The Irony of Obama and the demise of human rights
For non Europeans, the fact that a black man can be elected president is a happy occasion, showing that the US continues to be faithful to it's promise of freedom and equal rights for all.
A century and a half after blacks were given their full rights as human beings, a black man has been elected to the highest office in the land.
But the irony is that if Obama implements the policies of his campaign, these very policies could very well result in a subtle and slow destruction of rights in the name of tolorance and freedom and "rights".
Senator Obama has promised his supporters to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" as soon has he becomes president. So all we have to do is wait until the end of January to see if the new president, whose own teenaged mother with the help of her parents and husband, chose to give him life, will go along with his promises to deny other children the right to be born.
When Senator Obama was elected, the leader of the "catholic" outreach, a professor named Doublas Kmeic, happily announced that now it was time for Obama to work with Catholics, and that Catholics should now ask Obama to limit his abortion advocacy while promoting social programs to help such mothers.
And indeed, in the name of "inclusion", a President Obama could easily decline to promote the "Freedom of Choice" act.
But no one really thinks he will actually reach out to his Catholic supporters.
Indeed, now I am reading editorials in the press warning us that if the bishops oppose abortion too vigorously, that such actions will "alienate the Catholic bishops from the Democratic party".
One would think that the Democratic party would worry about alienating practicing Catholics instead. After all, even if the Democrats got 54% of the "Catholic vote", (counting non practicing Catholics), this is a lot lower than the 70-80% of the Catholic vote which they used to get...and much of these loses are because of pro life issues.
So watch your paper, and check the many stories and editorials are being written to smear the bishops who have courageously supported the right to life.
Lie number one: Catholics should forget abortion and support peace/social welfare/reject racism.
Ah, but questions of war may be argued, questions on how best to help the vulnerable (strengthen families versus strengthen government welfare) can be argued, and even immigration is a bipartisan issue: producing policies that encourage mothers to kill their own children is not.
As for racism: this works both ways. Calling every critic of Senator Obama a racist is dishonest, especially if the critic is a Native American Indian like Archbishop Chaput.
Lie number two: Catholic support abortion.
All this takes is a slight of hand with statistics. You count Catholics who haven't been to church for years as Catholic, and you phrase the question to make it sound like support: Do you support abortion for a raped 12 year old who is having a deformed baby and might die during the pregnancy? You have two seconds to answer. Yes? Ah, so you are pro abortion...
Then we have lie number three:
That Catholic bishops are out of touch with their members.
The Washington Post article on this even quotes a "Catholics for Choice" leader ridiculing the bishops.
Again, this is misreporting. Catholic bishops are not politicians who are supposed to represent their members by taking polls: They are pastors who are supposed to teach those under their care about how to follow Jesus.
But then we come to lie number four: That Catholic bishops are interfering with politics.
This is serious, and could lose the church and it's institutions their tax exemptions.
Never mind that most of the warnings by bishops prior to the election were in response to Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden misrepresenting Catholic teachings in interviews.
Or that other bishops objected when political activists actively claiming to represent Catholics dismissed the right to life as an important election issue.
But what is more interesting is not the lies, but the omissions:
There has been little or no public discussion of how the "Freedom of Choice Act" would affect Catholic medical personnel or institutions, or why the Catholic bishops' meeting proposed a statement opposing President elect Obama's plan to implement this law.
This law that would stop any and all laws that discourage abortion, including laws that teenagers need to notify parents, laws stopping partial birth abortion of babies who would live otherwise.
But a new President Obama won't stop with his promotion of abortion "rights" in the United States. He also plans to immediately remove restrictions on using US taxpayer money for pro abortion organizations overseas.
This would mean funding forced abortions in China(by funding the Planned Parenthood organization there). It also would fund organizations (politically active NGO's and UN Conferences) seeking to force Catholic and Islamic countries to legalize abortion as "a human right".
President Obama also said he would quickly remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
One also suspects that the new president will remove the Bush administration regulations that allows medical personnel and hospitals/health care centers freedom of conscience, so that they can refuse to cooperate with procedures against their consciences or religious beliefs.
But the Freedom of Choice bill is what is worrying the Catholic bishops.
We already have state laws that mandate Catholic hospitals to give out abortion pills; a federal law removing all restriction on abortions could easily be interpreted as mandating abortions in Catholic institutions, or could nullify agreements between Catholic hospitals that have merged with secular hospitals with the understanding that the joint institutions wouldn't permit procedures that go against Catholic morals.
But the right to life is not only been taken from the unborn: Oregon and now Washington state now allows "assisted suicide", and a California law mandating doctors tell all terminal patients about all of their choices for terminal care could easily be interpreted by courts as mandating doctors to inform patients that they had the choice to kill themselves.
Indeed, the New York Times now has an article quoting a medical ethicist (who is at the forefront of promoting euthanasia in the medical literature) saying that assisted suicide with guidelines is now an accepted procedure,( never mind that this is not actually the opinion of most physicians).
The irony is that such policies, that destroy the right to life for the unborn, the handicapped, and those with terminal illnesses, will be promoted in the name of human rights...by a president who presents himself as the hope for all people who lack rights.