Originally posted at Live Action News

Prolific columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams describes herself as a “writer, consultant, and radio commentator with about a thousand years experience, give or take a century.” The sassy Mary Elizabeth, author of the memoir Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream, is also a staff writer at Salon.com. Almost daily, Mary, or MEW for short, churns out an opinion piece or two where she rants on about whatever is current in Hollywood, politics, breaking news, and religion.

Although Williams describes herself as a “practicing Catholic,” she recently wrote a piece with the provocative tag line: “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” The article that followed was entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”

Based on the subject of that article, and judging from her Catholic-school name of Mary Elizabeth, there’s a good chance that although the columnist rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life, she still believes that there is merit in going to confession.

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ms. Mary managed to do what pro-choice people have simply refused to do, and that is to admit that abortion is killing. Not only that, but Ms. Williams also had the chutzpah to admit that executing a pre-born child on a whim is a perfectly acceptable option.

In the article, it seems that Williams’s goal was to defuse what she sees as a pro-life ploy. Mary E. maintains that the reason why pro-life advocates try to convince pro-choicers that a baby is alive from the moment of conception is to prove that having an abortion takes a life. MEW thinks pro-lifers believe that once the “life” aspect is acknowledged, that realization has the power to morally sway those who devalue life to rethink the pro-choice position.

Mary suggests that pro-choicers intrinsically know but won’t admit that a fetus is a living being because they believe that if they did, they’d “flub it for the cause.” Therefore, Williams takes it upon herself to exhort pro-choice America to go ahead and admit that a fetus is alive, and then admit that the knowledge that a fetus is living in no way impacts their decision to have an abortion.  Williams contends that by admitting to those beliefs, the word “life” is thereby neutralized and the “anti-choice lobby” disarmed.

Amazingly, it took Catholic-girl honesty to explain to the abortion-happy left that the 40-year-old “fetus is not a life” argument has been “illogically contradictory.” Mary brings up the irrational inconsistency often exhibited in liberal women when their wanting a child is what magically transforms material for a red bio-hazard bag into a precious cuddly baby. Williams also points out, and rightly so, that “[f]etuses aren’t selective[.] … They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”

In her column, Ms. Williams also chides the death-culture faithful for allowing “archconservatives [to] browbeat” them with the concept of life and use “scare tactics” and “indefensible violation[s]” such as “forced ultrasound[s].” To Mary Elizabeth, it matters not if the ultrasound shows a dimpled baby hiccuping or sucking its thumb. So what if the screen proves that the child is alive, feels pain, and winces? In Williams’s opinion, it’s time for those Americans who believe in “unrestrictive reproductive freedom” to stop hiding behind words like “choice” and “reproductive rights” and buck up and admit that to them, slaughtering 60 million defenseless babies is really no big deal.

Liberal Mary Elizabeth confesses that her philosophy comes from her conviction that “[a]ll life is not equal.” Therefore, a human being growing inside a woman’s womb, based on location alone, is at its mother’s mercy, and well it should be. According to Williams, “[Mom’s] the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

To further underscore the “a life worth sacrificing” argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams plays the moral equivalency card. According to the Salon.com writer, Americans kill people all the time, or what she clinically calls making “choices about life.”

Williams contends that Americans make “choices about life” concerning “men and women in other countries” when we bomb them; “we make them about prisoners in our penal system” when we execute convicted murderers; and “we make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims” by ending their lives when we accidentally trip over the cord to Granny’s respirator and unplug it from the wall. Therefore, killing a baby shouldn’t be viewed as much different.

Despite her macabre argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams herself is sick with Stage 4 distant metastatic melanoma that has spread over her body by spreading from her scalp to her lungs and bloodstream.

Ironically, the woman advocating for taking the lives of the helpless is desperately trying to save her own life; she is currently at the mercy of an experimental Phase 1 immunotherapy trial at Sloan-Kettering in New York City. If doctors were to consider Mary’s life “a life worth sacrificing,” she’d probably already be dead (we hope she recovers). Yet even now, if she learned she was with child, Mary would still say, “You bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.”

