Obama on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Today marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade—a decision that has resulted in the legal killing of nearly 50 million unborn humans since 1973. Many Americans observe this date with special, pro-life observances. Last Sunday, countless churches across the nation observed “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.” Today, thousands of citizens will march on the nation’s capital in favor of life.

President Barack Obama, however, has other plans. Instead of promoting observances that protect innocent, unborn human life, the President plans to sign an executive order that will increase the number of unborn children to be killed by abortion. Here is how the Los Angeles Times is reporting it:

“In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama is planning to lift a rule that prevents federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion or perform the procedure. . . He is also considering lifting Bush administration restrictions on federally funded stem cell research.”

According to CNN.com, Obama is using the occasion of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to issue this executive order. I’m sure that in his mind he is merely celebrating a woman’s so-called “right to choose,” but the move amounts to one more affront against the sanctity of human life.

I will have much to say in the coming months and years about Obama’s policies vis a vis the sanctity of human life. I think it is important to make the pro-life case as compellingly as possible because of the priority of winning hearts and minds to a pro-life position.

But I also think it’s important to highlight the folly of certain “Christian” leaders who tried to lead astray a generation of young pro-lifers with the myth that abortions might be reduced under a pro-choice chief executive. On his second day in office when he signs the order that will undoubtedly result in an increase in abortions abroad, the president himself will put the lie to that myth once and for all.

50 Responses to Obama on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

  1. Jan D. January 22, 2009 at 10:45 am #

    My heart is absolutely broken and aching for these precious lives that will never take their first breath all because of the stroke of a pen… I wonder which one of them could have been President, or their generation’s Billy Graham?

  2. Nathan January 22, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Should the President sign these executive orders allowing Federal dollars to be spent on abortions overseas he will immediately refute the notion that the abortion issue is above his pay grade as he said to Rick Warren.

    By signing these executive orders the President acknowledges that issues of life in the realm of the unborn are indeed a part of his job description (pay grade).

  3. Nathan January 22, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    By the way, it would be insightful to see what the President would say should a journalist actually bring this question to the first press conference.

    But… it will never happen

  4. volfan007 January 22, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    Sad. Very sad.

    America is about to reap what they have voted in, and what it will lead to…destruction.

    David

  5. Darius T January 22, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    To be fair, we’re already destroying millions of innocent lives every year… now we’re just taking it up a notch. God’s wrath will be awful.

  6. Brian Krieger January 22, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    You know, there was a discussion I read recently about the trinkets that the president carries around. One of the questions that came up by association was one of accountability. I like the new whitehouse site (I think). It has some slick parts of it that could relate. I think that Nathan asks a good question, though. Could Nathan’s proposed question ever get asked at the press conference? But also (by association of association), how do evangelical (/catholic/pro-life/etc.) Obama voters (I don’t want to say supporters since he is my president and by default I support, though disagree with his proposed policy here) square this? To me, this falls out of the bounds of overall reduction of abortions (as our policies really won’t impact other countries’ pregnancy rates). Is this just something about which an Obama voter disagrees with him? Is it all part of the plan, do you think?

    BTW, I would say that we shouldn’t nit-pick every decision the president makes (even though I fear that is exactly what will happen), this just happens to be a big one that has far-reaching implications.

    PS: If anyone hasn’t looked at the new whitehouse website, I suggest checking it out. Pretty slick. Definitely a great aspect of a “next generation” president dedicated to change (I hope….ha ha…..)!

  7. yoly January 22, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day.” Obama inaugural speech

    Using our tax dollars to export abortion does not fulfill his own requirements. The answer is clearly NO!

