If men could get pregnant, feminists used to rant, abortion would be a sacrament. The statement borders on the blasphemous, but let's thank those feminists for injecting religion into the abortion debate. There is indeed one side that considers something sacred, but it's the so-called "pro-choicers," not the ones called "anti-abortion."

Pro-choicers consider "a woman's right to choose" a sacrament, and the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that overturned laws against abortion as God's 11th commandment. And if pro-choicers have a high priest, he would be one President Obama.

Obama is so bonkers on "the right to choose" that it wouldn't surprise me if he genuflected every time the phrase "Roe v. Wade" were mentioned. He's constantly linked the "right to choose" and the Roe decision with women's rights.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum can't understand how Obama, as a black man, could so easily dismiss the notion that unborn children are actually human beings deserving of constitutional protection.

Santorum's remarks have landed him in hot water. My views on abortion are in accord with Santorum's, but I disagree with his notion that Obama, as a black man, is supposed to think a certain way or have certain viewpoints.

That belief is what has led to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas being called an Uncle Tom, lawn jockey and handkerchief-head, to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice being called a "skeeza," and Detroit Mayor Dave Bing being called a "Sambo."

It's not Obama the black man who supports the so-called "right to choose," but Obama the

man. Our president's constant harping that abortion rights equals women's rights notwithstanding, the fact is that the so-called "right to choose" benefits men more than women. On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down the

Roe decision. I'd bet a year's salary that on Jan. 23, 1973, with newspapers blaring that headline across the nation, that there must have been millions of guys pumping their fists in the air while yelling, "Yeah! Way to go, Supreme Court!" On Jan. 23, 1973, there were far more men happy about the Roe decision than there were women. Why?

Because the high court -- and forgive me for being so crass, but we're talking about a crass subject here -- had just given them their "knock up a woman and get out of the consequences for the cost of an abortion" card. Let me elaborate with a scenario I give the female students in a writing class I teach at Johns Hopkins University.

There was not one woman on the Supreme Court when the

Roe decision was handed down, I tell them. Seven male justices voted to strike down every law outlawing abortion in the country. Do you honestly think, I ask these young women, that all of those seven men really had the interests of women in mind when they did so? Had there been nine female justices on the Supreme Court in 1973, ones who truly reflected the diversity of opinion women of that era had about abortion, the vote wouldn't have been anything like 7-2. It would have been more like 5-4, either for or against Norma McCorvey, the real name of Jane Roe. And you can bet one of those female justices voting against McCorvey just might have said to one of her lawyers, "Tell that tramp of a client of yours she needs to keep her darned legs closed."

Roe benefited men far more than it benefited women. Obama doesn't realize that, because, more so than being a black man, the guy is a diehard feminist. And that, Mr. Santorum, is why he is pro-choice.

Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.