Taxpayers v. The unborn

Ever since 1984, when President Ronald Reagan enacted the Federal Abortion Ban, there has been a tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats over taxpayers’ money funding abortion. Democratic President Clinton lifted the ban in 1993 and Republican President Bush put it back in 2001. Now in 2009, Democratic President Obama has lifted the ban again. The question is what has changed in the past sixteen years?

I think it is obvious that Obama is very different from Clinton. With his Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), Obama is going several steps further than just lifting the ban. The states have no room to decide anything on their own. That in itself goes against the foundation of this country. The ultimate intention is to end all debate spawned from the Roe v. Wade case of almost forty years ago.

This act includes giving minors the legal capability to have abortions without parental consent. A girl who is not yet old enough to drive, smoke, or drink can get an abortion without her parents’ consent or even their knowledge. That puts a bit of a spin on the frequently overlooked commandment, “Honor thy mother and father.” In FOCA, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is lifted. I believe that partial-birth abortion is essentially a minute and a half away from being infanticide. The effects of this “freedom” are not as liberating as they are inescapably dark. Are young women now suggested to perceive a human life as a fashion to be disregarded?

The President expressed his hope that few people would have to resort to that, and he promises to help the country avoid unwanted pregnancies as much as possible. But what does that mean? Sex education in public schools? We have that. Over-the-counter contraceptives? We have those – and in a variety of colors, no less. We also have oral contraceptives which are not over-the-counter but can still be acquired at affordable prices and are covered by most insurance groups. We have every conceivable, no pun intended, form of contraceptive. One may even get a prescription of the controversial emergency contraceptive RU-86 pill, also called the “morning after” pill. Crisis centers? We have those. Adoption agencies? We have those, too. In short, I don’t see how President Obama can do anything else policy-wise.

The fact is that now taxpayers’ money is going to fund abortion.

Many people have a serious problem with this. I am one of them; I am pro-life and I believe firmly in the sanctity of life. But I am also not na’ve enough to believe that if the law is overturned then abortions will just stop happening. People have been having abortions for centuries, and they will continue to do so. If someone really wants to have an abortion, it will happen.

The majority could be pro-choice or pro-life, but it does not matter. A woman does have a choice and the sad truth is that there is nothing in the world that can protect a fetus from his or her own mother. I do not wish to seem defeatist and I have high hopes for humanity, but they are rooted in the belief that we are sinners in need of Jesus Christ’s redemptive forgiveness. Having a dual citizenship in the United States and God’s Kingdom, though, I consider myself to be a realist and I view the present situation as a decision between the lesser of two evils. I think everyone can agree that a government’s main function is to protect its citizens – even from themselves, if need be. If abortion were to be outlawed, inevitably people would still have it performed – be it by an unlicensed and illegal surgeon or even, God forbid, by themselves, using wire clothes hangers in back alleys. Those are extreme examples, but the mistake would be to underestimate the actions of a desperate woman.

Abortion should definitely not be outlawed, but I also wish it was not so adamantly encouraged.