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?
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"?