Can we keep our children safe from harm, or are we powerless? Is violence against children the price of our freedom?
In the video above, President Obama’s words are taken out of context. He cares nothing for the lives of children before they are born or even right after they are born if they are unwanted by their parents. (Barack Obama on Human Rights). In the face of callous disregard, all men of goodwill must march for life. They must stand up for life everyday and in every way.
One way people stand up for the dignity of human life is by taking part in the annual March for Life in Washington D.C. This literal march takes place every year on the anniversary of the infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. In the forty years since this infamous decision, over fifty-five million babies have been intentionally killed in the United States. (Number of Abortions.com).
Are we powerless to stop this violence against children? Are we powerless to even make it illegal to intentionally kill a child?
Please contact your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in the current health care bill.
Here is a link to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment Grassroots Action Center that will help to send such a message. Simply write your messages (it includes suggested messages), enter your address, sign your name, and click send. The center will automatically forward your letter to the correct representatives.
Please speak and defend the human rights of all children.
On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade legitimizing abortion. However, the decision failed to determine when life begins. The Justices thought the question of when life begins was not important enough to the issue of abortion to actually decide. Said the court: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”
However, is not when life begins the most important issue?
Roe v. Wade should be overturned if only for the simple fact that it did not decide the most important factual question. Does an individual physical human life begin at conception? The answer to this question becomes difficult only for those who refuse to face the truth. And it is not surprising that those who legitimated abortion also refused to answer that question.
Abortion is our worst civil rights tragedy, and it is perpetrated against the weakest members of our society. Only a few days ago, we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day. MLK Jr. fought for the human rights of all people, and that includes children in the womb.
What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. [Genesis 4:10].
The fundamental difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the former Soviet Union is that the U.S. Constitution is a charter of “negative liberties” as opposed to the Soviet style of “positive liberties.”
In other words, the U.S. Constitution enumerates specifically what the government is allowed to do, and the government is not allowed to step beyond those enumerations. For example, the U.S. Congress has been authorized to
borrow Money . . . regulate Commerce . . . coin Money . . . declare War . . . raise and support Armies . . . [U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8].
Beyond those powers enumerated by the Constitution, the government does not have authority.
In addition to the specific enumerations, the Constitution goes even further to delineate specific “negative rights” or “negative liberties.” For example, the Congress shall not pass an “ex post facto Law.” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9). This is something the government shall not do.
The most famous guarantees of “negative liberties” are contained in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution). Here is the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that it does not say what Congress shall do, but rather what Congress shall not do. This is because our Constitution protects us from our own government.
The Constitution of the former Soviet Union, on the other hand tried to protect its citizens from each other by saying what the government shall do to protect liberty. Instead of limiting the government, it empowered the government. It contained all the same liberties as our Constitution, such as the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but phrased those liberties as “positive liberties.” For example, here is the clause that protected “freedom of speech” taken from the 1936 Constitution of the USSR (otherwise known as the “Stalin Constitution”):
ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
1. freedom of speech;
2. freedom of the press;
3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
Please notice how in the name of guaranteeing the liberty of the people, this article actually empowers the government.
Under the American system, “freedom of speech” means the government cannot interfere with our speech. Under the Soviet system, “freedom of speech” means the government gives us resources to speak, and thus ultimately will control our speech. Under the American system, the “right to health care” means the government does not interfere with our right to obtain health care. Under the Soviet system, the “right to health care” means the government provides us with health care, and thus ultimately will control our health care.
In a 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ – FM), Obama stated that the U.S. Constitution should be reinterpreted to eliminate the “negative liberties” recognized by our Founding Fathers and replace them with Soviet style “positive liberties.” Here is a partial transcript of that interview:
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the Federal government or the State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so Court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
If we the American people vote for Obama because we want to see “change,” we must first consider what kind of change we really want. Do we really want to abandon our American system of rights and liberties for a Soviet style system?
What would that do to our private property rights? What would that do to our rights to freedom of speech? What would that do to our economy?