  8. derek January 22, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    denny,

    please refrain from the temptation to put words, like christian, in quotation marks. i can understand why you would think that support for obama is not honoring to Christ, but i do not think it is very Christ-honoring to create some sort of marker to distinguish those that you seem to deem less-than-truly-christian either.

    even if you say that you are not calling into question the legitimacy of a person’s walk with Christ, you surely understand how it will be interpreted by your readers when you place such words in quotations. plus, it does not help you prove any point. it is entirely pointless to write such things and is nothing more than distguised name-calling.

    i enjoy reading your thoughts and know that you are a very passionate follower of Christ. i generally think you are very fair and classy when dealing with those you disagree with, but all i ask is that you refrain from the use of quotation marks as a means of calling out other brothers and sisters in Christ.

    i trust you will read this with an understanding that i am not trying to be argumentative, or even confrontational, in tone. i am simply making you aware of how these things make me, a faithful reader of your blog, feel. i am trying to say this in love and trust that you will interpret it in this light. thank you for all you do for the Body!

    Godspeed.

  9. Mason Beecroft January 23, 2009 at 2:02 am #

    No Christian with a minimally formed conscience can support abortion. The quotation marks are more than appropriate in such a case of willful denial of Christian faith. This has never been an issue of conscience in nearly 2,000 years. Only in our age of “men without chests” can abortion be dismissed or neglected.

  10. Darius T January 23, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    Amen to what Mason said. They are indeed “Christians.”

  11. John January 23, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    I think it’s important to highlight the folly of certain “Christian” leaders such as Denny Burk who support “just-wars” in the name of God and twist scripture to fit their pre-conceived notions.

    That is what I call appropriate quotation marks around the word “Christian” (in fact, support of abortion and support of just-war both deserve quotation marks).

  12. rafe January 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    I think it would fantastic to decrease (or even eliminate) abortions in the United States. I have not convinced, however, that merely having a Republican in office makes that big of a difference. There are a complexity of factors that come into play. Since 1973, we’ve had in office (what?) 20 years of men who ran on a “pro life” platform?

    Didn’t McCain say he wouldn’t use the issue as a “litmus test” when appointing a chief justice? Doesn’t congress first have to present the issue to the court before they would rule on it? Pardon me for being cynical, but it seems like most politicians do what they deem to be politically expedient (get more votes) than for any other reason. For example, I thought McCain’s embracing of the cause to be awkward. It looked like an attempt to secure a voting base. Obama didn’t really need that base, so there you have it…

  13. rafe January 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    please pardon my mistakes “chief” justice and “would fantastic” in the previous post, i don’t like to proofreed—haha!

  14. Darius T January 23, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Rafe, obviously we’ll never know how McCain would have ruled. But to your point that Republicans don’t make a difference.. today has proven that quite wrong (or “delusional,” as Robert George put it in his column). As even pro-abortion people admit, the Hyde Amendment kept 300,000 babies from not being aborted each year. So with one swift law change, Obama just murdered a 1.2 million babies for his first term in office more than Bush “allowed” on his watch (not blaming Bush here for those deaths, just contrasting a Dem versus a Repub). As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

  15. Darius T January 23, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    One correction… I am not sure that the Hyde Amendment has been overturned YET, my mistake. But the Mexico City one has been overturned (or is in the process of it), which will likely lead to the Hyde Amendment’s revocation as well.

  16. rafe January 23, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Thanks for the response, Darius. I am not familiar with the Hyde Amendment or its revocation.

  17. Paul January 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    Mason in #9 says…

    No Christian with a minimally formed conscience can support abortion. The quotation marks are more than appropriate in such a case of willful denial of Christian faith. This has never been an issue of conscience in nearly 2,000 years. Only in our age of “men without chests” can abortion be dismissed or neglected.

    Frankly, I tire of this debate. But, it’s also not my place to stand by while someone questions my faith.

    I’ve stated my case numerous times, and my idea of education vs. Denny’s idea of legislation is at an impasse. I am not about to convince Denny that we can lower the number of abortions through proper and relevant sex ed. Denny is not about to convince me that overturning Roe v. Wade will even make a difference.

    But, if I honestly think that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, or that if it is, that most of the 50 states will choose to keep abortion legal anyway, then why should I vote for a candidate that would threaten my jobs and disagree with me at nearly every single turn in his policy statements?

    I believe I can do far more to support pro-life positions by helping crisis pregnancy centers, supporting pro-life causes and being a voice of dissent on my chosen side of the political aisle.

