EPA: Protection of the Unborn Limited to Advancing Environmental Agenda
New regulations to "protect" people from contaminated water and polluted air will have devastating effects on an already struggling economy, including costing more people their livelihoods.
So it was with not a little surprise that I discovered that the EPA has taken a pro-life stance when it comes to unborn children.
I found the startling news through a memorandum written by the extreme left-wing EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about her goals for the agency in 2010. In her sixth goal, entitled "Expanding the Conversation about Environmentalism and Environmental Justice," Jackson refers to a revitalized Children's Health Office.
Fearing the worst for America's most vulnerable from an administration that is not only pro-abortion, but is led by a commander in chief who voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion while serving in the Illinois Senate, I clicked on the link to the Office of Children's Health Protection.
So imagine my raised eyebrows when I read about how the EPA classifies children when it is measuring and assessing risk to these children to horrible elements in the world that may cause cancer.
Most of the short explanation is impossible to understand, but two sentences are clear and concise: "The term 'lifestage' refers to a distinguishable time frame in an individual's life characterized by unique and relatively stable behavioral and/or physiological characteristics that are associated with development and growth," the statement says. "Thus, childhood should be viewed as a sequence of lifestages, from conception through fetal development and adolescence."
Yes, according to the EPA, life begins at conception – at least when it comes to environmental risk.
When I asked the EPA to answer two simple questions, 1) Did I understand correctly that the agency was saying that childhood began at conception? And 2) if the answer is "yes," why does the EPA's age grouping for children (birth through 19) not include "conception to birth?"
The first revelation from the EPA press office is that the reclassification harks back to the George W. Bush administration. In 2005, the lifestages of children was considered as it relates to cancer risk, the spokeswoman told me.
"Such consideration in risk assessment was deemed important because rapid changes in physiology, anatomy, (and) behavior early in life can significantly impact susceptibility and/or exposure," the spokeswoman said.
Last time I checked, removing an unborn child limb by limb definitely will cause not only rapid changes in physiology and anatomy, but most certainly that irreversible state called DEATH.
She did not, however, answer the "yes or no" question to confirm or deny that the EPA considers childhood to begin at conception.
She did, however, have an explanation – no matter how nonsensical – about why conception to birth was not included in the age groups.
"Conception thru (sic) birth is not included in this guidance because exposure prior to birth is dependent on the mother carrying the fetus and her behavior and physiology while exposure after birth depends on the physiology and behavior of the child."
True enough, unless mom decides that aborting her child is the best way to avoid giving life to that child, who may have to go on to live in a horribly polluted world, doomed to death and destruction from global warming.
I guess some other revisions were made to the childhood assessment tools in 2008, before Barack Obama became the most pro-abortion president to hold office.
Still, I thought it worth pointing out the hypocrisy of a government that is ordered by its Constitution to protect the American people. The EPA is taking that to a new level of tyranny in the Obama era.
And while it was thrilling to see a government document that says life begins at conception, I won't stop praying for America's children – especially those yet to be born.
is senior staff writer for CNSNews.com.