Question for Obama: "If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?"

New Ad Takes Obama to Task for His Abortion Record LifeSiteNews.com. June 27, 2008.

Words

This add exposes the Obama charade on public financing, a misleading charade that is also apparent on other issues. Integrity and honor are traits that all voters should consider.

Obama: Still Little Bounce

McCain has his opening. The expected Obama bounce after driving out the Clintons from the race has failed to materialize (in spite of at least two off-the-wall polls showing a double digit lead for Obama, two polls that are eminently and rationally ignorable when you consider all the other polls). Here's the Time poll which matches my own gut intuition about the current state of the race. McCain now has to step in and win it. The path is wide open for him. The former POW now has to summon the same tenacity and audacity that led him to overcome a far, far worse situation earlier in his life. I certainly think he can do it. As recent news from the Supreme Court reminds us, a lot is at stake.

USCCB releases "Catholic Study Guide on Torture"

(Via Commonweal) - The Catholic members of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Office of International Justice and Peace of the USCCB have jointly produced a Catholic study guide on torture. [.pdf format]

Jeff Miller (Curt Jester) blogs his review.

Infanticide? -- Sure, but how about those gas prices?

WOLF BLITZER: If you had been at that news conference, Bill, and you had a chance to ask one question, today, what would you have asked, if you were a reporter?

BILL BENNETT: I think when he brought up Chicago I would have said "why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there?" Not that it's the only issue in the campaign, but I gotta question the guy's moral judgment, who doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born after eight months.

DONNA BRAZILE: But he's had an opportunity in several debates to talk about his position on abortion --

BENNETT: What is the answer to that question?

BRAZILE: Bill, look --

BENNETT: What is the answer?!

BRAZILE: You want to have a conversation about narrow issues --

BENNETT: That is not: that is fundamental!

BRAZILE: It is a fundamental issue, but the American people want to talk about gas prices ...

Transcript of Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and Catholic conservative William Bennett on CNN's Situation Room Source: NewsBusters.org.

Abortion, Poverty, and Democratic Support for Black Genocide

Earlier this year I mounted a defense of the Republican Party / Bush Administration's pro-life record (Countering the "GOP / Bush 'duped' Pro-Lifers" Smear January 30, 2008) -- to which Ryan Anderson of First Things took notice (He’s Just Been All Talk on Sanctity of Life, Right? First Things June 18, 2008 - thanks, Ryan).

And to which "Radical Catholic Mom" of Vox Nova has apparently taken offense:

From reading both Ryan’s and Christoper’s points and the arguments being made by my fellow contributors– Henry, Morning’s Minion, Michael Iafrate, Nate Wildermuth, and Gerald Campbell–it is evident that pro-life success is defined quite differently depending on perspective.

Both Ryan and Christoper argue that pro-life success is equivalent to legislation. And if one accepts their definition of success, they are absolutely correct. Wow, President Bush has been the most successful president in US history regarding pro-life leadership and laws! The problem for both Anderson and Blosser is that none of our contributors look to legislation alone to draw their conclusions. They look to the numbers. And when the numbers are read, problems begin to emerge for many pro-lifers.

First, I never contended that pro-life success "is equivalent to legislation." I happen think pro-life successes are chiefly won outside the halls of Congress. The "changing of hearts and minds" is accomplished less by legislation than by those who staff the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, adoption agencies and ministries such as Rachel's Vineyard and SilentNoMore that span our country.

But that is not to say that pro-life legislative achievements do not matter, or who (falsely, I believe) claim that "Republicans need to keep abortion legal, but make it look like they are trying to end it"; "none of these politicians will accomplish anything"; "None of the cadidates are either willing or capable of stopping the slaughter of our unborn."

In fact, Radical Catholic Mom neglects to mention the concluding paragraph from my post, which rebuts her (mis)characterization:

[Republican-supported pro-life legislation] is something to be thankful for, though there is much work yet to be done. And I concur with the critics of Vox Nova: legislation alone will not change hearts and minds. What is truly needed is spiritual transformation on the part of the American populace and a re-orientation towards life. But the passing of such legislation and the efforts of the Bush administration and Republicans have at the very least served the cause of justice, in protecting the right to life of the "least among us." In the words of Br. Matthew Augustine, OP in a comment at Vox Nova: "The law isn’t merely there to coerce behavior but also to protect the common good and reflect the truth of the human person and the moral order. It is worth our blood, sweat and tears to work to ensure that the dignity of unborn life is reflected in law."