    So, please, put your quotation marks somewhere safe on a zip drive, and use them at a more appropriate time.

    I’d like to dedicate this post to Matt S. and Darius, who I guess missed me in my absence.

    😀

  18. volfan007 January 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    John,

    If you have a hard time with Denny believing in “just wars,” then I guess you have a real, big problem with God. Look thru out the NT where God told the Israelites to wipe out different civilizations. Look at the end of the age in the book of revelation where the Lord Jesus will win a mighty war with the armies of the world under the leadership of Anti-Christ.

    David

  19. Paul January 23, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    throughout the NEW TESTAMENT?

    David, I expect more from a preacher.

    And Jesus waging a just war I’m cool with.

    George Bush waging a war based on faulty information, not so much.

  20. rafe January 23, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    That wasn’t war, it was “liberation”. j/k

  21. Mason Beecroft January 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Paul,
    I never mentioned you, or anyone by name, but I certainly stand by my statement. I wouldn’t presume to judge your personal faith, only that support of abortion is incompatible with the Christian faith.

    Still, your defense of your self, even in the midst of your exhaustion over the debate, is admirable.

    Of course the issue with abortion is simple. It is the killing of a helpless human person, a creation of the Most Holy Trinity and the object of Christ’s redemptive love.

    Let’s not confuse the matter with just war discussions, although it is an important one. They are not an appropriate comparison. Let’s not pretend that your concern for jobs, policy opinions, and political hopes take precedent. Is it really better to have money, comfort, and safety in a culture that destroys its most vulnerable? In such an environment, it is not a stretch to imagine a time when other human persons are at risk of destruction. The Weimar Republic was quite a nice, happy place to live, although its eugenic thought prepared the way for Nazi Germany.

    I have little hope for either legislation or education to fix the abortion problem. Modern thought that forms both of them is so bankrupt that their practitioners are incapable of finding their way. As such, I have little interest in politics, although willingly submit to the ruling authorities, paying taxes and all that.

    The Church, however, does not place hope in the state nor is it an instrument of the state. It is called to act like a prophet, even against overwhelming odds. We call evil evil. We recognize the demonic spirit of the age that allows for such disregard of an evil like abortion. We cry for repentance. We point always to Christ for salvation and redemption. We live persuasively by the love of Christ.
    +Mason

  22. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    You know, Mason’s hinting at something that rarely gets mentioned. Voting for Obama because he will supposedly help education (like my teacher brother did) or voting for him because he will pour more money into science (like another friend did) or voting for Obama because he will install universal health care (like a couple of my friends did) are all very selfish reasons. In contrast, the vote to save the lives of our most innocent citizens is completely SELFLESS. It rarely gets mentioned or even realized, but it’s telling of who is morally in the right. The Left always likes to talk about motives, but they never bring it up when it comes to abortion…

  23. volfan007 January 24, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    Paul,

    I think that you know that I meant to type OT.

    So, you were for the South seceding from the Union without the invasion of the Yankees taking place? I guess a divided country would’ve been fine for you? Or, was this a just war?

    What if we invade Darfur and straighten that mess out and help those folks…would that be ok?

    David

  24. Paul January 24, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    David,

    I think you know that a little proofreading should be expected from a preacher. If you’re going to run around holding other peoples’ feet to the flames, I’m gonna do it to you, too.

    As for wars, the South made the first attack. So, it was a justified retaliation. I just wish that Sherman would have wiped out Nashville and anything that could have become a NASCAR track on the way down to Savannah. That would have saved our country a whole lot of cultural embarrassment.

    As for Sudan, considering its oil reserves, I am kind of shocked that Bush never went there to “liberate” anyone. But I would have been far more eager to support an invasion of the Darfur region than I was of an invasion of Iraq which didn’t seem like a good idea since day 1.

  25. volfan007 January 24, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    Ok, Paul, so I see that you’re a bigot…thinking that you’re better than people of the South, and you’re a hypocrite…you go along with the liberal crowd that Darfur would be a just war, but freeing the Iraqi people of an evil, madman like Hussein was not…because a conservative like Bush instigated it, and you all feel like it was all over oil(that bad, black fluid that capitalists need to drive thier environmentally bad cars).

