Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

(Hat tip: The Catholic Key Blog)

Chris and I have both been somewhat critical lately of the writing of America Magazine contributor Michael Sean Winters, so I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Winters for writing something particularly praiseworthy:

To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Well done!

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy

Matthew Archbold reports:

Your favorite grandmother Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of millions of dollars being spent on birth control in Obama's new economic "stimulus" package by claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So that's what you are folks. You are a cost to the state and federal government. You are not a product of love, an immortal being with a soul. You are the product of a cost/benefit analysis.

Here's the exact exchange on ABC's THIS WEEK. (H/T Drudge)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now this just might explain why Obama and Pelosi are so vehemently pro-abortion. It's because they're so worried about the economy.

[More]

UPDATE
Video (Hat tip: American Papist):

Biden: "I'm Not a Pope John Paul [II] Guy"

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic and Whispers in the Loggia)

Sen. Biden sticks his foot in it again over abortion, this time dissing the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:

... Q: This [abortion] was an issue for John Kerry, do you see this as being an issue for you?

A: I think it's going to be an issue for everybody. Anyone who's a Catholic, a practicing Catholic, this is a dilemma for. There's an expression in law school: hard cases make bad law. These are just very, very, very difficult moral, social and societal choices.

And for me, I am prepared as a senator to say that the framework of Roe v. Wade based upon this imperfect trimester notion captures the gravity of how you should approach this most serious of decisions relating to life and death. First trimester, the state should stay out of it completely because it's a matter of faith, basically, there. Second trimester, there are competing interests, but they're both legitimate to look at. Third trimester, there's an overwhelming burden to say, there isn't a good reason to abort unless it relates to the mother's health. I'm as comfortable as I can be on a really difficult moral dilemma.

To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy.

(emphasis added)

Well, isn't that special? On the bright side, at least he didn't refer to Pope John XXIII as "Pius the XXIII".


[cross-posted at Catholics Against Joe Biden]

Archbishop Burke: Democrats risk becoming a "Party of Death"

In an interview with Avvenire, voice of the Italian Bishops' conference, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature) weighed in on the present state of the Democratic Party - Catholic News Service reports:

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

The Archbishop went on to defend his policy of prohibiting Communion to those Catholics who publicly embrace positions contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church, noting that while the USCCB believes each Bishop should decide how best to address the matter in their own diocese, "other bishops are coming to [his own] position."

Senate Outlook

Lots of attention on the presidential race. Here is my outlook on the next Senate.

The Democrats currently enjoy a thin 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate. This November, 34 seats are being contested. Of the 12 seats defended by the Democrats only one, LA, looks to be competitive. Of the 22 seats defended by the GOP, five currently look to be lost to the Democrats with another four seats looking at least competitive for the Democrats. The five seats which look to be lost are VA, CO, NM, NH, and AK. The four which look competitive are ME, OR, MN, and NC.

If the Democrats would happen to win all these seats, they would enjoy a 60-40 majority in the Senate. Such a majority could easily invoke cloture cutting off debate on legislation before the Senate. (Cloture is a powerful tool which the minority party in the Senate uses to prevent legislation from being brought to a vote.) Winning nine seats seems unlikely, unless there is a Democratic wave nationwide in November. The more likely outcome is winning the five seats mentioned above, giving the Democrats a 56-44 majority. Though it would be a challenge, convincing four GOP senators to invoke cloture would be possible. One only needs to think of Smith (OR), Collins, Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH), or Lugar (IN). It may be easy for the Democrats to find enough GOP votes to invoke cloture on a probable President Obama's nominations to the federal bench and approve them. It may be more difficult to find GOP votes to invoke cloture on anti-life legislation because of the reservations of some more conservative Democrats. Think Casey (PA), Nelson (NE), Landrieu (LA), or Tester (MT). Given Senator Obama's promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as one of his first acts as president, these and other Democrats may be the only stop in the coming pro-abortion agenda.

