While recently performing an ovariohysterectomy on a feral and very wild 10-month-old cat that already had two stillborn kittens, the 3rd and final kitten was removed, fully mature and capable of living. We knew that only this final kitten remained and that he was quite viable because his heart was readily seen beating on an ultrasound just before the decision was made for surgical intervention. In this case the purpose of the surgery was to save the mother who was suffering from uterine inertia and the life of the kitten was not foremost. After removal he could have been left, gasping for air, to die of suffocation, unattended and covered within the membranes of his yet unbroken amniotic sac. Today that little guy is alive, with his eyes wide open, because we elected to dedicate three technicians to ensure that he survive and be given every chance to reach the age where he can be safely adopted out. Now, if that is the way I feel about a homeless kitten, taken from a homeless mother, rest assured my emotions regarding a human life discarded, and left to die, alone in a waste cart, without any human intervention, is beyond anything I even wish to describe while simultaneously contemplating the event.

Here we have an attorney who has not yet practiced law attempting to nullify the definition of a human life via a statute or law so as to undermine the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby avoid equal protection. How do you even make any law, which trumps the Constitution? By changing the definition of life? Now I have my problems with the Fourteenth Amendment, since its’ purpose was for the benefit of recently freed slaves, but it is part of the Constitution and Obama knows how it is currently applied because he and his ilk always use it in the broadest sense. What degrees in biology or medicine does he hold that authorizes him to change the definition of what a human life is? When has Down’s syndrome children ever not had a right to live after birth? Does he expect to have the same success as the Supreme Court that changed the definition of CO2 so this very natural substance is seen as a pollutant to be regulated by the EPA? Furthermore, I thought that Roe vs. Wade was about a woman’s right to do what she wanted to do with her own body. This woman did do what she wanted to do. She had the abortion. The right was then over. Is Obama now saying the right to have an abortion is not the only right granted, or that should have been granted, or meant to be granted, by Roe vs. Wade and that an additional right to destroy the life within you exists, as well, and if the abortion fails to accomplish that then you need be allowed another shot to achieve this alternative, and just as substantial, implied right? Or else, is he, just advancing along an agenda, further to the left, in the incremental fashion that we can count upon all liberals doing? These are the same people who give citizenship and Constitutional protection to the newborn babies of illegal aliens. These are the same people, who in the State of Florida cite a drunken driver with a double homicide if he kills a pregnant mother. I know because I live in the house whose former occupant was responsible for the creation of that law.

If you give liberals enough rope their true intentions always become apparent. Nothing on the liberal agenda is about rights and freedoms; on the contrary the agenda is about power and control by the elites over the rest of us and the way they achieve that end is to disguise their real intentions and purposes so as to have you believe that they are offering you something that you already have when in fact they are looking to take those guaranteed freedoms and liberties away because they are smack in the path of their true goals and objectives. They are Stalinists first, Marxists second and socialists third. And within Barack Obama lie all the aforementioned political philosophies and objectives.