TodayThinking Christian: A historic, tragic day
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Feeds
Local Religion
Article Rating
President-elect Barack Obama delivered an inspiring victory speech during the wee hours of the morning following Election Day, promising the estimated 250,000 Americans crammed into Grant Park in Chicago his presidency would be truly historic. As I sat bleary-eyed in front of the newsroom television, I found myself agreeing with him.
Indeed, if Obama follows through on his promises to overhaul abortion restrictions in the U.S., more innocent infants will die during his administration than under any other president’s wing in the history of this country. While this may seem an outlandish assertion, rampant evidence exists to support such a notion.
Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007: “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” When Obama signs FOCA, which he is expected to do within his first 100 days in the White House, the legislation will provide a federally protected right to abortion on demand during all nine months of the mother’s pregnancy.
Additionally, the Act will eliminate three key abortion restrictions: parental consent requirements, notification laws for minors and constraints on government funding of abortions
With these three abortion restrictions thrown out the window, 125,000 more innocent infants will be aborted each year, according to a Heritage Foundation study by Dr. Michael New. New found that states enacting parental-involvement laws reduced the minor abortion rate by 13 to 19 percent.
Specifically, New cites a significant study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 that examined Texas’ parental notification laws, which took effect in 2000. The law resulted in substantially decreased abortion rates among 15, 16 and 17-year-old minors.
Obama has also promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents federal funding of abortions that are not the result of rape or incest and are not necessary to save the mother’s life. According to the pro-choice group NARAL, the Hyde Amendment “forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.”
Obama also plans to end the Mexico City policy, which prevents funding of abortions in other countries, and plans to federally fund abortion in his health care plan.
Despite his radical stance on abortion, Obama repeatedly attempts to claim he is pro-life, saying he ultimately plans to reduce abortions by bolstering the economy. However, in a townhall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., on March 21, Obama infamously said if his daughters were faced with an unwanted pregnancy, he would not want them “punished with a baby.”
His notion that a baby is punishment goes against the very foundation of the pro-life movement: that life is sacred and should thus be protected. From a Christian viewpoint, Obama also rejects the crux of his faith, as God said in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”
While many Christians hold to the belief that life begins at conception, Obama refuses to acknowledge such an axiomatic pro-life tenet. When asked by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Aug. 16 to identify at what time a fetus should receive human rights, Obama answered: “I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
One must look no further than Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act while in the Illinois Senate as definitive proof that he masquerades as a pro-lifer. Obama voted against the bill, which requires doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after botched abortions, four times.
While he claimed the bill would undermine Roe v. Wade, the bill dealt with born infants, not in-womb fetuses, and the bill contained protective language to prevent it from becoming a threat to Roe. Not a single Democrat in the U.S. Senate opposed the federal version of the bill, which contained identical language to the Illinois bill.
Pro-life Obama supporters, including the Catholic group Matthew 25 Network, assert that government restrictions will fail to reduce the number of abortions performed in the U.S. However, numerous studies, including New’s Heritage Foundation findings, prove the government can succeed in reducing abortions by implementing reasonable restrictions.
As for Obama’s plan to reduce abortions through economic means, little evidence exists that Obama genuinely intends to dedicate himself to such a cause. Unlike some of his fellow Democrats, Obama never supported the 95-10 Initiative, which seeks to “reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy,” according to Democrats for Life.
Ironically, Conservative pundits have challenged Obama to name one significant issue on which he deviated from the traditional Democratic Party stance.
With the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings, and considered to be more pro-choice than NARAL, which supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, it becomes clear that Obama has diverged from his party in one of the most radical, deplorable ways possible.
While many conservative Christians are disheartened after Obama’s victory on Tuesday, we will live to see a brighter day. Tragically, under Obama’s administration, many of our fellow Americans who have yet to be born will never see a single day.
Sentinel Copy Editor Jennifer Autry grew up in an evangelical free church and now attends a Southern Baptist church. Contact her at jautry@cumberlink.com.