    Paul, just because you were not for the war in Iraq, and because the liberal news media and liberal college profs werent for it, does not make it an evil war. You think? Or, do we need to run every thing we do by you and Dan Rather in order to know what to do? to know what’s right? what’s just?

    David

    PS. I would be for a war in Darfur to free those people from such hate and cruelty and murder and rape. Of course, I always hate to send our troops in harms way, but sometimes we have to and sometimes we need to.

  26. Paul January 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    David,

    1) no, I am not a bigot to think that NASCAR is not a sport, and I am certainly not alone in the music community to think that the modern country music machine is rubbish. So get off that high horse, you’re breakin’ its back, son.

    2) My dislike of the Iraq war has nothing to do with me being liberal or conservative. It has to do with the fact that it smelled fishy to me from the start, and I was proven right. Yes, we have had a turnaround there which has resulted in less violence. But were we still supposed to go there in the first place? I would say no.

    3) I am glad to see we agree on Sudan.

  27. Jason January 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    What’s wrong with NASCAR and Country music? And what does it have to do with Obama?

  28. Paul January 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    David made me elaborate.

    He said that the civil war was a just war.

    I said that Sherman should have wiped out Nashville and any spot suitable for a NASCAR track on his way down to Savannah.

    He called me a bigot. Classy move from a pastor. Remind me to go to his church every week.

    As for what this has to do with Obama: Obama probably agrees that world peace can be achieved through a groove that clearly demarcates the 2 & 4, and he probably doesn’t think that turning counterclockwise for a couple of hours equals a sport.

  29. Jason January 24, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    Paul,

    Your judgment against NASCAR and country music does seem to paint your own personal preferences with a light of superiority over those whose personal preferences differ from yours which I believe qualifies as the definition of a bigot. Because other people agree with you doesn’t let you off the hook 🙂

  30. Paul January 24, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    Jason,

    can one really be considered a bigot over personal preferences? I think bigotry applies to things that we can’t change, like skin color, ethnicity, religion, or possibly sexual orientation.

    However, one chooses to be a NASCAR fan and to listen to Sugarland and Carrie Underwood.

    Unless you’re saying that it’s not the same. Maybe, just like homosexuality, it’s something that the jury is still out on…

    Maybe being gay and being a NASCAR fan are the same thing.

    Okay, I will take pity on NASCAR fans then. It’s gonna be hard enough on them when they tell their mothers…

  31. Jason January 24, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    I like NASCAR (so does my mom :)), Carrie Underwood, Sugarland, Rhianna, T.I., Louis Armstrong, Brad Paisley, Taylor Swift, Etta James, Frank Sinatra, NFL, Texas Longhorns, babies, puppies, kittens, and many more.

    Since you haven’t looked up the definition of bigot, I thought I’d include it here for your reference. Feel free to look it up in your own dictionary at your own convenience. This is from the Oxford English Dictionary. From this definition, I’m not sure the comment was as off-base as your reply portrayed it.

    bigot
    /biggt/

    • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

    — DERIVATIVES bigoted adjective bigotry noun.

    — ORIGIN French.

  32. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Okay, let me just settle this discussion right now. Paul and I rarely agree, but he is right, NASCAR is not a sport. Flexing your ankle muscles for three hours is no sport, unless you want to also include speed typing contests as a sport (“And he hits 111 WPM coming into the home stretch. He only has to type two more paragraphs and he will win the QWERTY Cup for a third time! And the crowd is on their feet…”) No denying that it’s probably a blast to do as a driver or pit crew, but why anyone would ever watch it is beyond me…

  33. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    Let me clarify, Paul is wrong about bigotry, but right about NASCAR.

    Jason, you’re wrong about the Texas Longhorns… BOOMER SOONER, baby!

  34. Paul January 24, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Thank you Darius.

    I also think that if NASCAR is considered a sport, so must we also call twirlers at jam band shows. Spinning around for 3+ hours at a shot has got to be more physically grueling than being a NASCAR driver.

