Real Devastation

Most everyone with a pulse knows that politicians are prone to hyperbole, especially in today’s political environment, where sound bites count as policy statements and most mainstream reporters sop them up as gospel without so much as a second glance.

But just every so often a politician utters something so ridiculous and hypocritical that it makes even the most seasoned cynic recoil.

This week’s winner is none other than President Barack Obama.

Last week he you may recall he waxed indignant after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 partisan ruling, overturned a century-old law which placed limits on what corporations and labor unions can spend on the endorsement of political candidates. The court ruled that the financial limits amounted to limits on the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

He railed against the ruling on its face, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest."

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” he further complained during his weekly Saturday radio address, adding: “The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Forget for a moment that Obama, last August, managed to win the “support” – read, paid political advocacy – of the special interests of Big Pharmacy, the AARP, the American Medical Association and the large Services Employees International Union, all of which ponied up a combined $150 million to produce ads supporting his health care plan – a plan the majority of Americans now oppose.

Obama went on to say he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the high court’s decision. "It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.”

Let’s talk about Supreme Court-induced “damage” for a moment.

If the president wanted a serious dialogue on the subject of “damage” done to our society by a Supreme Court decision, he needn’t look any further than the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Since the high court, in its wisdom, issued that ruling – overturning abortion bans in all 50 states at the time – some 50 million children have lost the opportunity to have a full, productive life, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics.

Fifty million, Mr. President. I’d say the untimely deaths of so many American children has caused incalculable damage to our society. Then again, as a state senator in Illinois, the would-be president also voted against even partial birth abortion legislation.

So maybe his idea of what is and is not truly "damaging" to our society shouldn't surprise us. Still, let's consider the implications of what abortion has cost us in real, human terms so far.

We don't know, for example, if we’ve already killed the person who could have solved our long-term energy needs.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who would have invented an AIDS cure.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who could have cured cancer or diabetes.

We don’t know if we’ve killed the person who would have had the leadership qualities to end conflict as we know it.

We don’t know if we’ve already killed the person who could have finally healed the divisive race issues in our country.

We don’t know. And we’ll never know. But the odds are that we have likely killed a number of individuals who could have made substantial positive contributions to our society and to our world.

Talk about a Supreme Court decision that caused real “damage” to our country.

It’s too bad our president doesn’t see it that way. But then, what does he have to worry about?

His mother chose life.

And he became the first black president in the history of our country.

Imagine if she hadn’t.

-30-