Abortion or no abortion, the motivating factor for MEW writing the coldly candid abortion-rights advice column might be that as cancer stalks her mid-life years, being a penitent Catholic/“non-extreme Christian” and all, she may have felt moved to come clean and admit that abortion is indeed ending a life. And as shocking as that admission is, kudos to Mary Elizabeth Williams for stepping forward on behalf of pro-choice Americans and confirming that for some, butchering the unborn, partially born, or a baby born alive during a botched abortion is a murder she and they consider well worth committing.

Science Boxes in Barbara Boxer

Originally posted at American Thinker

Regardless of what one thinks about climate change and whether the theory is plausible or not, Barbara Boxer, with her 100% pro-choice voting record, talking about anything ‘endangering humankind’ is the height of self-deluded deception. During a press conference on Capitol Hill, Barbara said the following: “The message I have for climate deniers is this: you are endangering humankind. It is time for climate deniers to face reality, because the body of evidence is overwhelming and the world’s leading scientists agree.”

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), referring to a scientific ‘body of evidence’ to attest to the reality of climate change, is about as authentic a stance as atheist/evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins quoting Scripture to support his belief in the theory of evolution.

In 1993, 12 years after a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins, science buff Barbara Boxer assumed office.  According to a prominent physician who attended the hearing at that time, there was not “even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation.”

Testimony supporting life included statements from Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris,  “discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome,” who testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee that “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being…each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

The official Senate report on the testimony surrounding Senate Bill 158, the ‘Human Life Bill,’ summarized the issue this way: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

Maybe some of those same scientists would agree to sit down with Ms. Boxer and pick apart her statement as it relates to planetary global warming, only this time comparing it to aborting human beings residing within the womb.

Barbara Boxer chided those who reject the claims of global warming alarmists, saying that they “cling to a tiny minority view…wishing that climate change will go away.” Boxer argues that it’s “not a policy — it is a fantasy.” Yet, couldn’t that same logic be applied to the “fantasy” that Barbara Boxer and the pro-choice community cling to which, contrary to science, maintains that unborn children are not human beings?

Defender of both the environment and the destruction of embryos, Ms. Boxer continued in defense of climate change by telling skeptics that “Problems do not go away by pretending they do not exist. And the longer that the vocal minority insists on keeping their heads in the sand, the more it endangers billions of people around the globe and threatens to dramatically and negatively reshape the world as we know it.”

If Barbara Boxer is so concerned about the authority of science, maybe she should heed the words of the late Ashley Montague, geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, who believed that “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.” Perhaps Dr. Montague could have explained to the woman fretting about “endangering mankind” that babies “do not go away” either, especially “by pretending they do not exist.”

Senator Boxer criticizes climate science cynics, alleging they are standing in the way of significant progress toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and internationally. That means global defender Barbara Boxer should also understand that if Americans silently stand by while millions continue to exercise the right to choose, and the longer the majority of Americans insist on “keeping their heads in the sand,” the more endangered billions of unborn children around the globe will be.

Whether Boxer agrees with science or not, more than greenhouse gas, abortion has “dramatically and negatively [reshaped] the world as we know it,” both physically and morally. However, it is probable that Barbara Boxer opposes the view that blames abortion on demand on human irresponsibility and immorality, but does agree with scientists who believe that climate change results primarily from human activity.

Concerned about saving the planet, and despite scientific evidence which maintains that life begins at conception, Boxer has voted “No” on banning partial-birth abortions; “No” on restricting UN funding for population control policies; “No” on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions; “No” on criminal penalty for harming an unborn fetus during other crimes; and “No” on virtually every piece of legislation that protects human life in the womb.

Professing concern for scientific evidence, Barbara Boxer also “dismissed a series of hacked emails that…[some claim]…show climate scientists hiding data [and] raise questions about global warming.” Boxer maintains that the emails “were thoroughly studied, reviewed, investigated, and … found not to undermine the consensus on climate change in any way.”

Unable to attend the international climate change talks in South Africa, Boxer addressed the group gathered in Durban by way of a video message. The three-term senator urged negotiators to make “significant progress” on an agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and did so as strongly as she opposed Republican opponent Carly Fiorina at the 2010 California Senate debate. In the first debate, Boxer argued that “If [Fiorina’s] views prevailed, women and doctors would be criminals, they would go to jail. Women would die, like they did before Roe v. Wade.”