Catholics should take note of the consequences of a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

**Wish I could be posting more. Life is busy, but my hat is off to my fellow editors who are doing OUTSTANDING work here at Catholics in the Public Square. I plan on soon shutting down Catholics for Bush and posting here and on Twitter with a focus on the congressional races.

Limbaugh Announces Phase II of Operation Chaos

He is "ordering" his millions of listeners to participate in various nationwide meetings being held by Democrats to get average citizens to help write the Democrat platform prior to the August national convention (see ABC News link). Why can't pro-life voters attend and demand a pro-life plank? Why can't people favoring traditional marriage attend and give their input? This election is going to be fun.

Obama Set to Reignite Communion Controversy by Picking Sebelius as VP Nominee?

Dave Hartline of The Catholic Report links to a couple of stories indicating that Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-abortion Catholic Governor of Kansas, still seems to be on top of Obama's short list for Veep:

"Praise for Sebelius"

"Obama veepstakes: The other woman"

As Dave notes (and as I've noted previously), picking Sebelius is definitely a risky strategy for a campaign that has gone to great lengths to try to win over Catholic voters. Sebelius' bishop, Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, has made public his instructions to her that she should refrain from receiving Communion over her pro-abortion stance. Picking her would be seen by many Catholics as Obama's sticking it to the Church hierarchy over the issue of abortion.

Such a pick would definitely ignite what some pundits have blasphemously dubbed the "wafer watch", since every Mass at which Sebelius was in attendance would turn into a media circus. Reporters and photographers would love to catch Sebelius receiving Communion in defiance of her bishop.

If you thought the media attention given to John Kerry's Mass attendance in 2004 was distracting, just wait until the media focuses their attention on a Catholic whose actions in receiving Communion would actually be in defiance of her own bishop's admonitions to refrain from doing so (something that was never the case with John Kerry).

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.

Archbishop Naumann's Pastoral Discipline of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius

• Text of Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s admonition to Catholic governor Kathleen Sebelius:

  Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
  Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
  

  The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
  

  I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”
  I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

  
  
• Follow-Up Column from Archbishop Naumann, containing Q & A responses to some of the more common questions and misunderstandings regarding my pastoral action:

  Q. Why was the governor singled out for this pastoral discipline? Are there not others in elective office who hold similar positions?

  Q. When should a Catholic refrain from receiving holy Communion?

  Q. Is it not the responsibility of the individual Catholic to judge their worthiness to receive holy Communion? Why would a bishop ask someone to refrain from presenting himself for reception of holy Communion?

  Q. Is a priest or another minister of Communion ever required to deny someone Communion?

  Q. What is meant when it is said that Gov. Sebelius' actions were scandalous?

  Q. How can the church require the governor to fail to uphold her oath of office to enforce the laws and court decisions of the state and federal government?

  Q. The governor claims that the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act that she vetoed was unconstitutional and would jeopardize the privacy rights of women. Is it fair for the church to attempt to force her to sign bad laws by requesting she not receive Communion?

  Q. Is it not wrong for the church to attempt to impose its religious beliefs on others?

  ... and so on, with responses from the Archbishop.
  

• "Faithful Catholics and Faithful Americans" (First Things November 12, 2007):

  it saddens me to see the many Catholics in public life who abandon the moral teachings of the Church on fundamental human-rights issues in order to appease the leadership of their party or because they believe it necessary to get elected. We do not need Catholics serving in public office who are willing to check their principles at the doorway of the legislative chamber. A Catholic in public life must allow the moral values of his faith to inform his positions.
  

  Certainly, a Catholic elected to public office must make prudential judgments on how to best advance the rights and the dignity of the human person. There are many issues, in fact most issues, where Catholic politicians may disagree and adopt different policy positions—a just immigration policy, for example, or public-assistance programs for the poor, or health-care policy, or military engagement, or taxation policies.
  

  At the same time, there are circumstances where to support a particular policy involves approval of an intrinsic evil.

  
  
• Discussion at Amy Welborn's:

  The scene that is often painted is of a very serious Catholic, fully committed to every footnote in the Catechism, wringing his hands in the dark of night, searching his conscience, trying…just trying to find a middle way. And then here comes Bishop Bully, cruelly and shockingly wielding the Most Holy Eucharist as a “political weapon.”
  