Radical Catholic Mom continues:

The only organization that has thoroughly researched abortion is Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute. And when we look at the research of the AGI we will notice a few significant points. First, abortion rates have steadily been declining since 1981. All of us should agree that any decline in abortion is a success. According to Anderson’s and Blosser’s logic one MAY conclude that anti-abortion LAWS affect abortion RATES, but if that is the case, then why was there a peak in abortions in 1989 under pro-life President Bush I and steep declines in abortion under pro-abortion President Clinton?

I started to ask these questions. I served on the Board of my State’s Right to Life office and I had to ask some hard questions. For instance, why was the abortion rate highest for Alaska Native women when they make up a small percentage of people in my State? Then, my questions went national. Why are African-American and Hispanic women more likely to abort than White women? When a person reads the same report she notices that a majority of women who abort are already mothers and over 50% of them are economically poor. I had to conclude that if pro-lifers REALLY are interested in decreasing abortion rates, then maybe changing our society and culture to support life AFTER birth would be the best option. ...

POVERTY is INHERENTLY linked to abortion. If we pro-lifers REALLY CARE about abortion rates, we need to focus on poverty in our country and more pro-family legislation such as, paid sick leave, paid paternity/maternity leave (this promotes breastfeeding which helps overall health care and decreases illness tremendously), increased daycare subsidies, paid healthcare, to name a few.

Poverty and Abortion: Dueling Bloggers

I'll be the first to point out that I'm generally not good with statistics, so I'll gladly defer to those more knowledgeable than myself.Challenging the "need to vote Republican on pro-life grounds," Morning's Minion takes up the question of abortion, poverty and the Clinton years in Abortion and Economics (Vox Nova May 22, 2007).

DarwinCatholic responded with Poverty and Abortin: A New Analysis:

So far as I can tell, the argument has the following components:

1) Economic well-being (as measured by a low poverty rate and a high median income) has been greater under Democratic administrations than Republican ones in the last 30 years.

2) Abortion rates have either been lower or have decreased faster under Clinton than under Reagan, HW Bush or W Bush.

3) There is a strong correlation between economic well-being and the abortion rate.

I'm going to argue that all of these are partly or wholly false.

Morning Minion believes there is "a correlation between abortion and poverty"; DarwinCatholic responds that "the only reason that abortion rates decreased faster under Clinton (average rate decrease per year) is because the conception rate shrank faster under Clinton" and concludes that "the fact that the abortion rate has fallen consistently even in periods when poverty was increasing suggests that poverty is not the primary abortion driver in US society, even if it is a motivation cited by those who do abort." Very much worth the read.

Also of interest: Vox Nova's BlackAdder directs us to the following study from the Heritage Institute: Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors by Michael J. New, Ph.D., which finds:

Although the decline in the overall incidence of abortion during the 1990s has been widely reported, scant attention has been paid to the more dramatic reduction in abortion rates among minors. Between 1985 and 1999, the minor abortion rate fell by almost 50 percent, compared to a 29 percent decline in the overall abortion rate. While a number of factors may have contributed to this decline, the impact of pro-life legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors cannot be overlooked.

The Supreme Court's Casey decision and the electoral success of pro-life candidates at the state level resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of laws enacted to protect the unborn during the 1990s. By the end of the decade, more states had adopted pro-life legislation, including parental involvement requirements. Regression results from this analysis suggest that parental involvement laws and public funding restrictions are effective in reducing the incidence of abortion among minors. Specifically, the passage of a parental involvement law correlates with a 16 percent decline in the minor abortion rate, and the passage of Medicaid funding restrictions correlates with a 23 percent decline in the minor abortion rate.

What about poverty?

As RCM notes (from the Guttmacher study Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2005): "Abortion rates are highest among black and Hispanic women"; "Poor and low-income women account for more than half of U.S. abortions" and "More than 80% of women having abortions are unmarried" and "a majority of women having abortions have been mothers." I agree with her that as over 90% of all abortions appear to occur in the first trimester, "our work is still cut out."

However, I'm not exactly clear that this amounts to a need to vote Democrat, much less for the most zealously "pro-choice" presidential candidate in the Democratic Party.