Thus far, dilation-and-curettage/cap-and-trade advocate Barbara has not yet shared whether or not her concern for technical exactness as it pertains to ‘endangering humankind’ extends to being as 100% sure that a fetus is not a human as she is 100% in support of abortion.

If Barbara Boxer is calling upon science as the basis to promote legislation that protects the environment, shouldn’t that same devotion to scientific proof extend to all policy, even if it debunks liberal myths such as: a fetus is not a human being? If preventing the destruction of humankind is truly her goal, it’s incumbent upon the esteemed senator from California to place science before ideology and renounce her support for abortion and her radical belief that a living breathing entity is not a full-fledged human being, deserving of human rights, until after it is born.

Micheline Mathews-Roth MD of Harvard University Medical School once said “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

If scientific data is supposedly the key to Ms. Boxer’s support for policy that addresses greenhouse gases, then the words of Dr. Matthews-Roth should compel her, at least on the issue of life, to finally agree with Rick Santorum.

Pelosi Warns: Protect Life and Women Die

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

It seems that whenever the subject of government-subsidized abortion is broached, prominent Democrats notoriously change the subject. The ploy is to appeal to the emotions of those who refuse to monetarily participate in an unending killing spree by insisting that without tax dollars to fund infanticide, women will die.

What the left fails to mention is that since the enactment of Roe v. Wade, millions upon millions of female fetuses have been routinely executed because of the self-centered choices of mothers who care more about their own lives than the lives of their children.

Statistically, since 1973, 60 million fetuses have died, but as of 2008, only 362 (or 0.0006%) of the 60 million women submitting themselves willingly to a legal abortion have died.

Therein resides the dichotomy of liberalism.  The left attempts to defend unbridled insanity by appealing to selfish emotion that, if analyzed, defies logic and reason. Thus Democrats, headed up by the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, remain determined to force Americans who disagree with slaughtering the unborn to pay for something they morally and spiritually repudiate.

With that in mind, the President is anxious to display his unwavering commitment to abortion rights.   Apparently, Obama is planning to veto the Protect Life Act, calling it “a divisive, politically motivated piece of legislation that unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.” In other words, Obama heartily approves of abortion and believes no law should be passed that allows people who disapprove of the barbarism to be excused from paying for it.

Despite predictable Democratic scare tactics, the Republican bill merely attempts to close the door Obamacare opened that would allow government to finance abortion, something the Hyde Amendment has prevented for decades.

Detractors of the Protect Life Act argue that the bill threatens the rights of women and prevents them from getting a healthcare policy that covers killing the unborn even on the rare occasions when an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

Echoing the president, liberal California congressman Henry Waxman described the bill as “an assault on women’s reproductive health and their constitutional rights to choose when to bear children.”  Clearly, Waxman is convinced that pro-life Americans should be coerced into being accomplices to murder by bankrolling women who would rather make the “healthy” reproductive choice to dispose of the child growing within their womb.

Predictably, Nancy Pelosi takes it a step further and employs the ultimate in liberal illogical logic.  According to Mrs. Pelosi, Republicans who support a bill that merely says women should pay for their own abortions “will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”

Nancy’s words are reminiscent of what actually does happen to infants born alive in botched abortions. Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Act because he believes that providing warmth, oxygen and hydration for a child who refuses to cooperate and die “burdens the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Unlike Obama voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, doctors attest that the Protect Life Bill “does not change or alter the practice of medicine or the responsibility of physicians in any way.” However, in order to convince the hesitant to reject the bill, Pelosi clings to the twisted argument that if the funding of killing stops, women die.

According to the histrionic words of Nancy Pelosi, if Americans don’t agree to fund the butchery of unborn human beings who are the ones being tossed into red biohazard bags on the floor, the lives of the mothers who choose to place them there are at risk.

Thus, the logic of liberals continues to defy the reasoning of thinking, feeling human beings.  Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Waxman are convinced that financing the death of the innocent is a valiant endeavor because by using everyone’s tax dollars to finance abortion, Americans are doing the moral thing and saving the lives of the selfish.

