Citizens everywhere are patting themselves on the back because we have elected the first black President. Take that, Racism!

    Actually, though the country has taken a step toward the end of racism, because it has elected Obama, it has taken two steps back when it comes to another form of human rights: infanticide.

    Obama has promised Planned Parenthood to sign the most radical abortion legislation in U.S. history, the "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA (see www.jillstanek.com for details).

     FOCA will:

- invalidate laws to protect a woman from unsafe abortion clinics and to ensure that she is informed about abortion.

- require taxpayers to pay for abortions.

- require states to allow "partial-birth" and other late-term abortions.

- require states to allow abortions by non-physicians.

- bar laws protecting a right of conscientious objection to abortion, removing language previously approved by the AMA that no "physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel" shall be required to violate "personally-held moral principles."

- will deny parents an opportunity to be involved in their minor daughter's abortion decision.

     So while many citizens, white, black, and everything in between, rejoice at Obama's step toward equality for all, thousands, hundreds of thousands of future U.S. citizens have their simple, legal right to live yanked from their grasp because Obama deems his, and our, lives valuable, but those in the womb, living human beings, not (see post "Dear Barack:..."; 12/20/08).

    So, yes, a black man wins the office, America cheers; this same man supports, and further broadens, the procedures in which a doctor "empties the contents of a woman's womb," America feigns ignorance. Obama's inaugaration a step towards equality for all mankind? I think not; it was merely an exchange of racial equality for thousands and thousands of human beings' lives, lives that the supposed-"Equality-for All!"-Obama has sent to the grave.

     Our economy is disastrous at the moment: thousands and thousands of Americans have lost their jobs, major companies have shut down, and Congress is contemplating Bailout Package #2. So what should Obama do with federal money in America's time of desperately needed financial prudence? Send it out of the country to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information, of course. Because, really, we don't need that money; we need to have non-Americans aborted with ease and fluidity.

     Obama has reversed the U.S. ban on using tax-payer money to support abortion worldwide, a ban otherwise known as the "Mexico City policy." He said the debate on abortion was "stale and fruitless." Stale! Fruitless! Gee, we are just so sorry, Obama! Sorry to bore you with our fight to enable equality among all human beings! ISorry to prevent our fellow human beings from being slaughtered! I wonder how many people told Dr. King that his civil rights movement was "stale and fruitless."

     Obama says that his "administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning...." Fresh? As in, Hey! Abortion is hip! I can't wait to see the "fresh" spin Obama will put on abortion, a spin we haven't already heard, a spin that doesn't already try to make the killing of human beings in the womb seem less brutal, less barbaric, and less like the other forms of genocide mankind has witnessed.

     We once again witness Obama's "All hail, me!"-attitude when he simply flicks the entire abortion debate off his shoulder like a fly: "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate." Yes, yes, Master, we bow and scrape, a thousand apologies for daring to approach your throne as if  we were living in a democracy and could protest your Herodian approach to human infants.

     So glad to see Obama use the money withdrawn from my monthly check for the destruction of my fellow man. 

     In L.A., a man fatally shot his wife, five young children and himself because he was upset over his job. (Click to read full story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_re_us/bodies_found).

     Using pro-abortion "logic," I would like to defend this man's actions (please feel free to oppose the listed arguments and explain why the argument does not work in this man's case, but does work in the case of a woman attempting to kill her child, or abortion).

     1) This was family business and a privacy issue; note to society: butt out/worry about your family/don't tell this man how to manage his family/insert any other "Keep your laws/values out of my life!"-excuse here.

     2) This man felt that he had a valid reason for killing: he no longer had any reason to live, and he felt the authority to decide that his child (children) were better off dead. 

     3)  At what age is killing not permissible? For example, when an unborn child is, say, six months in the womb, it is permissible to kill him. Is this man's case "worse" because two of his victims were 2-year-old twins? Why were these twins more "valuable"? Since abortion requires the twisting of the definition of the word "person," who is to say that the definition of  "person" includes children? Why aren't "persons" adults only? Why are the unborn eliminated from the definition of the word "person"?

     4) This didn't hurt you, so why do you care? Again, butt out.

     5) "Why leave the children to a stranger?" the man wrote. He obviously didn't want to leave his children with strangers, so he thought killing them was the alternative.  Adoption is always a better alternative to killing "unwanted" children. I assume all parentless children, if given the choice, would rather have been allowed the chance to live instead of having been aborted.    

     6) The man despaired and thought he had no other options: "Oh lord, my God, is there no hope for a widow's son?" Who are we to pretend to know his problems? Why don't we try walking in his shoes? Every man has to make the choice that is right for him.

     Now, of course, I am only trying to make a point. I completely disagree with all of the above twisted statements in both this man's case and in the case of abortion. The man needed support and help just as a frightened, pregnant woman needs support and help.  Who knows what his children and all aborted children may have grown up to do?

     Ultimately, when we twist laws to bend to our needs, even to the point of killing for "our own, personal reasons," and having to redefine the definition of "human being" to fit this need, we can hardly point a finger at another person for merely doing the same thing.