THOUGHTS
There is a silent war going on . . . a war that is so insidious that most of us don’t even know we are in the midst of it. It is a war against children. In spite of the rhetoric to the contrary, children are being pitted against the selfish desires of adults and are losing the battle. Those who say they love children probably do love them, but not enough to protect them. When faced with a choice between children and furthering an agenda near and dear to their hearts, children inevitably are the sacrificial lambs.
I observed two events at the Capitol this week and both illustrate my conclusion. A debate over the Marriage Amendment took place that day and the arguments for and against offering a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman was intense, with a lot of political gesturing and what I call the “dance of politics.” One representative who opposed the amendment talked about her own son who is homosexual and how his “rights” had been infringed and how her “right” as a mother to watch her son “marry” his partner was being usurped by the amendment. Interestingly those who opposed the amendment never mentioned how a stable marriage and home with a mother and a father was the ideal incubator for a child’s stability and security; how marriage benefits children. Some felt this amendment was not necessary; that Kansas’ Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would be enough. Have they not been reading the newspapers? Not one mentioned the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution that if invoked by those who marry in another state to challenge Kansas’ DOMA. It was about “rights” but not children’s right to be protected in the sanctity of marriage, an institution that has been around for millennia.
The second example was even more ominous and perhaps explains why we are experiencing paradoxical reactions to issues concerning children in our culture. I sat in on the committee hearing that dealt with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, HB 2552, and listened to testimony both for and against the bill. Obviously testimony for the bill talked of children being additional victims when a woman is violently assaulted or killed in a crime. This bill calls for the unborn child to be recognized as a victim as well as its mother. It explicitly excludes violence done to the child by its mother (abortion or prenatal neglect). For us it seems to be a no-brainer, but to others it is a problem…recognizing the humanity of the child is a BIG problem, not only because of their perceived threat to abortion, but because the child in some way is a threat to them.
One opponent stated in her testimony that this bill would give the fetus “elevated status” and “would erode a woman’s right to choose.” She went on further to say that the bill offered a “sweeping definition of the fetus” that was a departure to a Supreme Court decision on the Fourteenth Amendment that excluded the personhood of an unborn child. She wanted “penalty enhancement” for crimes against the woman: I suppose she acknowledged that it might be a loss to a woman if she wanted the child. She worried that this bill focused too much on the child and not on the woman.
Another opponent decried the “inflammatory language” in the bill…calling the second victim an “unborn child”. She went on to say that the bill was merely an attempt by “anti-choice extremists” to sabotage Roe v. Wade. She too wanted enhanced penalties to compensate a woman for a ”wanted pregnancy.” (Emphasis added.) Still another opponent said the bill “devalued women’s rights”. Another opponent stated that a child was not alive until it took its first breath; therefore the child had no rights before that time. She even said that she was fearful about going to a Catholic hospital because they would more than likely consider the baby more important than her.
It became clear to me that day that the sides had been drawn . . . an army of children born and unborn against those who desire to do what is right in their own eyes. There was an underlying theme that day; my rights are the most important. Those who feel this way are well-equipped and well-funded; the children’s army needs someone to come to their rescue.
A final thought . . . isn’t there some way we can love them both?
In Him,
Judy Smith
State Director