Does it necessarily follow that raising the level of material income of unwed (largely Black and Hispanic) mothers will result in a decrease in abortions? Or that said abortions are procured because they are unable to afford a child? Or could it be rather that they view a child as an inconvenience and impediment to their way of life?

Whether poverty truly impedes or even prohibits the raising of a child seems to me most debatable (speaking from experience, my parents raised four brothers on a single professor's meager salary; my mother came from a family of six kids; I recall a family -- Catholic, of course -- in my Boy Scout troop of twelve siblings). Suffice to say it can be done.

The United Nations defined poverty as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information"; a definition which would certainly apply to those living in a number of third world countries.

But what about the United States? -- A cursory look at the material possessions of the majority of our nation's "poor" as chronicled in the Heritage Foundation's How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America (based on the most recent U.S. Census data) gives one pause, but we'll save that discussion for another day.

Earlier in February, Ramesh Ponneru dealt with the similar claim from National Catholic Reporter's Joe "bishops be damned" Feuerherd (Catholics & Voting & Abortion NRO February 25, 2008):

Feuerherd asks, “[I]s it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn't that supposed to be the goal?” Anyone who wants to cast a ballot on this assumption has a moral obligation to investigate whether it is, in fact, true that 1) Democratic policies would reduce poverty much more than Republican ones would and 2) that abortion and poverty rates correlate in as straightforward a manner as Feuerherd idly (and conveniently) supposes. I am not aware of research that corroborates point two, let alone both of them taken together.

And there is another problem with this argument, which is that a reduction in the number of abortions is not the only goal that pro-lifers should have. Also important is that the law stop treating unborn children as subhuman creatures who may legitimately be denied the protections of the law against unjust killing. Obama himself may be perfectly sincere in willing that fewer women exercise the (supposed) right to abortion even while he supports keeping that option legal and making it subsidized. I have no reason to doubt that he is. But he also wills that unborn children be denied the basic legal protection from homicide that you and I enjoy.

To reiterate: I agree with Radical Catholic Mom that pro-life legislation (whatever its merits) isn't enough, and we've "got our work cut out for us" addressing the majority who abort in the first term. I'm also open to exploring the advancement of "paid sick leave, paid paternity/maternity leave (this promotes breastfeeding which helps overall health care and decreases illness tremendously), increased daycare subsidies, paid healthcare" (it never occurred to me that these are exclusively Democratic concerns).

But if she's inclined to vote for the Democrats whether on a presidential, state or local level (it's difficult not to view such a post as an apologetic for such), I think the case is still hers to prove.

"War on the Poor"

As long as we're discussing the relation between poverty and abortion, it strikes me that the question can be turned around. If as the Guttmacher Institute demonstrates, it is indeed the case that the majority of those who have abortions happen to be financially-impoverished minorities, what does it say about the peddling of unrestricted access to abortion to minorities? -- Let's consider the case of the Black American population in the United States:

• When black women constitute only 6% of the population, but comprise 36% of the abortion industry’s clientele
  
• When the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations
  
• When you consider that 1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion
  
• When you consider that 3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child ...
  

... you honestly find yourself questioning:

Who is profiting from keeping abortion legal?

Who is really waging war on the poor?

and what is a black presidential candidate doing pledging his fealty to Planned Parenthood?

Related:

• As William McGurn noted (NARAL Catholics Line Up for Obama Wall Street Journal June 24, 2008):

  The first is to claim that Republicans have done nothing during their time in power to diminish abortion. Plainly this is not the view that Planned Parenthood promotes.

  In fact, let me direct you to Planned Parenthood's "George W. Bush's War on Women: A Pernicious Web: A Planned Parenthood Report on the Administration and Congress" providing "A Chronology of Attacks on Reproductive Rights" under the Bush administration and a GOP-led Congress (87 pages).
  

• Margaret Sanger would have loved Barack Obama, by Rev. Clenard H.
  Childress. RenewAmerica March 15, 2008. Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., is the senior pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ.
  

William McGurn on Obama's Catholic Problem

NARAL Catholics Line Up for Obama, by William McGurn. Wall Street Journal June 24, 2008:

... Generally there are two lines of argument. The first is to claim that Republicans have done nothing during their time in power to diminish abortion. Plainly this is not the view that Planned Parenthood promotes on its Web site, where President Bush's many actions are chronicled and listed under the heading "war on women." As Mr. Obama himself notes, moreover, Republicans generally do not appoint the kind of judges the pro-choice side demands: That is, judges who can be counted on to impose their own views upon the law on issues that ought properly be left to the American people.