The Bitter Fruit of Caylee’s Death

Originally posted at American Thinker

The entire time Casey Anthony was on trial, the voices in the media pontificating about justice for the victim didn’t seem to notice the hypocrisy of a group that gives its approbation for the slaughter of thousands every day demanding justice for the wrong suffered by two-year-old Caylee Anthony.

Even still, few would argue that the senseless death of a helpless tot isn’t heartrending.  However, the larger heartbreak is that in a nation that has faithfully sown the culture of death; the idea of a mother wanting to be free from responsibility by taking the life of her offspring is not all that far-fetched.

Whether America believes Casey Anthony is guilty or not is not the issue.  The issue is that no one is totally convinced she didn’t.  Most believe Casey dumped the body of her dead child in a swamp and then for 31 days partied and treated herself to a ‘Beautiful Life’ tattoo while her tiny daughter was decomposing inside a plastic bag.

A mother doing such a thing shouldn’t be surprising, because under the auspices of a woman’s right to ‘privacy’ in 1973, with the passage of Roe v. Wade, child murder officially became legal in America.  Over the next three decades, developing fetuses were reduced to less than human and women were convinced that disposing of unwanted offspring is a commendable goal.

Lest we forget, the value of life in America has been reduced to this motto: “Every child a wanted child.” Clearly, Caylee was unwanted by someone and if Casey took her daughter’s life, she’s no different from women who justify a similar decision as being nothing more than an exercise in ‘reproductive rights.’

For almost 40 years, in sterile environments and with the approbation of the United States legal system, millions of little Caylees have lost their lives.  The only difference between 60 million aborted babies and a little girl with brown curls from Orlando, Florida is that for at least a couple of years Caylee got the chance to color, wear a baseball cap, and swim with Grandma in the family pool.

If Casey Anthony actually did kill her daughter, she joined the ranks of 98% of the women who choose to abort their unborn children for the sake of convenience.  If guilty of the crime for which she was acquitted, single party girl Casey did nothing more than take a little longer to make up her mind about how and when to buy personal freedom in exchange for the life of her child.

Twenty-four months after Casey missed the chance to submit her baby to a partial-birth abortion, the young woman may have decided that it wasn’t too late to take the situation into her own hands. For an immature, narcissistic person like Casey Anthony it’s easy to see how the lines may have become blurred. It’s possible that Casey rationalized that when a woman decides to dispose of a child, what’s a couple of months in either direction.  Six months in utero, 2-½ years’ post-partum, either way it doesn’t make much of a difference.

Furthermore, Ms. Anthony may have been personally persuaded that as long as a heart sticker was over the duct tape that suffocated her daughter, she could party hearty with a clear conscience. It could be that Casey agreed with popular opinion that human life is only fully ‘human’ if a person can survive without depending on another. As a pre-verbal toddler, Caylee certainly couldn’t survive without her mother, and ironically, like so many others before and after her, Caylee very well may have perished because of her mother.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided, the march toward infanticide has been ongoing.  It began with a first trimester cutoff for an abortion; within a few years, women and their doctors became the arbiters of whether or not fully developed children should be granted life or tossed into an incinerator.

The next step was inevitable:  partial-birth abortion became an option to get rid of fully developed, viable human beings. The brutal procedure desensitized the public to pro-choice politicians who vote against giving medical assistance and comfort to dying infants, born alive in botched abortions, to avoid “burdening the original decision” to kill a child.

Therefore, in American society the value of life has eroded to the point where women now give birth in restrooms and dispose of newborns in toilets and sewers, or place lifeless infants like garbage into plastic bags and hide them under beds.  Many of these murdering mothers are then acquitted, much like Casey Anthony, which is indicative of a chilling truth that a mother murdering her own child is not nearly as offensive anymore as a child being murdered by a stranger.

Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder, but her freedom doesn’t erase the fact that Caylee is dead. Regardless of who killed Caylee Anthony, her death was caused by a person who lacked respect for human life. If it was her mother, kudos go to pro-choice America, whose indoctrination has been unrelenting in its effort to convince women that mothers come before children; a woman’s life takes precedence over her offspring; and the right to choose is an honorable objective.

