All right, Mr. President, although it is always possible for a law to get repealed, it is undeniable that the U.S. Supreme Court gave you a big victory. Besides making history as any head of state does, you made it even more dramatically to the point that your name is linked to the Health Care Bill as ObamaCare. I don't have any problem with that, and no Pro-Life supporter has it either. All I want to do is one last, desperate exhortation to your sense of morality as a human being and as the father of two beautiful daughters. It is not against the Health Care bill, but against the killing of innocent babies. One of the arguments that pro-choice proponents use in order to try to justify abortion is the well-being of the mother. Well, that is a fallacy, and the huge number of women who regret their abortions, feeling guilty and depressed to the extent that some even considered or attempted suicide is an eloquent testimony to the fact that abortion not only kills the child, but also kills something inside the mother's heart. Jane Roe, or Norma McCorvey if we're going to use her real name, is living proof of that. After having even tried to take her own life out of guilt and desperation, she is now a relentless advocate for the right to life. I cannot forget about a young woman who once approached me as I was getting into my van, and told me that I should be ashamed of having two Pro-Life bumper stickers. Yet, as I looked at her face, she was not angry--she was crying!!! She said she had seen herself in need to make a "choice". . . and it was only too obvious that she was getting torn inside by the one she had made. In addition, baby adoptions nowadays are typically open adoptions so that the birthmother can still keep in contact with the child to whom she gave birth and therefore, even if from the distance, can still share in the maternal happiness and pride of her little one's achievements as the child grows up. She may even get to have physical contact with her child and his or her adoptive family from time to time.

Moreover, the so-called 'argument' that a young girl who is about to have a baby shouldn't "ruin her life" because of her child is a fallacy as well. First of all, it assumes that there are no parents willing to help with their grandchild. It assumes there are no other family members or relatives willing to step forward and offer a hand. It assumes there is no father willing to accept and welcome his responsibilities as such. It assumes there is no other man out there who will ever want to marry that young woman only because she has a child. Even assuming the case of a teenager with no financial resources and absolutely nobody to whom to turn to in the whole wide world, still there is another fallacy that I want to address---the trap that is used to confuse many people and make them believe that, if born, the baby in question may end up being an 'unwanted child.' Well, anyone in the Pro-Life and special needs adoption communities very well knows there is no 'unwanted child.' I won't deny that there are some prospective adoptive parents who want to measure the circumference of their future child's head--but thanks God, those are only a few. . . and I strongly think they should measure their own head circumference first. Unbeknownst to many, there are thousands of adoptive families willing to welcome children with the most severe physical and mental challenges. There are families that adopt children who won't perform past a baby stage throughout their lives. There are families that adopt children with significant facial disfigurements, life threatening and even terminal conditions or illnesses, the same as serious attachment and behavioral issues, including dangerous acting-out conducts. There are families that adopt older children and large sibling groups. There are families that cry and pray for a child, or for one more child, families that use up their entire life savings to adopt, and even that make enormous efforts to gather the funds they do not have.

Mr. President, I know you have heard the above arguments before. Notwithstanding being a lawyer, it is not my intention to resort to any legal grounds. I'm not putting statistical data together either. I don't have time for that. All I want is to beg you from a human perspective to understand that the massacre of babies is not a form a health care. Would you dismember a dog or any other animal alive? I'm sure you'd recoil at the idea. Then--why to do that to babies who feel the horrible pain and who could have a life with love and plenty of opportunities if only given a chance to see the light of day?

Thank you very much,

Lillian Godone-Maresca