The other line of argument is the They're-Just-As-Bad-As-We-Are defense. Thus the Web sites that go on and on about Catholic social teaching on war and poverty and greed and the death penalty, etc. The implication being, of course, that Republicans are on the wrong side of all these issues – and that simply by enumerating all these concerns, you can somehow balance out the Democratic Party's singular commitment to abortion on demand.

These issues are all legitimate subjects for debate, and each can and should be argued. The problem is that abortion is not just any issue. In the language of the church, abortion is an "intrinsic evil," always and everywhere wrong.

That is what Catholics for Obama have to get around. Given this awkward fact, the political reality is that a National Catholic Advisory Council may do less to advance Mr. Obama than to alert the public about how extreme his votes and policies are – not to mention the similar votes and policies of the Catholic politicians supporting him. Already Kathleen Sebelius – governor of Kansas and one of the Catholic co-chairs – has been asked by her bishop to refrain from Communion because of what he says is her support for abortion. As for Sen. Casey, well, let's just say it's hard to imagine his sainted father – who bucked his party's president and refused to support his old friend Sen. Harris Wofford's 1994 re-election bid over the life issue – lending his imprimatur to such a NARAL-friendly enterprise.

(Via Rich Leonardi @ Ten Reasons)

Facts Have Changed from 2006 Election

We are winning in Iraq. Just check out today's N.Y. Times front page. McCain was right all along--since 2003--that the surge was the way to win. Obama has been and is now catastrophically wrong on the Iraq situation. Of course, I would never vote for Obama because of his radical pro-abortion stance. But, even part from the life issue, there is ample basis for not voting for Obama simply on national security. Obama is plainly out of touch with reality not only on abortion but on the war in Iraq, on how to fight terrorists (it's not a matter of law enforcement, as Obama thinks in his Sept. 10th dogmatic mentality), and on how to deal with dictators like the nut in Iran (Israel may soon take care of the nut in Iran--let's see how Obama reacts to that). Read Michael Barone at this link on Obama's preening refusal to face the realities in Iraq. By the way, read anything by Barone whenever you are wondering about the election.

The best description I have read about Obama is one I found recently at the Rush Limbaugh website. One caller described Obama as one of those inflatable dolls with a pinprick hole leaking air that keeps making the inflatable doll bend over. You then keep inflating the doll so that it will prop back up. That's what the media and other Democrats keep doing: they keep propping Obama up, but the leak persists. McCain's job is to demonstrate that we can't have a leaking inflatable doll like Obama lead a nation at war in a world full of dangerous enemies of you and me. Catholics should be concerned with the lack of strong leadership by Obama in the face of evil terrorists and dictators, just as we are concerned about the abortion holocaust. It is the obligation of a President to effectively defend good from evil.

CrankyCon "Pulls a Kmiec".

(Douglas Kmiec, that is).

Where's the Big Bounce for Obama?

Several weeks ago I read how the McCain camp was supposedly braced for a large Obama bounce in the polls once Hillary Clinton finally conceded. Well, she conceded; Obama got a small bounce; and the latest Gallup tracking poll shows McCain and Obama in a virtual tie. That's a bad sign for Obama.

The McCain camp should be breathing a sigh of relief, in addition to getting a burst of prudent, non-excessive optimism (the "audacity of hope" as Obama and Rev. Wright would say) for the general election. Here is another observer at NationalReview.com who noticed the same thing that I did. Why is all this important at this stage? Expectations play a big role in campaigns because they play a big role in media coverage, in fundraising, and in voter psychology. McCain just won a big round in the expectations game. Of course, most of the liberal media will not take note of McCain's good fortune but instead will maintain an uneasy silence about this particular campaign milestone.

Sucker.

The discussion dwelt at some length on abortion. Obama said he earnestly wants to "discourage" the practice—despite the distortions of some who think if they affix the "pro-abortion—won't overturn-Roe-label" to the senator, pro-lifers like myself won't give him the time of day. Sorry, good friends, not this year.

Not to understand that there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil understates the ingenuity of the devout. Describing the abortion decision as a "difficult, deeply moral one," Obama sees it as one only the woman can make. Unless her choice affirms life that is not my Catholic view, and I told him so. But disagreement or not, it is abundantly clear from our conversation that Obama shares a common aspiration to reduce the incidence of abortion.

