His 'pro-choice' policies slam inalienable rights back into the realm of someone else's choice
Commentary by Meg Jalsevac
March 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It is impossible to reside in America today and not hear the constant reference to President Obama's election as a victory for the civil rights movement in America. The recent State of the Union address was over-shadowed by the media's insistence on prefacing every report with a reminder that Obama was black and thus it was a great day for America.From the telecasts on election day through the present day, it seems that no matter what media outlet one tunes in to, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Obama supporter or not, almost everyone gushes over Barack Obama's election and inauguration - how it is an "historic" and unforgettable moment for America. It seems as though his campaign success has injected a life blood into Americans to believe that if a black man can be elected President, each one of us can also be recognized for our full potential and achieve anything.
Like most Americans, January 20th, 2009 will be a day that is not soon forgotten in our household. However, it will be remembered differently for us. As I sat and listened to reporter after reporter gush about the championing of civil rights, I suffered the miscarriage of the little precious baby that we had only known for a matter of days was going to be a part of our family. Listening to the newscasts and mourning the loss of the life of our child gave me pause.
Yes, Barack Obama is our first black President. But this election was by no means a triumph for inalienable rights. On the contrary, America successfully elected a black man who is more than willing to deny the most basic right to life itself of both unborn children (especially black children) and newly born children who survive an attempted abortion. Have Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, become so blind that they cannot see the forest for all of the trees?
Obama's so-called 'pro-choice' policies on abortion do exactly what the terminology implies - they slam inalienable rights back into the realm of someone else's choice and eliminate any inalienable quality to them.
Was my baby deserving of the most fundamental human right - life - only because my husband and I chose that his little life was worthy? To me, that reeks of slavery. Were black slaves worthy of freedom only because their slave master chose that they were worthy of the right to freedom? Is a person's right to a fair trial reliant on the whim of the local judge?
Or rather, are life, freedom and justice inalienable rights due every person? I do not own the life of my baby - born or unborn, just like a slave master did not own the black people that he enslaved or the judge own the defendant. When we subject the civil rights of some to the choice of others, we endanger the civil rights of all. Inalienable rights are grounded in our humanity - not in a choice made by some body.
If we continue to leave the human rights of some (the unborn) as merely a 'choice,' then who is to say that someone or some court or governing body or majority down the road might not 'choose' that blacks do not actually deserve freedom, or women should no longer be allowed to vote or, for that matter, that residents of any given state should no longer be allowed to live. It is a slippery slope.
Perhaps it is because abortion is such a politically divisive issue even pro-life conservatives feel comfortable adding their "so historic" and "victory for the civil rights movement" comments to the Obama victory.
But I ask you - if, in a future election, America elects a woman who wants to re-introduce the slave trade - will that then also be an historic time for America and the women's rights movement and a compelling manifestation that finally the glass ceiling is broken and we are all equal. If we elect an Hispanic individual who wants to give Americans the 'freedom to choose' whether to kill or not to kill all their Jewish neighbors, would this too be a step forward for the civil rights movement?
Or, would the truth be so glaringly despicable that we would actually face what we have done?
Would we then be willing to admit that we have, under the facade of championing civil rights, elected an individual who is willing to allow 'choice' to determine rights for a class of people over the very right to live of another, most vulnerable class of people?
Let's call it like it is. With the Obama victory America just took a giant step backwards in the civil rights movement. We're so caught up in chanting "Yes, we did" that we can't even see or admit it.
Meg Jalsevac is the Secretary/Treasurer of LifeSiteNews.com USA headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and is an occasional LifeSiteNews correspondent
