Written By : Anna Maria Hoffman
February 13, 2013

by Tyler O’Neil

Last night, President Obama made a bold defense of fatherhood in his State of the Union address. “What makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child,” he said, “it’s the courage to raise one.”

This piquant comment spiced up the worn out menu of an unappetizing first term. The president who will fix the economy “without increasing the deficit by a dime,” and provide a middle class income by upping the minimum wage to 9 bucks an hour also plans to keep investing in green energy (Solyndra), while he pays lip service to the oil and gas revolutions that – without any federal help – have saved our fledgling economy from utter ruin.

But at least the father of two teenage girls (God bless him – I’ve heard it’s tough) supports fatherhood. I applaud him. But what policy does he propose to hold men accountable for the children they have fathered? What glue will mend our shattered nuclear families?

How would these new reforms let him keep his promise never to “punish his daughters with a child?” How would they justify the federal subsidies for contraception that Sandra Fluke so desperately needs? If Obama would suddenly support fatherhood, why did he encourage women to “vote like your lady parts depend on it?”

Sometimes there is no rabbit under the hat. Obama did not present these reforms because they do not exist. His first term policies and 2012 election promises reveal our President’s true priorities. A radical social liberal agenda belies his lip-service to traditional fatherhood.

When Kathleen Sebelius revealed the Health and Human Services mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in Obamacare, Catholic institutions – churches, but also hospitals and universities – sued for their religious liberty. The new regulations require them to offer employees healthcare coverage that includes not just normal contraception, but even drugs that induce abortion, which no Catholic in good conscience can support.

This coverage – offered to make sure that no woman is “punished with a child” – provides no incentive for fathers to care for the children they have conceived. In fact, it gives them an excuse to leave the woman high and dry – “you can always have an abortion.”

So long as our tax dollars fund a government which forces companies – regardless of their religious convictions – to provide contraception coverage, let us harbor no illusions about its leader’s support for fatherhood. Yes, there are married women who need it and yes there are girls who take it to fight acne. But don’t miss the forest for the outlying brush – “sexual expression” is the real issue.

Perhaps Obama’s inspiring words will urge “players” to settle down, or women who have become “loose” to pursue lasting relationships with potential fathers. Obama’s gem from last night’s speech will turn the tide – ushering in a new era of loving fathers and intact families. Each man will forget his freedom outside the family and take responsibility for a woman who loves him and a child who depends on him.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Obama’s not in favor of “turning back the clock” on fatherhood. His own campaign slogan – “forward” – reinforces his push for an all-inclusive state, unburdened by the familial bonds which separate citizens from their all-embracing government.

Liberal social policy attacks the family not because it forces women to work in the kitchen or neglects their individual value. Each family makes its own rules, and none involve these errors. But those individual rules do vie with the state – and the family represents a primary loyalty.

As G. K. Chesterton wrote, divorce splits the family into atoms, and atoms are easier to rule.

Even the “Violence Against Women Act” and the “Fair Pay Act” bear an ulterior motive. According to the Independent Women’s Forum, both would increase the size of government and lead to more litigation.

Everyone agrees that violence against anyone (man, woman, gay, straight, white, black) is horrible and laws already criminalize it. Also, the studies that claim women get paid much less than men do not take profession into account – of course waitresses get paid less than engineers, but women and men in these professions make the same amount.

The underlying goal is to expand government.

Obama gave the State of the Union on Lincoln’s birthday. Many have compared Obama to Lincoln, but the two presidents differ on one central issue. Lincoln opposed slavery because he thought everyone had the right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Obama supports an expanded government because he believes everyone should pay their “fair share.”

In the family, there is no private property. Obama may support fatherhood, so long as he’s the father.

0

Comments are closed.