It's so hard for me to believe that so much debauched thinking could come from so few people, but what I have learned from the news in the past couple of days confirms the fears expressed by so many during the election season. Obama is indeed totally committed to aborting the future of the nation and, sadly, the world.
One of his first acts was issuing an executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy, which drew comments from many pro-life and pro-family leaders around the nation. Among them, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:
"President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but ... signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world."
Perkins noted that Obama vowed at the debate with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain last fall at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church to find "common ground" on the issue of abortion and that he, as president, would work to "reduce the number of abortions."
"His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever," Perkins said.
America then witnessed the Senate’s approval of now secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Clinton has already made it perfectly clear that she supports abortion one hundred percent:
When I spoke to the conference on women in Beijing in 1995—ten years ago this year—I spoke out against any government interfering with the reproductive rights and decisions of women and families. So we have a lot of experience from around the world that is a cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our [C]onstitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.
Most recently, we have learned that President Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of state, James B. Steinberg, is equally committed to advancing the abortion holocaust. As a former deputy national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, Steinberg had been identified as an early supporter of Obama’s candidacy.
South Carolina Senator James DeMint points out in his blog,
James B. Steinberg, President Obama's nominee to be the next deputy secretary of state, claimed in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. Mr. Steinberg stated that the Mexico City policy, which bars taxpayer funding of abortions overseas, "is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech."
And the beat goes on, which is not surprising, but is rather demoralizing when one considers the immense cost to this once-great nation’s future. Not only will the United States now begin fueling anti-natalist organizations overseas, but if and when the Prevention First Act is signed into law, the funneling of literally millions of additional tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood will be in full force. And that means that beginning right here in our own back yard, even larger numbers of preborn children will be put to death.
As commentator Dennis Howard so eloquently stated,
This demographic erosion is one of the major forces behind the erosion of our whole economy. If the 100 million kids we've dumped since 1960 were still around, total employment would be 64 million higher right now. How much more moral reengineering of this kind can we take and still survive?
Now is the time to put our noses to the grindstone and begin teaching this nation what it means to lose all these children, not only in terms of moral bankruptcy but fiscal bankruptcy as well, at the national level. The best way to do that, of course, is to personalize the child for anyone who wishes to enter into a discussion with us.
The reality that is before us is indeed sobering, challenging and perplexing. How does one beat back such an onslaught when it is coming from the highest seats of political power in the nation? Do we succumb, agree to just reduce the number of killings, or stand firm and rely on God’s power to see us through this, rather than the power of man?
Newsweek published a report this week entitled "Pro-lifers in Obamaland." The article focuses on a perceived split regarding tactics, but as one wise pro-life leader, Jill Stanek, pointed out to the reporter,
He's got the House, he's got the Senate, so I think we may go more guerilla warfare, or go back to working harder on your own turf, protesting at your abortion clinic in your town. We won't get anything past them. The only reason we'd be introducing legislation now is to gain public awareness.
Stanek is correct and I am happy to tell you why. If the majority of Americans had already personalized the preborn child in their mind's eye and recognized the act of abortion as a direct act of murder, Obama would not now be in charge of the country!
This does not mean, of course, that pro-lifers will be silent about incredibly difficult struggles like the one we will wage against the Prevention First Act, and other such legislation. But it also means that we have to keep our eye on the prize – personhood. And one very good way to do that is to repeat, over and over and over again, that every act of abortion results in the death of a human being who is no different than you or me except that he or she resides elsewhere and cannot be part of this discussion.
We must take that message to the Church, to the streets, to the classroom, to the shopping center, to our family members and to our lawmakers. In other words, we have a great task before us.
That should be motivation enough for any pro-life American to shake the dust off his "Obamaland" sneakers and get moving, talking, praying and otherwise engaging our morally destitute culture.