The headline read “VP-Pick Ryan blasts Obama on abortion: ‘never once lifted a hand’ to defend unborn.” The article quotes Ryan as saying “Giving up any further pretense of moderation [on abortion] “and in complete disregard of millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party.”
Does Ryan know anything of Obama’s record on abortion? If so, this is a “blast” only if Ryan thinks he could have taken out Hitler’s bunker by lighting a sparkler.
The record shows that Obama has never tried to sustain any “pretense of moderation” on the issue of abortion. He has been a champion of the most virulent kind of pro-abortion extremism. As a state Senator in Illinois Obama raised his solitary voice against passage of a measure intended to prevent the murder of infants born alive after the failure of a late term abortion. He maintained that any interference with the mother’s intention to murder the nascent child would violate her “abortion rights.” His stand is in stark contrast with the votes of notable pro-abortion extremists in the U.S. Senate, which voted unanimously in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Federal level. Obama argued that it was necessary willfully to murder intended abortion victims after they were born in order to make sure there would be no doubt of the right to murder them at any time before that. (Take note: The ultra-extreme Obama also voted against a partial-birth abortion ban while serving in the Illinois State Senate. This was logically consistent with his accepting infanticide as a necessary corollary of so-called “abortion rights”. ) Unlike many of the GOP’s uncertain prolife political buglers, Obama has consistently blown a loud and unequivocally certain trumpet when it comes to murdering nascent children. He has never met a nascent child murder he didn’t like; never hesitated to champion the cause of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other contemporary institutional acolytes in the abortion gods’ Pantheon of child sacrifice. His record has deservedly earned him the title of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion Cult.
Given this record, criticizing Obama because he “never lifted a hand” to defend nascent children is like criticizing Hitler because he never lifter a finger to defend the Jews. Does Ryan mean to imply that if he had done so he would enjoy a pretense of moderation? But for the deadly serious context, that would be as comical as the “Three Stooges” character who tightly shuts his eyes in order to pretend he cannot see.
In this case however, Ryan’s suppression of well known facts about Barack Obama invites us to see that Ryan is the one tightly shutting his mouth about Obama’s real record. Because he does so, his putatively tough criticism of Obama takes on the appearance of a mere pretense. But Ryan’s record in defense of life requires no pretense. So why is he shielding Obama’s real record with a critique so faint that it begs to be ridiculed and dismissed? I find it hard to believe that Ryan wants to protect Obama.
But Ryan’s faint condemnation may implicitly serve another purpose. It lends a pretense of prolife credibility to someone who has, once or twice “lifted a hand” to defend a nascent child. In light of this purpose, it is not Barack Obama who comes to mind. It’s GOP politicians, like Mitt Romney. By claiming to be prolife, they appeal for votes from the GOP’s moral conservatives. However, their records prove that, though they occasionally make exceptions for things like partial birth abortion, they generally support so-called “abortion rights”.
For more than twenty years the GOP wing of the elitists’ faction has bent every effort to establish the notion that such a record is prolife enough for government work. If governing in the United States were simply a matter of expediency, this might be acceptable. But the Constitution of the United States is framed, and can only be maintained, in light of certain principles, beginning with the recognition that the aim of just government is to secure God-endowed right. The prerequisite of governing according to that principle is to make sure that the laws respect right, even if necessity occasionally dictates actions that don’t.
Thus, the “Mitt Romney” standard for prolife work has it the wrong way round. It embraces in practice a regime of law that supports the oxymoron of a “right” to do wrong; a “right” simply to ignore the obligations entailed by the Creator’s endowment of our natural conscience. It is a notion of law that ultimately allows government to invent unjust rights, along with a specious legal obligation to respect them. With this in hand government can move forcefully to compel people to violate the dictates of natural conscience (which Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts.) But without the standard of natural conscience, there can be no claims of natural right. Without the claim of natural right, there can be no claim of justice to require that government powers be limited by respect for right. Far from being good enough for government work, the “Mitt Romney” standard implies the end of limited government, the end therefore of the liberty, derived from right, that just government is instituted to secure. Once we take away Mitt Romney’s expedient mask of pretense, isn’t this the very existential threat to America’s way of life Obama also represents? But by hiding it behind the Republican label, Romney lures conservative voters to burn their votes as fuel for a vehicle of power able to carry out the threat with greater competence and efficiency than Obama has or ever will display.