May 19, 2019

Translating Obama

On January 22, 2011, President Obama released the following statement:

“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 commit 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.”

As usual, the President demonstrates his mastery of using words and phrases that always resonate well with Americans: protects, health, freedom, committed, fundamental principle, private, family, constitutional right, prevent, support, mothers, encourage, relationships, promote adoption, recommit, ensuring, rights, opportunities, dreams. They warm the tummy like hot cocoa on a cold, blustery day. But, extending the metaphor, if the milk in the cup is sour, then the content of the cup is disgusting. And it’s the content of what Mr. Obama is saying that proves to be disgusting. Let’s break down the statement piece by piece.

In the first sentence we find “. . . the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom . . . that government should not intrude on private family matter.” Pregnancy is not a disease, and abortion is certainly not health care. Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, broadens the definition of health to include “. . .all factors–physical, emotional, psychological, familial, a woman’s age–anything relevant to the well-being of the patient.” So, under the guise of health, a woman can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever at any stage of the pregnancy. As for “reproductive freedom,” this is simply a euphemism for killing an unborn child. Keep in mind that Mr. Obama believes that reproductive freedom includes the right to let a child who survives an abortion to die by being left unattended and denied medical assistance. And when it comes to government intrusion on private family matters, this is the same man who has no problem with insisting that Americans must purchase health care. Sure sounds like government intrusion to me. Can anyone spell hypocrisy?

Mr. Obama remains “committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies . . .” What this means is government-subsidized access to contraception and massive sex education throughout the school years. Of course, statistics will verify that this approach has done nothing to reduce sexual activity and that the number of children born out of wedlock is exponentially rising. Meanwhile, abstinence programs are ridiculed as “naive” and “out of touch.”

The President continues with his commitment toward programs that “. . . support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” I guess that support for pregnant women and mothers means either extended welfare or hundreds of million dollars to Planned Parenthood, which murders well over 200,000 babies per year. Programs that really help pregnant women, like crisis pregnancy centers, are never on the President’s radar. And by the way, isn’t a pregnant woman also a mother? Or is she just a “temporary” mother? As for encouraging healthy relationships, I guess the President must mean allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and his “evolving” views on gay marriage. And adoption? Mr. Obama has publicly praised adoption, but, at the same time, he has promised gays and lesbians that he will work to make sure they will not be discriminated against should they choose to adopt children.

And now we come to the final point. The President hopes that all of us will commit to “. . . ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” So here’s the crux of the problem: Women can get pregnant, and men can’t. Can life get any more unfair than this? What was God thinking? No, no. This can’t stand. If men can have unbridled sex without the consequences of a child, then they will have a leg up on getting all the good jobs. So abortion must be readily available so women can compete in the work force on a level playing field. The paycheck trumps the Pampers.

President Obama could have written his abortion statement with one sentence: “Today I continue to be unequivocally committed to the unrestricted destruction of children in the womb.” It’s not as flowery, but at least it’s truth in advertising, and the American people have a right to expect the truth from the President. It would be a nice change of pace, wouldn’t it?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Written by
Thomas Addis

THOMAS ADDIS is a retired high school teacher and published author, most recently authoring a children's book, A Gift of Light, which is available at Amazon. An M.A. graduate of Oakland University, he is Associate Editor of Catholic Journal. In his spare time, he enjoys reading and cycling.

View all articles
Written by Thomas Addis