In these uncertain times, some things remain constant. One is the arrival each January 22 of tens of thousands of pro-life Americans to Washington, DC to note the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and to mourn.
Forty eight million American children, given the gift of life, but deprived of seeing the light of day, have been destroyed in the womb since that 22nd of January in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion.
So, again this year they came.
Change really is not such a new idea in America. They have been coming to Washington seeking change now for 36 years.
But apparently the change they want is not change that our new president can believe in.
Unlike his predecessor, who annually addressed the shivering crowd, Mr. Obama declined their invitation to speak. However, he issued a brief press statement. But the statement was not about change but about the status quo, celebrating the 1973 decision.
Maybe our first black president doesn't know that, despite blacks being just 12 percent of the American population, black babies constitute 37 percent of all our aborted children. One of every two black pregnancies is aborted.
In the words of my friend, the Rev. Clenard Childress, "the most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother."
According to Obama's statement, Roe v Wade was about "reproductive freedom" and a "woman's right to choose" and our "daughters" having "the same rights ... as our sons."
What responsibilities go with these "rights" Mr. President? And do we have ultimate responsibilities? And if so, to whom?
Recommended
In his inaugural address, Mr. Obama appealed for "a new era of responsibility," bemoaned "greed and irresponsibility" and "failure to make hard choices."
But, Mr. President, if you condone a culture that has no sense of awe and responsibility toward the greatest of all miracles and mysteries -- life itself -- how can you expect responsibility elsewhere?
The president's statement proposes to "reduce" abortions by expanding "access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."
But if there is no problem in destroying the unborn child, why is reducing abortions a goal? If it is okay to do once, why not twenty times? Or a million times a year, like now?
And, sir, will you continue to force us taxpayers to pay for the "unintended" consequences of women exercising their "reproductive freedom"?
Can it be accidental that along with the millions of abortions that followed the Roe v. Wade decision, the stability of American families spiraled downward, divorce rates increased, and out of wedlock birth rates skyrocketed to where today four of ten babies are born to unwed mothers?
As Tom Sowell has pointed out, as late as 1970 most black children were raised in two parent families. By 1995 one third were.
For those who claim that Christian conservatives care only about abortion and gay marriage and are indifferent to social issues such as poverty, know that they are all one and the same issue.
The black poverty rate, which has been frozen at twice the national average for decades, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of single parent homes. Black families with two married parents at home are on approximate economic par with white families.
According to the most recent report on sexually transmitted diseases from the Center for Disease Control, these diseases are increasing and spreading in our nation. And blacks account, depending on the disease, for between 50-70 percent of them.
No, this is not about "reproductive freedom." This about respect for life, for others, and a true culture of responsibility.
What can be done?
Understand that our crisis is one of values. Restore law that protects all life. And free at risk children from the tyranny of government schools where they are taught moral relativism. Allow these children the freedom to go to church schools.
Meanwhile, Mr. President, we'll see you again next January 22.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member