Something Old, Something New

It was only a matter of time. For years we were told that over-population was going to spell disaster for this planet, and that we were all headed for doomsday. Well, those predictions turned out to be just a wee bit overblown and somehow the earth has managed to survive. Now, however, environmental extremists have figured out a way to take their latest pet cause, global warming, and marry it to their past obsession of over-population. In so doing, they are trying to resurrect the outdated idea that human beings should put serious limits on procreation. OK, so it’s not a defunct practice in China, but do we really want to pattern ourselves after that red country?

Their argument is this: having children is bad for the environment. John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, was quoted as saying, “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” And isn’t that what most couples do when they consider the pros and cons of having a baby?

Let’s see, on the one hand we’ve got the miracle of childbirth and the resulting precious gift from God. On the other hand, though, we’ve got to consider the carbon footprint left behind by that precious gift from God. Oh, I hate these tough decisions.

What this tells me is that the environmental extremists and those who are pro-abortion are, by and large, singing from the same hymnbook. Those calling for population control today will be working tirelessly tomorrow to loosen restrictions on abortion in this country. Democratic members in the House of Representatives are, in fact, already considering legislation that would do precisely that.

Just two weeks removed from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion, there is already a concerted effort underway in this country to prevent any further erosion of a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” It’s called the Freedom of Choice Act, and you can read all about it at http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007HR1964.html. (Thanks to Angel from my comments page for this information. We may have disagreements in other areas, but we both believe in the sanctity of human life.)

One of the things that the pro-abortion crowd insists upon is that abortion be allowed to protect the health of the mother. But the way they define health allows for abortions to be performed simply because a child is going to add stress to the mother’s life. The Supreme Court has even said, “Mental & physical health may be taxed by caring for a child.” With all due respect to our past and present justices who helped write that brilliant opinion, all I can say in response is DUH!!! Of course it’s taxing caring for a child, but does that mean that if the stress gets too tough we can just kill them? Using that logic, if a woman’s husband becomes a quadriplegic and she doesn’t feel like taking care of him she should just put a bullet in his head.

I’ve also been told that, as a man, I can never understand how traumatic it is for a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. That may be true, but by that logic we should kill every child who has ever traumatized its parents. If that were the case, I would have been dead a long, long time ago. Let me just take this moment and say thank you to my mom and dad for not killing me when I made your lives miserable. Unfortunately, many in our world today don’t feel that a baby in the womb should get the same protections that I had after I was born. Northeastern University professor Eileen McDonagh has said, “The fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and steals her liberty, justifying the use of deadly force to stop it.” When I read garbage like that, I feel that cold chill going down my spine again.

But let me get back to our subject. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy when those who work so hard to save the life of a tree have no problem snuffing out the life of an unborn child. I can respect the environmental extremists who stand up for life because at least their position is not inconsistent. But for someone to care more about reducing emissions than they do about reducing abortions seems like a case of misplaced priorities.

With the renewed concern today about over-population, this will be just one more excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to find new ways to devalue life in this country. Despite how they try to spin it, the truth remains that unborn babies in our country continue to be regularly discarded simply because they are an inconvenience. And that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth.

Finally Some Good News

In the midst of the sad and tragic news from Virginia Tech last week, another news story that would have made major headlines any other time has hardly been noticed. This is the news that the Supreme Court of the United States has (finally) upheld a ban on partial birth abortion. This is long overdue, and a positive sign for those in the pro-life community who have been anxiously waiting to see how our two newest members of the court would vote on life issues. Roberts and Alito did not disappoint. Now if we could just see Roe v. Wade overturned, we would really have something to celebrate.

Actually, from a purely legal standpoint, even if you’re not pro-life, Roe v. Wade in itself is simply bad law. The Supreme Court should have never gotten involved with this issue and should have left it up to the individual states to decide. I’m sorry to inform those on the left, but the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a woman a right to an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to privacy as the Supreme Court has tried to interpret it in the past. If you think I’m making this up, just read the document for yourself. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea for four of our five Supreme Court Justices, as well. (Warning to all liberals: If you do read the Constitution for yourself, you may be shocked to find that there are lots of other things that you thought were in there that really aren’t. One example: a constitutional wall of separation between church and state. Sorry, it’s not there. Read it at your own risk.)

Getting back to last week’s ruling, let’s see how certain presidential candidates responded to the news:

-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling…

-Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision.

A running theme in all three of their responses was that this ruling was detrimental to the health and well being of women in this country. Really? What about the health of the unborn child? Last time I checked, one person is always injured in an abortion. To put it more accurately, one person is always killed in an abortion. And of all the different ways an abortion can terminate the life of a baby, intact dilation and extraction is the most heinous.

Everyone, including those who support abortion rights, should abhor this gruesome procedure known descriptively as partial birth abortion. How anyone could support such a violent form of infanticide goes beyond my ability to comprehend. And the thought that there are people who support this practice that want to be President of the United States sends cold chills down my spine.

I’m not generally a one-issue voter, but if a person can support something like partial birth abortion, that tells me all I need to know about them as a candidate and as a person. In my mind, that individual has already forfeited any chance they ever had of receiving a vote from me.

What’s really sad about the abortion debate in this country is how it has become so politicized. Just take a look at a few well-known Democrats who were at one time pro-life and only changed their position after deciding to run for President:

-Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) wrote in 1984: Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.

-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote in a letter to a constituent in 1971: Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

-Rev. Jesse Jackson, in a letter to Congress in the 70’s, wrote: As a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants...in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join.

I should also point out that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore were both pro-life at one time before deciding to run for the presidency as Democrats. Can you say sell-outs? And by that I mean these people sold out their moral convictions for the chance to be President of the United States.

Hard as it is to believe, the pro-abortion organization known as Planned Parenthood was at one time pro-life. They considered abortion the killing of a baby. Don’t believe me? In their 1963 pamphlet Is Birth Control Abortion?, page one reads: Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life. Wonder how many people in that organization today would agree with that statement?

Let's face it: when the abortion issue for certain politicians quit being about life and started being about political gain, it was a dark day for the unborn in this country. Let’s hope last week’s Supreme Court ruling will start to turn the tide in favor of what is morally right rather than what is politically expedient.

President Bush has had to deal with a myriad of tough problems during the past six years, and he’s no doubt had his share of mistakes and missteps that have angered both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. His lasting legacy, however, may not be an unpopular war in Iraq or his dubious policies concerning illegal immigrants and border control. His lasting legacy may just be the contribution he’s made to the pro-life cause by his nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States.

And this new-look court will hopefully have an influence far beyond the pro-life movement. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Supreme Court revert back to being the branch of our government that interprets the law instead of writing it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the way the Constitution intended for it to be?