HomeWho Are We?Articles & TractsConfession BoothPhoto AlbumContact Dr. J

News & ViewsProLifeGunsScience & MedTheologyFamily & Homeschooling
The Line in the Sand; Siding With God to Abolish Abortion
1  2  3  NEXT

 

The Line in the Sand; Siding With God to Abolish Abortion

There is a false dichotomy in American politics and in the media today.  The spectrum of political ideas has been divided into two categories – left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican.  Unfortunately, the line in the sand does not accurately reflect where the true conflict lies.  The line in the sand has been drawn in the public arena so that the enemies of the preborn, the opponents to the free market, the traitors to the Constitution, the proponents of the sovereignty-threatening United Nations, the lobbyists for an ever-increasing Federal police state, the advocates for homosexual marriage, and the haters of the Christian God can comfortably stand on either side.

A good example of this false dichotomy is the public’s view of the war against Iraq.  If one limited his exposure of conservative commentary on the issue to Limbaugh and Hannity, Human Events and the Washington Times, he would likely embrace the impression that the liberals hate the war on Iraq because they hate Bush, while conservatives support Bush because the invasion of Iraq is justified.  But this impression is in spite of the stiff opposition to the war from conservatives icons like Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the John Birch Society.  I wrote an article entitled, “Refuting Bush’s Arguments for an Iraqi Invasion”, which is available on my website.  Most of the criticism I received of that article assumed that I was anti-Bush and anti-war after the leftist tradition, a criticism without foundation in fact or reason.  My critics assumed prematurely that I was on the left side of that line in the sand, when in fact, I’m further to the right than they.  Judging the reasons thus far given, many conservatives believe the war is unjustifiable on moral, conservative, and Constitutional principles.  The left vs. right conflict in the national media is a decoy from the authentic line in the sand further to the right.

Another good example of the false dichotomy is the pro-life community’s support of George W. Bush.  When one reads the pro-choicer’s rabid criticism of Bush’s “pro-life extremism”, it is very tempting to defend Bush’s pro-life rhetoric simply to infuriate the left.  But Bush is clearly to the left of the authentic line in the sand, the left’s endorsement of the false dichotomy notwithstanding.  Case and point: on the campaign trail, Bush openly and unashamedly professed that abortion was acceptable in cases of rape and incest.  That fact alone should have demonstrated for us that Bush was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and not truly pro-life in principle.  Any ruler who thinks an innocent human being can be executed because his father was a bad person or because of tragic circumstances surrounding that person’s conception is disqualified from being called a good person, much less a good ruler.   

In spite of Bush’s public admission that innocent human beings can be killed with his blessing, challenging the sincerity of Bush’s confessed conservative values before the election was anathema to conservatives the nation over!  Successful opposition to the Democrats was more important than defending the principles of life and liberty engraved in Scriptures and in our founding documents, and Bush was a means to that end.  “If Bush loses, Gore wins!” the pro-life community argued, “and we must stop Gore at all cost!”  At all cost?  Did you know that most of the Supreme Court in 1973 was appointed by “conservative” Republicans?  The Court that handed down Roe vs. Wade was not appointed by liberals but by Republicans who professed conservative values!  Christian conservatives campaigned and voted for “the most electable conservative candidates” on pragmatic grounds, and in so doing they inadvertently stained their hands with the blood of the innocent babies.  The cost of becoming an accomplice in the American Holocaust is too great to justify such a compromise. 

The pro-life community continued to hold out hope that in spite of Bush’s failure to respect the sanctity all innocent human life, at least he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Question: Did Bush ever once promise to limit his judicial appointments to judges who respected the sanctity of life and would overturn Roe vs. Wade?  No, not at all!  On the contrary, George W. Bush made it plain that he did not have a litmus test for judicial appointees, even explicitly insisting in a Presidential debate with Gore that one’s views on abortion would not be a factor in his appointments.  If a judicial candidate thought it was acceptable to kill innocent human beings in deference to Roe vs. Wade, then Bush would not let that stop him from appointing such a one to a judicial seat of power!

Still the pro-life community tightened the blindfold and hoped for the best in Bush.  “Oh, but George W. Bush says that he is ‘pro-life’,” the pro-life community argued, “and he promised that he would only appoint ‘constructivist’ judges who would interpret the constitution literally.”

Oh really?  Like he appointed “constructivist” judges in Texas?!?  Surely, a judge who literally interpreted the Constitution would forbid the murder of innocent human beings on the basis of the fifth amendment, which forbids depriving human beings of life apart from a capital conviction via due process.  But Bush’s fruit in Texas showed very clearly that what he meant by “constructivist” would not stop or even slow the bloodshed. 

Highly touted on the campaign trail as evidence of Bush’s commitment to the sanctity of life was the parental consent legislation Bush signed in Texas.  Bush argued that a minor should not be allowed to undergo a medical procedure, however trivial, without parental consent.  The legislature agreed and Bush signed it into law in Texas, and for this he earned the praise of pro-lifers and civil libertarians around the nation. 

However, did you know that a Texas Supreme Court, the majority of whom Governor Bush appointed, overthrew the legislation Bush signed when they allowed an unexceptional 17-year-old to get an abortion without parental consent?  Does that 6-3 decision by a court packed with Bush appointees help you understand just how vacuous he is when he promises to appoint only “constructivist” judges?  His political savvy is brilliantly pragmatic and utilitarian – he makes the conservatives happy by signing parental consent legislation, then he makes the liberals happy by appointing judges who will overthrow the legislation!  That the Christian conservative community in America so vigorously defends George W. Bush is evidence that the line in the sand over which they argue and campaign is artificial and that the Democrat vs. Republican conflict is insincere and counterfeit.  Judging by words rather than by works, they have taken off their shoes at a soon-to-be-burning Bush.  They fight on the side of those whom God opposes in the name of “the least of two evils”.  The true war for our nation’s soul is on a battle line much further to the right.

True to form, the conservative, pro-life community has been up in arms about the Democratic Senators’ filibuster of Miguel Estrada, Bush’s judicial appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.  This appointment has been a steppingstone for Supreme Court justices in the past, and many have speculated that Estrada would be a good conservative Supreme Court appointment for President Bush.  In addition to appeasing conservatives, it would also improve the Republican Party’s appeal to the Latino base. 

Yoo-hoo!  Are your neurons firing right?  How do we know he’s pro-life?  How do we know that he wouldn’t tolerate legal murder and enforce Roe vs. Wade?  Is there any evidence, other than the fact that the Democrats in the Senate don’t like him?  Is there any evidence at all, other than Estrada’s refusal to inform the Senate judiciary committee what his views were on abortion?  Perhaps he’s refusing to inform them of his views not because he’s secretly pro-life and doesn’t want the pro-aborts to know, but because he’s secretly pro-choice and doesn’t want Bush’s pro-life constituency to know.

Last week, I asked a pro-life leader in Florida, who was working diligently to overcome the Senate’s filibuster of Estrada’s nomination, how she knew that he was pro-life, and she responded, “Estrada’s friends have said that he’s pro-life.”

“Who?”

“Well,” she responded, “the evidence that he is pro-life is not being released to the public, because the liberals in the Senate wouldn’t let a vote come to the floor if they knew he was dedicated to the sanctity of innocent life.”

“So, we don’t really know?”

“Well, yes, he really is pro-life,” she took offense.  “After all, George Bush appointed him!”

(continued next page)


1  2  3  NEXT



© 2003 WhereTheTruthHurts.org - All Rights Reserved.