  Yeah, on that.
  

  Thought you might be interested in some photos of a party Governor Sebelius hosted in the Governor’s Mansion for 3rd-trimester abortion specialist George Tiller and the staff of his clinic in April of 2007.
  

  Wring away.

  Gov. Sebelius confirmed Dr. abortion provider George Tiller attended a dinner with her last year at Cedar Crest, but dismissed the allegation that he was an "honored guest" (Lawrence Journal World & News May 29, 2008):

  Political opponents aren’t buying the explanation for the event, which came at a time Tiller was under investigation by the state attorney general’s office regarding accusations that his clinic in Wichita had conducted illegal late-term abortions.
  

  The attorney general’s office later filed misdemeanor charges, and Tiller has denied breaking the law. The case is pending in Sedgwick County.
  

  Wednesday’s focus, however, remained on Sebelius’ dinner reception, and Tiller’s attendance.
  

  “Her use of a taxpayer-funded facility to honor an individual whose money has fueled her campaigns and personal agenda is appalling,” said Kris Kobach, chairman of the Kansas Republican Party. “She has abused her stewardship over the people’s house. … Using it to host a notorious late-term abortionist is disgraceful.”

  See also: Photos link Governor Sebelius to late-term abortionist Catholic News Agency. May 29, 2008.
  

According to America magazine, Governor Sebelius is among the National Co-Chair of Barack Obama's Catholic Advisory Committee.

She is heralded as a "rising star" in the Democratic party, selected to deliver the Democratic response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech in January, and has appeared on numerous lists of potential running mates for Barack Obama.

Archbishop Naumann to Kansas Gov. Sebelius: Stop Taking Communion, Publicly Apologize [UPDATED]

Maybe Cardinal Egan started a trend. Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City on Friday told pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to absent herself from taking Holy Communion:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion, the Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas says.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, also criticized the governor Friday for her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers.

In a column published in the archdiocesan newspaper The Leaven, (read it below) Naumann called on the Catholic governor to take the “necessary steps for amendment of her life.”

Naumann later told The Kansas City Star that would involve a confession, a public apology and a promise to undo the damage done by her “scandalous behavior that has misled people into dangerous behavior.”

Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor had not seen the column, but said “receiving Communion has not been a problem in the past for her.”

From that last paragraph, one wonders if Gov. Sebelius will just thumb her nose at the Archbishop's "request" that she stop taking Communion. Here's more:

Naumann said he wrote to Sebelius in August and asked her to refrain from Communion but learned recently that she’d participated in the sacrament at a church in Topeka. He said he again wrote and asked her to respect his request and “not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

Forcing priests to refrain from giving the governor Communion would be one option, but one not being considered by the archbishop. Instead, he said he puts the burden on Sebelius to do the “right thing” and heal the fracture her actions have caused the church.

For Catholics, he said, the Eucharist is the literal nourishment of the body of Jesus Christ and not a symbolic gesture. So to support abortion and take Communion creates a theologic contradiction that is unacceptable, Naumann said.

“The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high-profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: ‘The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!’ ” Naumann wrote in the Friday column.

Sebelius has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout her political career. She has repeatedly vetoed legislation sought by anti-abortion groups and supported by the state’s Catholic leaders.

[More]

UPDATE
It seems that Gov. Sebelius' name has been mentioned as a potential addition to the Obama ticket. In case you didn't catch that, Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza listed Sebelius as the most likely candidate to join Obama on the Democrat presidential ticket.

Whatever the merit of such talk, I think the idea of Sebelius for VP is now impossible. I don't think there's any way Obama risks the Catholic vote by adding an interdicted Catholic to his ticket (although I'm not sure this officially counts as an "interdiction"; but it's close enough to become a political issue should Obama pick Sebelius).

As one commenter at Amy Welborn's blog put it:

Sebelius is being talked about as a vice presidential candidate. It’s better this happens now than after she gets chosen to become Geraldine Ferraro 2.0.