    Of course, all of those “athletes” would be banned from competition once the drug tests came back in…

  35. Jason January 24, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Darius,

    I wasn’t commenting on Paul’s criticism of NASCAR. He has every right to hate it as do you, but the commentary was more pointed at his insults for those whose opinions differ from his own. Because I happen to enjoy things that he passionately hates hinders his ability to communicate effectively with me because an insult is not far from his lips. There are more efficient ways of discussing with those that disagree.

    As far as the Longhorns are concerned, 45-35.

  36. Mason Beecroft January 24, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    Kyrie Eleison!

    Nascar and Nashville are evil.

    Chris Knight is the best songwriter in alt country and will never be on a big label, thank God.

    Nascar… well, it is is Nascar.

    To more important issues, I appreciate Darius for picking up my hint. The sentimental enjoy talking about education and society and human rights and all that while they kill the weakest babies. They will wail over a whale in the Chesapeake or SF Bays while sticking a spike in the brain of a baby in utero. Charming.
    +Mason

  37. Jason January 24, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Oh and I think by the official definition, NASCAR and speedtyping would technically be considered sports even if your opinion differs.

    sport
    • noun 1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

  38. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Jason, you do NOT want to get me started on the definition of a sport. 🙂 Suffice it to say, if it involves subjective judging/scoring (figure skating), is aided by mechanical equipment (NASCAR), or has no difference between women and men (darts), it is not a sport.

  39. Darius T January 24, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Oh, and Jason, 65-13 and 63-14… if one is going to live in the recent past, let’s live it to the fullest. 🙂

  40. Jason January 24, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    If you want to talk history, then talk 58 wins by Texas and 40 wins by 0U.

  41. Darius T January 25, 2009 at 12:23 am #

    Touche.

  42. Paul January 25, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    “Because I happen to enjoy things that he passionately hates hinders his ability to communicate effectively with me because an insult is not far from his lips.”

    Wrong.

    Let us have a vigorous discussion about any number of issues. But if someone is going to complain about “the liberal elite” or use my political affiliation as an insult against me (both have been done on this board), then I’m gonna give that person a taste of their own medicine. And that’s all it is. David, for his claims of bigotry, is just as much of a bigot every time he gets into a frenetic, pea soup spewing frenzy over them darned liberals.

  43. Jason January 25, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    I suppose an eye for an eye is one approach whether you patronize your intended target or everyone else along with him.

  44. Paul January 25, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    Jason,

    come now. It’s not like virtually every conservative on here (with a few exceptions) hasn’t taken every available opportunity to dump on liberals or “the liberal agenda” given half the opportunity.

    When the only Christians that get the quotation marks are those like Gene Robinson or Brian McLaren, then lets talk about who’s been offended and by how much.

    When I can care about environmental causes without being labeled something along the lines of a heretic, then talk to me about who’s been offended and by how much.

    I could go on and on with this all day, dude. The bottom line is this: If you don’t like being mocked, don’t do any mocking.

  45. Jason January 25, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    I didn’t mock, you stereotyped; I can go on all day as well.

  46. Darius T January 25, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    “Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who [insulted] who.”

  47. Paul January 25, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    Jason…

    and no conservative ever on this board has ever mocked liberals or used stereotypes about liberals?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    I’ve told liberals here that they’re acting the fool when they have. Have you ever done that to a conservative?

    Doubtful.

  48. Brian Krieger January 26, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Paul: A specialty that might drive you crazy, but as a musician, you should appreciate:
    Béla Fleck Brings The Banjo Back To Africa.

  49. Jason January 26, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Paul,

    I would recommend for future arguments that you stick to the argument at hand rather than paint broad generalizations that don’t particularly address the point you are trying to make. When someone mocks or stereotypes you because of making an argument, attack the foundations of the argument, call out the nature of the criticsm, and be willing to let the personal attacks go. By all means, be willing to turn the other cheek.

    Thanks,

    Jason

  50. Paul January 26, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    Brian,

    I LOVE Bela Fleck!! And I love African music. Actually, if you click through to my website these days, our version of Boots of Spanish Leather is essentially a West African styled jam.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes