Barack Obama has a funny way of reading the Constitution - and we don't just mean because his lips move and he touches himself inappropriately. Rather, it's his interpretations of Constitutional language which are funny - though definitely not in the "ha-ha" way.
Most recently, this has been demonstrated by his radical new claim that abortion-on-demand is a clear Constitutional right because the "pursuit of happiness" for women can apparently only occur if they can easily kill any potential children resulting from one night stands.
According to Obama, we must "continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Unless, of course, those daughters aren't quite full-term yet...in which case they're not guaranteed Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, but will at least get one visit to Benihana.
Interestingly and, we're sure, entirely coincidentally a questionable new study has just been released (and much publicized) stating that abortions are much safer than actually giving birth. Except, of course, for the tiny little people who are killed in 100% of procedures while their moms are pursuing happiness.
It's also important to keep in mind that this is the infant-hating president who previously said of his own daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Were you and Michelle "punished" twice, Mr. Obama? Is that why Michelle recently declared on national television that you two are out of the conception business? (Not that we're notgrateful, mind you)
Moreover, this president strongly supports partial birth abortion in which a viable child isalmost fully delivered - and then has its head cut off. Not totally sickened yet? Then try this on for size: as a Senator, Barack Obama opposed the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Specifically, if a late term abortion went "wrong" and a healthy living baby was born, Obama believes that the state should still have the ability to kill the child.
But what is his cutoff for "post-natal abortion?" An hour? A day? A week? And once precedent has been set, why not make it a year, or 10, or 80? Or simply any age if someone gets in the way of your pursuit of happiness?
With all of that being said, it's time for a bit of Hope n' Change full disclosure: while we are 99% pro-Life, we don't believe in outlawing abortion entirely. We think it should be a States Rights issue...and we especially think that it should be a rare procedure of last resort, considered seriously and soberly, instead of a selfish, nightmarish, and all too common form of government encouraged birth control.
If Obama wants to advance his radical views on abortion, he should do it without distorting and destroying the very clear language and intent of our Constitution. Because even though he's successfully leading the charge to deprive millions of children their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, some children will continue to be born in this country.
Only without the Constitution, it won't be a country worth living in.