In the end, a two-year-old child was murdered and a mother who appeared guilty was ultimately acquitted.  Also acquitted was a pro-death society largely responsible for not taking into consideration that when life is cheapened we’re all potential victims of someone’s justifiable reason for disposing of us. The sad truth is that in America a seed of death has taken root, and the murder of Caylee Anthony is just one of the many fruits produced on that bitter vine.


Thank you to David N. Bass of American Spectator for sourcing this article in his post today.

Barack’s Bible Quandary

Barack Obama is successfully utilizing newfound sincerity and political repositioning to turn an electoral shellacking into a standing ovation.  The President’s good fortune comes compliments of a nation populated with distracted Americans whose attention spans are so short that popular opinion vacillates from one 30-second sound bite to the next.

According to Slate magazine, Barack is the proud recipient of a recent uptick in the polls because: “Voters are pretty well satisfied with the thrashing they gave [him] two months ago. He had it coming, as far as they’re concerned; he’s got another chance to please or disappoint them.”

In an effort to please and not disappoint, a somber President recently positioned himself behind a plinth in a university basketball stadium and marked the occasion by reading to an audience of 14,000 from Psalms and the Book of Job. In a resounding voice, with conviction and reverence, Barack said this:

Scripture tells us: There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells. God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day. (Ps. 46:4-5)

But when I looked for good, evil came; and when I waited for light, darkness came. My inward parts are in turmoil, and are never still; days of affliction come to meet me. I go about in sunless gloom; I stand up in the assembly and cry for help. (Job 30: 26-28)

Thankfully, community organizers are never accused of hypocrisy when painting “cartoon fruit characters” on middle school cafeteria walls for Martin Luther King’s birthday. However, on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the President’s recommitment to continue to support abortion could place America’s newfangled Bible enthusiast in a bit of a jam.

To avoid being snagged in a quandary after the capacity crowd left the arena in Tucson and the endless media platitudes ceased, Barack should have invested time thumbing through the Bible before venturing out to make comments that contradict the temperate persona the President struggles to embrace.

If regaining the public’s affection is the goal, Obama’s timing is off.   The President should think before speaking because just days after quoting sacred text and just about the time the Right to Life march was due to descend on Washington DC, America’s moving-to-the-middle President exposed a questionable inner core by publicly vowing to defend legalized murder. America’s Bible thumping/pro-choice president lauded the benefits of a law responsible for the deaths of 60 million unborn children saying:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Barack Obama’s pro-abortion declaration juxtaposed against the words quoted at the Arizona memorial embodies what Job meant when he lamented: “I looked for good and evil came, and waited for light” only to find darkness.

Expressing support for feticide and even giving a thumbs-up to occasional infanticide, the President speaks of women’s health but fails to clarify that the promised protection applies solely to women living outside the womb.

Obama’s disingenuousness was on display when he attempted to justify a woman’s right to choose by citing privacy.  Isn’t the President also committed to enacting intrusive legislation that will pay for abortions with tax dollars, control and regulate everything from earnings to food choices, dictate what vehicle Americans are allowed drive, and push policies that inject themselves into intimate family decisions by way of government oversight of healthcare?

Following up reading Scripture with a supportive statement on behalf of Roe v. Wade indicates Barack Obama should return to the Book of Job.  In Chapter 31, verse 15, Job refers to God and asks the question: “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

To avoid further inconsistency, Barack should also take time to plumb the depths of the Old Testament.  Before the President proceeds with his reinvention tour, he should revisit Psalms, where in Chapter 139, verses 13 and 14 the Psalmist also speaks to God, declaring:  “You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Intelligent individuals usually don’t need to be told that holding a Bible in one hand while handing a scalpel to an abortionist with the other negatively affects a person’s credibility.

If presented in context, the Scripture Obama read at the Tucson memorial stated clearly that the God of the Bible is the One whose hand places all living beings within the womb. That profound truth imposes a thorny predicament for a President who reads Scripture referencing the God that gives life, and then supports policy that bestows mortal man the right to take life away.

With that in mind, maybe Barack should heed another pertinent verse in the Bible, which says “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” If the President of the United States continues to sloppily issue conflicting proclamations in a clever attempt to reinvent his image on the back of the God of Scripture, the result will not be improved poll numbers, but public shame and devastating defeat.

