For decades, Democrats have had success in portraying Republicans as being a party of older white males. They have often portrayed us as insensitive to the needs of our weakest citizens – most notably women and children. Recently, President Obama played the latter card as he announced a new policy on illegal immigration. He predicated his announcement of amnesty for the children of illegal aliens by saying we are a “better nation” than one that deports innocent children. For a moment, I thought he said we were a “better nation” than one that aborts innocent children. Unfortunately, I was mistaken.
President Obama is a smart man. As a supporter of unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, he cannot seriously contend that it is worse to be deported than it is to be aborted. He opposes the deportation of innocent children and supports the abortion of innocent children, not based on principle but on politics. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration wins votes among young Hispanics. Turning a blind eye to abortion wins votes among young women. But nowhere is there a concern for anyone but the president himself. He is willing to sacrifice children by the millions if it will help secure his re-election.
That no pro-abortion president can call himself “pro-child” is axiomatic. But it is also impossible to support abortion and call oneself pro-woman. This should have been evident in light of the Democrats’ recent opposition to the ban on gender-selective abortions. The ban failed only because of unified Democratic support. This should have tipped women off that they have become pawns in a political game that values women who vote – not women per se.
Regardless, the Democrats and their pro-abortion leader continue to justify abortion by harkening back to the days when “thousands of women” died in back alleys because they had no access to abortion that should have been “safe, legal, and rare.” Of course, human dismemberment can never be “safe.” And if it is not really human dismemberment then there is no reason why it should be “rare.” So we have to call into question the motives of those who would defend its legality. And we must examine carefully its true effects upon women.