How? Obama is committed to encouraging "responsible sexual behavior," discouraging unwanted pregnancies, promoting adoption as a more viable, affordable and appealing option than it presently is, and putting off limits in a manner consistent with the law as the justices see it, late-term abortion. Obama will not exclude abortion from medical coverage to fulfill a health exception "rigorously defined."

This replays where we disagree, but the meeting, itself, keeps revealing his appreciation for both the significance of faith and faith differences and an open mind sensitive to the need to protect religious freedom.

That's from "pro-life" Douglas W. Kmiec's latest defense of Barack Obama in the pages of the Chicago Tribune.

Mind you, he's speaking to a man who carries a 100% legislative voting record from NARAL.

Who promised, at first opportunity he would get, to join his fellow Democrats in signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

His idea of "encouraging responsible sexual behavior" is to cease federal encouragement of sexual abstinence and provide contraception to every teenager and adult.

He would repeal federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers.

He adamantly opposes any federal or state attempt to restrict the "right" to abortion, believing:

that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

So please Doug, tell me again how he keeps "an open mind" on this subject?

Pope Benedict gives President Bush a Warm Greeting at Vatican

"Bush treated to warm greeting at Vatican" reports the Associated Press:

ROME (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI took President Bush on a rare stroll through the lush grounds of the Vatican Gardens on Friday, stopping at a grotto where the pontiff prays daily.

"Your eminence, you're looking good," Bush told the pope shortly after arriving at the Vatican, launching the leaders' third visit together.

Source: Reuters
Normally, VIPS are received in the pope's library in the Apostolic Palace. That's where Bush had his first meeting with Benedict in June 2007.

But in a gesture of appreciation for the hearty welcome Bush gave him in Washington in April, Benedict welcomed the president and first lady Laura Bush near St. John's Tower in the lush Vatican Gardens. ...

On a brief tour, Benedict and Bush peered out from a tower balcony, and the president seemed awed by what he saw. The pope pointed out St. Peter's dome as he showed Bush the view.

"This is fantastic up here," Bush said. "Thank you so much for showing me this."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the two leaders have the kind of relationship that allows them to speak frankly. They discussed such issues as human rights, HIV and AIDS in Africa, and poverty around the world, she said.

Source: Reuters

After their private meeting ended, Bush and Benedict posed for official photographs and exchanged gifts.

The president gave the pontiff a photograph of the two walking along the White House colonnade on their way to the Oval Office in April. The picture was presented in a sterling silver frame with an engraved presidential seal.

Benedict gave Bush a framed photograph and four volumes on St. Peter's Basilica.

"Perhaps you'll have some time to read it," he told Bush, whose presidency ends in January.

Members of the presidential entourage received rosaries and medals of the pontificate.

Bush and the pope then strolled through the gardens to see the Lourdes Grotto, which was donated to Pope Leo XIII at the turn of the century by French Catholics. Bush and Benedict sat in wooden patio-style chairs admiring the grotto as Mrs. Bush rejoined them.

Source: Associated Press / Evan Vucci
A statement by the Vatican after Bush's visit said that the pope had "renewed his gratitude for the warm and special reception he received in the United States of America and at the White House in April, and for the commitment in defense of the fundamental moral values." The two leaders talked about relations between the U.S. and Europe, globalization, the world food crisis and international trade, among other topics, the Vatican said.

Timothy John Russert, Jr. (May 7, 1950 – June 13, 2008)

Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News, came on the air at 3:39 p.m. and reported that Mr. Russert had collapsed and died early this afternoon while at work. He had just returned from Italy with his family.

"Our beloved colleague," a grave Mr. Brokaw called him, one of the premier journalists of our time. He said this was one of the most important years in his life, with his deep engagement in the network's political coverage, and that he "worked to the point of exhaustion." Mr. Brokaw said Mr. Russert was a true child of Buffalo and always stayed in touch with his blue collar roots and "the ethos of that community."

He said Mr. Russert had just moved his father, who is in his late 80s, from one facility to another in Buffalo. He said he loved his family, his Catholic faith, his country, politics, the Buffalo Bills, the New York Yankees and the Washington Nationals.

"This news division will not be the same without his strong, clear voice," Mr. Brokaw said.

Tim Russert, host of NBC's 'Meet the Press,' dies International Herald Tribune Friday, June 13, 2008.