Private Practice

Slide1Liberals have successfully promoted the fallacy that the right to privacy is in the Bill of Rights. Although, not literally mentioned in the Constitution, prominent cases like Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) and Roe vs. Wade (1973) laid a foundation, which leads many Americans to falsely believe privacy is a Constitutionally cosseted right.

If privacy furthers abortion rights, liberals champion it.  Yet, if privacy restrictions hinder government access into other areas of our lives, liberals overwhelmingly dismiss it.  Presently, Washington DC, under the tutelage of a liberal, left wing president, is attempting to grant regulated access into American citizen’s lives and mandating that entry on the back of a health care bill stunningly devoid of confidentiality.

For years, liberals have been shooing parents away from the door of abortion clinics, where underage children are violated by invasive procedures.  Liberals are proficient at setting forth privacy as foundational when defending the sacrament of choice.  However, when proposing legislation outside the bedroom or the abortion clinic, the left desires government be permitted access to information and into situations that should remain undisclosed.

Sodomy laws have been systematically overturned state after state by courts that cite right to privacy, “We cannot think of any other activity that reasonable persons would rank as more private and more deserving of protection from governmental interference than consensual, private, adult sexual activity.” Yet, the same politicians that herald-overthrowing laws that inhibit private sexual behavior contradict themselves by supporting health care legislation that is poised to legalize governmental prostate exams be administered on the National Mall.

To name just a few privacy routing proposals on the health care docket there are National ID cards, Home Visitation Programs where government oversees parenting, mandating vaccines in the name of Preventative Services.  In addition the bill includes the acquisition and distribution of every iota of privileged information from medical records to investments and financial history.  Not forgetting bureaucratic intrusion into sensitive end of life decisions.

Barack Obama and his Democratic cohorts in the Congress and Senate exercise the highest form of hypocrisy. The left morally appropriates secrecy as a shield for the right to choose.  However, according to the text of HR 3200, that obligation flies out the window and is non-applicable if Barney Frank decides he wants real-time access into private citizen’s bank accounts.

According to the President, Supreme Court nominees will be chosen based on measures that demand they agree the Constitution includes privacy as a right,

And so my criteria, for example, would be– if a Justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution– that means that they possibly don’t mean– believe in– a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.

Based on Obama’s pick-and-choose record, right to privacy legislation is decided purely upon political convenience and personal interpretation and not strict, literal adherence to the Constitution.  In light of that fact, it is likely that Obama, along with his radical liberal contingency will continue to fashion policy according to whim and therein lays the problem with the selective nature of liberal relativism.

The left persistently chooses invalid privacies to defend.  Human dignity demands birth and death be revered as the most exquisite of private moments. Yet Barack Obama together with HR 3200 legitimizes governmental rubber necking making bureaucratic involvement in denying care to the elderly and infirm the new spectator sport. In Obama-world, setting up and administering Phillip Nitschke’s Death Machine in the public square does not contradict the privacy right he claims to espouse.

Americans desirous of retaining a modicum of personal confidentiality are overwhelmingly rejecting the bill and demanding government stay out of finances; family business, medical care and at least 500 feet from the critical care unit.  In return for the request the supposed guardians of privacy are dubbing those decrying government intrusion an unruly mob.

In the name of providing health reform, liberals would not hesitate to strip Americans naked in a line up on Capitol Hill.  Yet, if the crowd included a sufferer of an unwanted pregnancy, the left would gladly cloak that individual in a legal afghan to shield privacy and promptly escort them, undercover, to the nearest abortion facility.

Barack Obama and his band of gatecrashers have decided rights end or begin according to which direction they desire liberal initiatives to go.  As a result, the proprietors of privacy have been reduced to a horde of clamoring voyeurs, balancing on each other’s shoulders, peering through the window of our lives.

While abortion and homosexual rights continue to be protected under the mantle of privacy, as far as HR 3200 is concerned, common citizen’s private affairs appear to be the first causality scheduled to be dealt a fatal blow by Obama’s open-air, publicly exposed, government-ordained death panel.

If signed into legislation Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will gain approved governmental access into every corner of our lives.  The left will gain unrestricted gawking rights to stand over the deathbeds of American citizens who will be forced to leave this world without the type of privacy liberals are willing to endorse.

%d bloggers like this: