On the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, President Obama said that it “stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.” I would like to call Mr. Obama's attention to a few of the ways his government does indeed intrude — all the time. So much so that is taken for granted, it appears.
The Government mandates:
1.With whom and when one may marry.
2.The age at which one can have sex.
3.With whom or with what one may or may not have sex.
4.The degree and content of "prurient" subjects permitted access.
5.The age at which one can marry.
6.The nature of sex acts permitted.
7.The regulation of mind/mood altering substances.
8. Regulation of birth control devices and practices. And finally:
9. Permitting/ denying the right of choice.
So "our most private family matters" are indeed subject to constant and capricious regulation and inspection by the government. The choice granted under Roe v. Wade is a good example of the government decreeing what is permissible in regard to one's own body. It does not matter how one views the outcome of this ruling and that is especially true in the case of the President. For him to speak so as a private citizen is perfectly okay but totally unacceptable in his present capacity. His words carry the solemn weight of the law as well as the spirit. If he truly wishes to keep the government out of our bedrooms he has four years to work on it.
Mr. Obama tells us in The Audacity of Hope, "…the government should not interject itself into civil society" but is not his statement on private family matters exactly that? He seems to back away from responsibility by stating, "Of course, there are limits to the bully pulpit". A reflective President cannot have it both ways; particularly if he has had a long career teaching law to others.Powered by Sidelines