I feel like I have said this before, but one of the things that never fails to amaze me about the Religious Right is their willingness to take some seemingly unrelated issue currently in the news and tie it into their agenda, usually as it relates to reproductive choice.
Case in point is yesterday’s Washington Update from the Family Research Council regarding the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates over the weekend.
After grudgingly giving President Obama credit for “doing the right thing,” Tony Perkins held the episode up as evidence that America “puts a high value on life” and then used it to attack Obama’s position on abortion:
Despite what some say, Captain Phillips is alive today because his government acted in the interest of preserving life. Our President also sent a strong message that the change in American leadership does not mean a change in U.S. terrorism policy. It emphasized the excellence of our military and reaffirmed a core value of our nation--life is worth defending. We commend President Obama for acting decisively to protect Captain Phillips.
I must add, however, that this incident also serves to highlight an unconscionable contrast that exists in our culture and epitomized by this administration. The President moved heaven and earth to protect an American captive while turning a deaf ear to the cries of the unborn. At FRC, we remind the President that every life--whether in the belly of a life raft or the womb of its mother--deserves this same level of protection from their government.
Considering that Phillips was saved after snipers killed his captors, how would FRC recommend that the government ensure “this same level of protection” to the unborn? By having snipers take out abortion providers? Draw your own conclusions.
