hyp·o·crite — n., a person who pretends to be what he is not; one who pretends to be better than he really is, or to be pious, virtuous, etc., without really being so.
That’s how my dictionary defines the word. Check out your own. I looked up the word last Sunday, Oct. 12, when I heard about President Clinton’s official proclamation designating that date National Children’s Day, 1997.
“With the birth of every child, the world becomes new again,” the president said in making the announcement. “Within each new infant lies enormous potential — potential for loving, for learning, and for making life better for others. But this potential must be nurtured. Just as seeds need fertile soil, warm sunshine, and gentle rain to grow, so do our children need a caring environment, the security of knowing they are loved, and the encouragement and opportunity to make the most of their God-given talents. There is no more urgent task before us, as a people and as a Nation, than creating such an environment for America’s children.”
Nice words. Pious rhetoric. Virtuous talk.
Would you believe that this proclamation was issued on Friday, Oct. 10 — the very same day the president vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?
Just to review, a partial-birth abortion is the intentional and brutal destruction of a baby — often late-term and “viable” — partially delivered from the womb. Usually, the child is manipulated to exit the mother’s uterus feet first, until his or her head is all that remains in the birth canal. Then scissors or some other sharp object are plunged into the baby’s skull, the brain matter is vacuumed out and the head is crushed before removing it from the mother’s body.
This is called “choice” by a handful of fanatics in this country who never met an abortion they didn’t like. The president is one of those extremists.
The ban on such procedures has twice been approved by a large bi-partisan majority of both the House of Representatives and Senate. This is the second time President Clinton has vetoed the bill. He says it’s important to permit this savagery to protect the health of the mother. However, a much more common and safe procedure known as a Caesarean section, would result in a healthy mother and child.
If, indeed, with the birth of every child, the world becomes new again, as the president says. What happens to a world every time this hideous option is chosen? And what happens to a world when its most powerful leaders condone such procedures?
If, indeed, each infant possesses the enormous potential for “for loving, for learning, and for making life better for others,” how can such barbaric practices be defended?
And if, indeed, we acknowledge that this potential must be nurtured, how can one justify snuffing out that potential before the baby ever has the chance to see the light of day and feel that warm sunshine?
Far from providing fertile soil, gentle rain and a caring environment for these “seeds,” by defending partial-birth abortion, President Clinton is rationalizing and permitting the ripping up of these fully developed, innocent human beings as if they were no more than weeds in the garden.
What kind of environment are we creating for America’s children when they see their younger brothers and sisters being bludgeoned to death while still in their mother’s wombs? If a society’s littlest ones, most vulnerable and most innocent are not safe, not protected in President Clinton’s brave new world, exactly who is?
How can a man take such an action on the very same day he sermonizes to the nation that children need to be provided “an opportunity to make the most of their God-given talents”? Does he really believe in “God-given talents”? If so, how can he callously disregard them when it is politically convenient?
President Clinton must be referring to some other god than the one I know. The God I know looks compassionately and lovingly upon unwanted babies. His Word tells us so in, among other passages, Ezekiel 16:4-6: “As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths. No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born. When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you while you were in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you while you were in your blood, ‘Live!'”
And how do you suppose that same God looks upon those who commit such atrocities?
Hypocrite? Somehow the word doesn’t seem strong enough.