Here's the reason that Obama is unlikely to risk the controversy of adding Sebelius to his ticket:

Given the effort the Obama Catholics have put into winning over Catholic voters, having a national ticket in which one of the candidates' Bishop has already taken corrective action regarding unworthy receipt of Communion would make the Kerry Communion controversy look like small potatos.

"Value of Each and Every Human Life" in Resolution Honoring Pope Deemed "Objectionable Language" by Senate Dems [UPDATED]

Pope resolution passes after "life" language removed:

While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

A copy of the original resolution can be found here. The new resolution, with the human life language and references to religious expression in public buildings removed, is here.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the "life" language, which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer's office, which has not responded to Politico's inquiries this morning.

[More]

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes in a couple of entries at The Corner:

A Senate aide adds that it was not just the life language that was an issue in the resolution in the Senate:

[Boxer's] spokesperson claims that the reference to the "naked public square" was about "religious expression on public buildings." This is a rather uninformed and cramped understanding of what that language means. I guess we can take comfort from this episode that leading liberal Democrats have zero understanding of what makes Catholics and religious people tick.

(emphasis added)

... This is what was ridiculously cut:

"that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties"

and

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life"

UPDATE
Paul at Thoughts of a Regular Guy writes:

... But it seems to me that there's a problem from the pro-abortion side: If it's "objectionable" to witness "to the value of each and every human life," then which human lives does Sen. Boxer wish to deny the value of?

If she denies the value of unborn human lives, desiring to maintain the right to kill them for any reason or no reason, then isn't Sen. Boxer admitting that the unborn, are, in fact, human lives?

Isn't this essentially an admission that what happens in abortion is, in fact, an outright denial of the value of human life?

Some are looking to place a portion of the blame on Sen. Brownback for "backing down" on the "objectionable language".

See also "Pope Too Controversial for Senate Democrats".


UPDATE #2 (21 April)
Excellent insight from Darwin Catholic:

... More deeply, though, I think this speeks to a chasm that runs through American politics. There is a not-so-small portion of the American citizenry for whom the idea that Pope Benedict and the Church he leads should have anything to say on issues such as human life, the source and nature of human freedom, etc. is not only incorrect, but also offensive. The Daily Kos is so consumed with hatred at the idea that the pope might mean anything for Americans and American civic discussion that in its coverage of the stalling of the Senate resolution, it refers to the pope only as "this pedophile enabler". And Senator Boxer sees the pope so exclusively through the lens of American partisan politics that she sees the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" as offensive.

It's clearly not the case that all those who tend to vote Democrat are radical secularists and abortion advocates. However, a large enough number of those who are radical secularists and/or abortion advocates are also passionate Democrats that any national-level Democratic candidate who wants to be successful at this time seems to feel it necessary to do nothing that will seriously offend that constituency -- and a certain amount to please them. (Thus the invariable realization by any Democratic politican who decides to run for national level office that any pro-life convictions he personally held were only "personal".)

This is what makes me deeply, deeply skeptical of the claim, by self-identified conservatives and Catholics such as Prof. Kmiec, that an Obama presidency would somehow bring in an era of self responsibility and respect for others that would help heal the abortion issue more than anything continued restrictions and conservative Supreme Court appointments could achieve. It's not that many on the liberal side of the political spectrum do not have passionate feelings about helping "the little guy" as they identify him, but those feelings are always couched in terms that make abortion, euthenasia, and a host of other, smaller (and thus far more widely accepted) assaults on human life not only credible, but merciful.

***
Boxer, and a not small portion of the base she represents, seems to see the pope and the Church he leads in strictly partisan terms. So rather than taking the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" to be something that everyone could agree to in a spirit of welcome (while in her mind holding to disagreement as to what the term "every human life" could be taken to mean) she sought to have it struck out, along with the suggestion that religious belief had a place in public conversation and as the root of our liberties.