* * *

An active Catholic who apparently kept a promise to God to never miss Sunday Mass if his son was born healthy, Russert spoke often and fondly of his Catholic school education and of the role of the church in his life.

"Americans valued his tremendous command of the political electoral process and his commitment to discovering each aspect of the story that contributed to people having a better awareness of the issues of public life and candidates for political office," said Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. bishops' communications committee, who was attending the U.S. bishops' spring meeting in Orlando, Fla.

"But those of us who shared his Catholic faith and his deep love for it appreciate his sharing of the story of his own faith and his loyalty to the life of the Catholic Church in this country and the many charities to which he contributed his time and talent," the archbishop told Catholic News Service.

Russert remembered for his fondness for church, faithfulness Catholic News Service. June 13, 2008.

Democrat PAC to woo Christians for Obama

New PAC Seeks to Court Christians for Obama, by Michael Luo. New York Times' "The Caucus" June 8, 2008:

A fund-raiser is being held tonight in Washington for a nascent political action committee that is hoping to reach out to Christian communities on behalf of Senator Barack Obama.

Called “The Matthew 25 Network,” the new organization, which is still in its earliest stages, is being spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who was director of religious outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and did similar work for several statewide Democratic candidates, including Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Mr. Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, is beginning to step up his outreach to the religious community, and met Tuesday in Chicago with a group of about 30 leaders, including the Rev. T. D. Jakes, the black mega-church pastor.

Ms. Vanderslice, who has been active in the budding movement over the last few years to encourage Democrats to be more willing to discuss matters of faith, declined to detail the group’s plans, because she said the organization is planning an official rollout later in the month.

Nevertheless, according to a description of the group that came with the invitation to its fund-raiser tonight in which the suggested contribution is $1,000, the committee is hoping to reach out to “targeted religious communities that are key to electoral success for Senator Obama, including Catholics, moderate evangelicals, Hispanic Catholics and Protestants.”

[...]

The new group’s name takes its inspiration from the 25th chapter of the gospel of Matthew in which Jesus talks about how he will select people like a shepherd separating sheep from goats, saying, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

* * *

How about “I survived an abortion and you let me live.”

Vox Nova Commentator.

Obama the Abortion Radical

A friend sent me this Wall Street Journal op-ed:

The Audacity of Death

By DANIEL ALLOTT
June 5, 2008

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

* * *

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.

In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."

All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."

It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.

What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.

In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

Mr. Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington-area public policy organization.

	URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121261107480446197.html
	Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://spectator.org/

George Neumayr on Obama's style of Catholic

"Just as Jeremiah Wright's over-the-top sermons could not have come as a surprise to Obama, so Father Michael Pfleger's hyper-partisanship would have been known to him as well," says George Neumayr (Phony Pflegerism American Spectator June 6, 2008):

Obama has formed a "Catholic advisory committee." Among the national co-chairs of his committee are Sister Jamie Phelps, O.P., Professor of Theology at Xavier University, and Sister Catherine Pinkerton with the Congregation of St. Joseph, standard issue leftists both.

As long as priests and religious in the mold of Pfleger aim their partisan arrows at the right targets, Obama won't mind. He needs them to choose fidelity to the Democratic Party over fidelity to the teachings of the Church -- to treat the former as absolute and the latter as relative.

And if John McCain, as is likely, blurs the moral differences between the parties, Obama's task will become all that much easier. Look how little it takes to get a Douglas Kmiec to come over to his side. That McCain finds religious talk off-putting while Obama gravitates to quasi-religious rhetoric won't help matters either.

WHAT COMPLICATES Obama's project is that Pope Benedict XVI has asked the bishops to knock off the clericalism and restrict their political participation to "non-negotiable" principles that represent not personal opinions but moral truths.

Some bishops are following his lead, if only incrementally. They are taking steps to end open scandals, starting with the immediate one of Catholic politicians who support abortion.

A more spiritually serious Catholic Church is bad for the Democratic Party but critical to the common good. ...Read More

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review).

Father Joseph Fessio on President Bush & Pope Benedict XVI

(Via Carl Olson of Ignatius Insight): President Bush will pay a visit to the Vatican on Friday (June 13th) -- his sixth visit with a Pope, and third with Benedict XVI this year. The Religion News Service's Francis X. Rocca spoke with Fr. Joseph Fessio, student and friend of the Holy Father, on this remarkable relationship between Pope and an American President:

In the president, the pope finds a key supporter of the Catholic church's positions on such controversial questions as abortion, stem-cell research and same-sex marriage. Bush's arguments have frequently echoed Benedict's appeals to "natural law" and even employ the terms of Catholic social doctrine (despite the fact that the president is a Methodist).

