Obama’s Pro-Abortion Program Wrapped in ‘Prevention’ Propaganda
February 10, 2009 - 6:17 PMWhile it really isn't surprising that President Obama would be working his way toward some sort of politically motivated abortion program, it is quite interesting that he has chosen to use his new White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships as the vehicle.
The irony of this relationship, however, might escape some people. I cannot see how a relationship can actually exist between people’s supposed belief in God, their apparent willingness to overlook what abortion does to children and negotiating ways to supposedly reduce the death count rather than eliminate it. I must be missing something.
I find it interesting that when the president discussed this proposed White House office prior to his election, he never mentioned that one of the office’s activities would be exploring ways to reduce abortion.
In fact, in one particular address, he told his audience, “You know, faith based groups like East Side Community Ministry carry a particular meaning for me. Because in a way, they're what led me into public service. It was a Catholic group called The Campaign for Human Development that helped fund the work I did many years ago in Chicago to help lift up neighborhoods that were devastated by the closure of a local steel plant.”
Imagine it. A Catholic group funded the work of a man who has now taken the position that he not only supports abortion unequivocally, but also believes it should be available without hindrance. This is precisely why he supports things like the Prevention First Act.
In that same speech, Obama outlined his plan to have the organizations and church groups that do understand the intricacies of working within the parameters of a federal grant teach those that don't, and once again, he mentioned a Catholic organization – this time, Catholic Charities.
Somehow, he appears to enjoy the idea of co-opting Catholic identity by aligning the word Catholic with his less-than-wholesome positions on matters like aborting little children. In case anyone thinks this reference to Catholic organizations is accidental, think again.
The most frightening part of that speech, though, was this line:
“Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that's willing to abide by our constitution – from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques – can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.”
As a constitutional lawyer, the president knows that there are a wide variety of interpretations regarding the actual meaning of "separation of church and state." He also knows that those who favor abortion have argued for three decades or more that opposition to abortion is a religious belief and the government must not pander to pro-lifers for that reason.
I, for one, can imagine that, under Obama’s interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, there would be little acceptance for those people of faith who actually define the questions regarding the act of abortion in terms that are accurate, comprehensive and relate directly to God's creative authority. My sense is that deeply faith-filled people are going to have a hard time if they and their projects choose to be part of his new program.
Further, if one objectively examines Obama's words of July 2008, versus what the Obama staff is saying now, "on the condition of anonymity," there is every reason to be exceedingly concerned about the fate of only God knows how many preborn children.
For example, the anonymous “senior White House aide” is quoted as saying that the White House wants to "change the dialogue" and search out "common-sense, common-ground approaches to difficult problems."
Now let me see if I can translate that for you. The idea that a mother has a constitutional right to kill or not to kill her baby as long as that baby is not born will continue to be the foundational principle for any "change" in dialogue or any conversation employing the Obama version of "common sense."
After all, it's "a woman's choice." And clearly, the existence of the preborn child is a "difficult problem" that the White House Office on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships will address in ways acceptable to the president and his men.
There will be, without a doubt, no mention that abortion is an act with a deadly result.
After all, the kind of dialogue Obama's staff is considering leaves out any discussion of right versus wrong, life versus death, personhood versus non-personhood or good versus evil. Such terms would be considered inflammatory in a White House that is working to create a new paradigm.
The problem with all this is not so much that the president's spokespeople are discussing this, but that some members of the Evangelical and Catholic communities are applauding the effort.
All the mumbo-jumbo sickens me, because it places verbal gymnastics at the center of the subterfuge that is designed to make everybody feel good about Obama’s plans. Such gibberish leaves science and logic far behind.
Why else would the director of the Life Cycle Institute at Catholic University tell the Washington Post, upon hearing of Obama’s efforts to appease both pro-lifers and pro-aborts, "The stars are beginning to align" in this "unique political moment."
What in the world does that have to do with facing the facts and dealing with the tragedy produced by 36 years of aborting little babies?
In my humble opinion, the “stars” that are aligning are all grisly, gruesome and ghastly. The cultural atmosphere in our nation at this moment reeks of the stench of death, as some applaud the efforts being made by the president to "change the dialogue."
One need only read a news report or two about abortion to discover that the new paradigm is already active. The philosophical framework underlying the paradigm is all too clear. Here are a couple of questions to help you see what I mean.
How can you say the state of California is training midwives and physicians’ assistants to "perform 'suction aspiration' surgical abortion procedures" in a way that does not translate into death for the younger patient? You simply don't mention the truth about abortion.
How does one make the statement that a Utah "ban" on abortion is actually going to end all abortion in the state, when the language of the bill states that abortion will continue, "in limited cases to protect the mothers' life, prevent permanent damage to her physical health, or in cases of rape or incest?"
You simply don't define the word "ban," but if Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "ban" still reads, "to prohibit," then where is the truth in the description of this bill? You’ve got it … It simply is not there.
And yes, I am saying that there are pro-lifers who are as guilty of this game as are the pro-aborts. This is why some are applauding the Obama proposal.
The political world surrounding abortion has become a discussion about abstract concepts that have nothing to do with a real baby, real blood and real death.
Is it being unfair of me to indict Obama and his latest project as being nothing more than propaganda?
I would say no, because I can recall, as easily as can any American citizen with the ability to hear, Obama's words to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, "We're at a crossroads here in America … There will always be people … who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.”
Oh yes indeed, the Obama stars certainly have aligned.
My advice to those who are increasingly encouraged by all the talk about the “change” and reduced “need” for abortion entailed by the new paradigm is to recall the words of Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."