Obama's first act as president
Posted: January 12, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85874
Obama emphatically promised more than a year ago that "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." Will Obama keep his word?
The Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, is a sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortion. The Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has identified 13 categories of pro-life laws that would be stampeded and nullified by FOCA. As far reaching as the decision of Roe v. Wade is into the states' jurisdictions and our lives, even it, for example, showed certain respects for state laws and limits on infringing regulations in the medical fields. FOCA shows no such restraints, but nails shut the coffin on pro-life choices and safeguards.
And why has Obama pledged his allegiance to pass FOCA? Not only because he has the most passionately liberal pro-choice record of nearly any politician, but, as he told a meeting of Planned Parenthood during his campaign, "it is time to turn the page" to a new day when pro-life views, laws and debate on abortion are passé. And if he and the Democratic majority have their way, America will have that new day, one in which hundreds of thousands of more abortions will be performed annually. I still think it is utterly hypocritical that a president and a political party that pride themselves on providing and protecting minorities don't include the unborn among them.
The fight to pass FOCA is being waged despite a new nationwide survey revealing that four out of five U.S. adults (82 percent) would limit abortion's legality. One out of three (38 percent) would limit abortion to rape, incest or to save the mother's life. One out of three (33 percent) would also limit abortion to either the first three or first six months. Only nine percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. These statistics are in stark contrast to the goals and objectives of FOCA, which would close the culture debate on abortion in an unprecedented way for any piece of legislation.
(Column continues below)
Chuck Norris' book, "Black Belt Patriotism," is now available autographed exclusively from WND. Norris remembers a better America – a nation of faith, freedom and respect for human life. Get "Black Belt Patriotism" to discover real solutions for changing our nation's course for the better.
As far as the timing of FOCA's enactment, I have sufficient reason to believe Pelosi and Reed (and maybe Obama himself) have already made plans to swiftly and almost covertly introduce and pass FOCA through Congress sooner than most expect. And they will use any carrot to try divert opposition attention, even personal economic stimulus treats. Trust me when I say they are looking for the precise moment when there will be the least amount of public attention, political whiplash and opposition.
With so much focus and frenzy surrounding the inaugural fanfare of our new president, they might even try to strike the congressional coals while the fireworks are still hot. Some reports posit that FOCA could be swiftly reintroduced on the very anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, so be on the alert. But, because of the tricky political nature of publicly presenting and passing such a pervasive and controversial bill like FOCA, I believe the Obama machine must do all it can also to assist and distract conservatives and evangelicals.
Those diversionary tactics might even partially include the reason why Obama chose Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration. Whether Warren is right or wrong for that position is irrelevant in light of their politically purpose-driven use of his presence and invocation. Warren could be used not only to appease conservatives and evangelicals, but to divert their attention and minimize their reaction to larger liberal efforts, like the underhanded pro-choice Trump card called FOCA. In short, Warren could be a lure that wags the dog for abortion's proliferation, especially if FOCA's passing is imminent.
America doesn't need to "turn the page" on culture wars like abortion; it needs to reopen the pages of its history to our founders heightened views and rights of all human beings as documented in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And we need to revive and reinstill that value of humanity back into society, our children and our children's children.
Under our Constitution, the federal government should protect that right to life. But besides affirming that foundational human right, the details and debates of the laws governing abortion should be left to the states. Despite the Supreme Court's unconstitutional striking down of abortion laws nationwide in 1973, and instituting a completely unconstitutional federal right to abortion, there is still much we can do at the state level to protect human life by promoting pro-life legislation and education. That is, unless FOCA is enacted into law.
Some people think after 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade that abortion is an "old" issue better dropped. But as my friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn wrote in his small book "Why Pro-Life?" "Abortion has set us on a dangerous course. We may come to our senses and back away from the slippery slope. Or we may follow it to its inescapable conclusion – a society in which the powerful, for their self-interest, determine which human beings will live and which will die."
Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose." It is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically indentified unalienable rights in the Declaration (and the Constitution through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion, and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. And his belief in what should be "the first and only legitimate object of government" should still stand – and that includes for the president of the United States of America. But if he and his administration won't protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? A left-leaning Congress?
All of our elected officials should uphold that preeminent objective of government and strive to get us back to the view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. Without that, we can never believe that all people (including those in the womb) are created equal, that they have inherent, unalienable rights, and that the protection of those rights is "the first and only legitimate object of good government."
And, if our politicians won't protect unborn human life, then we must. With Sanctity of Life Sunday on Jan. 18, and Obama being inaugurated on Jan. 20, the annual March for Life pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 22 (the very anniversary of Roe v. Wade), and FOCA looming on the legislative precipice of Congress and the White House, now is the time to march and take action again to defend the unborn. (That's why I devoted an entire chapter to "Reclaim the value of human life" in my new cultural manifesto, "Black Belt Patriotism," and why my wife, Gena, passionately entreated for the unborn in our most recent interview now online.)
Please, before FOCA flies onto the congressional floor in the upcoming days, sign the online petition to fight FOCA and then contact your representatives and senators to tell them how you expect them to vote on the bill. You can write them online by simply entering your zip code here.