Nowhere has the congruence of their thinking been clearer than at April's welcoming ceremony at the White House, when Bush cited Benedict's denunciation of the "dictatorship of relativism," and the pope noted the importance of American religiosity as inspiration for abolitionism and the civil-rights movement.

To which Bush replied, "Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech."

"They could pretty much have given each other's speech," said William McGurn, Bush's former head speechwriter and a Catholic, who was present at the ceremony (but did not write the president's remarks).

Fessio agreed. "In terms of authentic, normative Catholic teaching, I don't see any area in which the pope and President Bush disagree," he said.

The most notable case of disharmony between the two leaders was over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger opposed at least as ardently as Pope John Paul II.

"But Iraq is not a matter of Catholic social teaching," Fessio said.

Likewise, Benedict's views on economics, taxation and government regulation (which are known to lie to the left of Bush's) are merely his personal opinions, not doctrine that he holds as binding on the faithful, Fessio said.

Related

• Full text of President George W. Bush's welcome to Pope Benedict XVI.
  

• Full text of Pope Benedict XVI's White House Address.
  

• Joint declaration between the Holy See and the Office of the President of the United States of America released at the end of the private meeting between the Holy Father Benedict XVI and U.S. President George W. Bush (April 16, 2008)
  

• A day-by-day look at President Bush's trip June 9-16 to Europe Associated Press.
  

• Fr. Fessio Forgets a Few... Michael Joseph. Vox Nova June 8, 2008. Michael Joseph takes issue with Fr. Fessio's recollection.
  

Update

• "When Pope Benedict XVI and U.S. President George W. Bush meet at the Vatican June 13, they will scrap the usual formal protocol and instead hold talks and take a leisurely stroll in the Vatican Gardens", reports Catholic News Service:

  The Vatican opted for the "particular" and "unusual" setting as a way to show its appreciation for "the cordial welcome and meeting held at the White House" during the pope's April 15-20 visit to the United States, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said June 9.
  

  Normally heads of state visiting the pope at the Vatican are taken with much fanfare to the pope's library in the main Apostolic Palace.
  

  But "in light of the (pope's) recent pastoral visit to the United States and the United Nations" and for the warm welcome and hospitality shown the pope during his meeting with Bush on the pope's birthday, April 16, an informal setting at the Vatican was chosen instead, said Father Lombardi.
  

  Father Lombardi said Pope Benedict will meet the president and his wife, Laura Bush, at 11 a.m. at the westernmost tip of the Vatican Gardens at the entrance of St. John's Tower.
  

  The pope and Bush will go to a studio on the top floor of the tower to hold closed-door talks after which the two men "will take a brief stroll in the Vatican Gardens," the spokesman said.

  
  

UK Daily Mail: "Catholic adoption agency to defy gay rights law"

A Roman Catholic adoption agency headed by Britain's most senior Catholic churchman is to defy the Government over its controversial gay equality laws, reports the Daily Mail:

The Westminster Catholic Children's Society, whose president is Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, will ignore new rules that require it to place children with same-sex couples.

While other Catholic adoption agencies are caving in to the legislation by severing their ties with the Church or even closing, the Westminster Society will continue its policy of placing children only with married heterosexuals and single people.

Its stance will set the Cardinal - who welcomed Tony Blair into the Catholic Church last December - on a collision course with New Labour and the gay rights lobby.

It is a high-risk strategy that could provoke a costly and bruising test case in the courts, with campaigners determined to see the Society closed down.

In 2006, The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities ceased providing adoption services after clashing with Massachusetts state law permitting gay adoption.

I have the feeling we may witness similar events of Catholic counter-cultural resistance in the United States.

Obama, Cardinal George, and the Pfleger Situation

Thomas Peters has an ongoing comprehensive roundup on the controversy involving remarks by Obama-supporter Fr. Michael Pfleger .

Catholics, Obama and Abortion

Some good posts today from around the 'net ...

• Roman Catholics for Obama '08: Some ignore his pro-abortion voting record, others rationalize it, by Paul Kengor. Catholic World Report June 2008:

  Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress. But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level. There, Obama twice voted against the legislation, in 2002 and 2003, and as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee blocked another attempt to bring the legislation to the floor of the Illinois Senate.
  

  The pro-life community in the state of Illinois was aghast, and pro-life Catholics were horrified. Yet today Catholics around the country are lining up to endorse Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States. They are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade.
  

  [...]
  

  There is a psychological-emotional attraction to Obama that goes beyond the traditional reasons explaining why people, Catholics included, support certain candidates. What’s more, the Roman Catholics in Obama’s camp are largely typical of the religious left generally and left-leaning Catholics specifically who identify with and support a liberal Democrat for president. The abortion issue simply loses out to a wider swath of “social justice” issues that for them take precedence.
  

  The Church continues to exhort Catholics to reject this moral equivalency in their voting, but Obama’s Catholic supporters don’t care, and from this atmosphere of dissent Obama hopes to ride a wave of millions of Catholic votes all the way to the White House.

  
  
• Rationalizing Evil, by Paul Zummo (Cranky Conservative. June 2, 2008):

  Catholics who support Obama have simply made a choice that other issues are of more importance than abortion. A handful have plainly said so, but others pretend - like Kmiec - that somehow Obama is really not so bad. In fact, Obama will do more to ameliorate the situation than his would-be Fall opponent. Whatever.
  

  Of course people are free to decide as they choose, but I just wish more people would simply say that “the war is more important to me” or something of that nature than to simply pretend that Obama’s position on abortion is anything but morally repugnant. ...
  

  In the final analysis, I have come to believe that a vote for Obama comes as close to the line of being completely unacceptable from a Catholic point-of-view as is possible without going over it. In fact, it may be completely over that line. That is not to say that one is therefore obliged to vote for McCain, but I just do not see how a Catholic in good conscience can vote for a man so completely devoted to upholding the greatest evil of our day.

  
  
• Choosing Among Evils, by Scott Carson (Examine Life June 2, 2008):

  Herein, I think, lies the difference between the Kmiecs of the world, and those Catholics for whom life issues are more coherently understood. If there was a man running for president who knew full well that there were whole populations of "real people" being intentionally killed--let's say, for example, that there is some backwards county in northwestern Idaho where they are rounding up blacks and shooting them--if there were such a man running for president who said that he thought such activities ought to have the support of the law, then I imagine that even Doug Kmiec would say that he couldn't find it in his heart to vote for him. And yet that is exactly what Barack Obama, and others who support abortion rights, do say, though they do not say it knowingly. Of course Barack Obama does not believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of racial genocide, because of course he would fully oppose it if he did view it that way. So Barack Obama at least has the excuse of ignorance; what is Doug Kmiec's excuse, if he really believes what he says he believes about abortion? Can it be any more obvious that he does not believe what he says he believes about abortion? He does not think what the Catholic Church thinks, at any rate, that is, he does not think that human lives equal in value to his own are being intentionally taken every day, or he would be far more outraged than he is at the moral sloppiness of the Barack Obamas of the world who fail to understand what it is they are defending, just as any rational person would be outraged at a racist who defended himself by saying that he just doesn't think other races are equal to his own. I'm sure that Barack Obama is a nice man who is very sincere and who really wants to do good things, but even if I found his other ideas politically acceptable, I could no more vote for a person who favors abortion rights than I could vote for a person who is openly and viciously racist. Such a person is morally crippled and does not have a healthy understanding of the foundations of morality. Such a person, no matter how "nice" they may appear, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be trusted to make sound policy decisions.

  
  

The Iraq War Issue: The Facts Indicate a U.S. Victory

Here is the excellent commentary from the Campaign Spot blog at NationalReview.com. In the midst of all the fashionable Bush-hating, I have gone out on a limb before and said that historians will eventually rate Bush as a great war leader against Islamic extremism and will credit him with the guts to overthrow the genocidal Saddam Hussein. The facts are pointing in that direction, but don't hold your breath waiting for the historians to come on board right away. It will take time, but I believe the objective historians who will be able to analyze the events of the last few years with the benefit of more time having elapsed will eventually come around to elevating the stature of George W. Bush's war leadership and presidency. In fact, the Bush precedent of overthrowing the genocidal Saddam Hussein is a great precedent for the demise of other genocidal regimes. That precedent is a great victory for humanitarianism and for the international rule of law. Catholics and other Christians should applaud it.