Until someone seeks to root this kind of thinking out of the Democratic Party mainstream, I think serious Christians would be right to remain leary of a claimed opennes in that party to "people of faith". If positions and beliefs are to be held to mean anything, it would seem that one of the things that the Democratic Party would like to tell us is: However much you may agree with us on other issues, pro-lifers and Christians need not apply -- unless you want to leave your faith at the door and act like a good little secularist...

[More]

Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

From CBNNews:

This afternoon, Barack Obama’s campaign will announce the formation of what they are calling their, “National Catholic Advisory Council.” More details to come on an afternoon conference call but Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer will be on that conference call.

A couple interesting notes: First of all, this Catholic Council seems to be set up not so much for the Democratic primary as it is for the General Election. Why? Obama has two high profile pro-lifers in prominent roles on this Council. Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer have taken flack from the Democratic Party in the past because they are not pro-choice. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to send a message. This is an “in your face” signal to voters of faith that Obama is a different kind of Democrat. They want Catholics and Evangelicals to know that while Obama may be pro-choice, the pro-life point of view is not going to be so easily discounted. Critics will call it deceptive. Supporters will call it an “olive branch”.

Also, let this be considered the opening salvo in the potential battle to come over faith voters. Obama will not concede this block. He’s not going to get the single issue life or marriage voters but get ready for the Obama campaign to make a major push for the Evangelical vote. John McCain already had some work ahead of him on getting out the faith vote. If Obama is the nominee, it gets even harder. McCain and the Republican National Committee will need to figure out a way to cast Obama as an out of control liberal so he doesn’t pull a certain percentage of the Evangelical vote away from McCain. This will be a key battleground area and in a close election it could make all the difference in the World.

John McCain has already set up his Catholic Advisory Committee. It's more than one hundred strong. Below is a quote from the Senator who leads it, Sam Brownback:

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

More here.

(emphasis added)

Here's more on the story from LifeNews.com.

"Pro-Life" Casey Endorses Obama ...

... and agrees to actively campaign with the candidate who says his first act as President will be to sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act.

The reactions at InsideCatholic:

Mighty Casey has sold out by Todd Aglialoro

Pro-Life Catholics for Obama by Deal Hudson

Will Casey help Obama with the Catholic vote? by Brian Saint-Paul

More on Pro-Life Democrats by Eric Pavlat

And then there's this one:
But apparently he's deaf to irony by Todd Aglialoro

Casey was quoted as saying he favored Obama because the Illinois senator "thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."

To which Margaret Cabaniss responds:

That level of obtuseness really makes you wonder if he ever believed his own pro-life platform.

I think many of us already knew the answer to that. I'm not sure I ever took Casey Jr.'s "pro-life" credentials seriously. He's certainly not his father's "pro-life Democrat".


See also:
Pro-Abortion Group Praises Casey For Votes

National Catholic Register: Pro-Lifers Assess Senator Casey’s Voting Record

Priest Blasts "Usual Suspects" For Votes Against Pro-Life Policy

Bob Casey Is Not His Father’s Pro-life Democrat

Senate Democrats (Including Allegedly "Pro Life" Bob Casey) Vote to Rescind Mexico City Policy

National Catholic Register on the Late Bob Casey, Sr.: "Mighty Casey and American Humility"

USCCB Responds to Feuerherd

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes in today's Washington Post:

Joe Feuerherd's screed against the Catholic bishops for their call for political responsibility epitomizes the incivility of this campaign season, where truth has become a casualty and half-truths the norm.

With demeaning and mocking words, Feuerherd scoffs at the bishops' November 2007 statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." It urges Catholics not to be one-issue voters but to look at all the issues and make prudent decisions. When up for a vote, it drew virtually unanimous support of the almost 300 active members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Few decisions get that kind of support.

***
The current campaign shows that politics is too often a contest of powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype. In "Faithful Citizenship," the Church calls for a different kind of political engagement: one shaped by moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It stresses that Catholics need to be guided more by their moral convictions than by attachment to a political party or interest group. Catholic participation should help transform the party to which they belong; they should not let the party transform them in such a way that they neglect or deny basic moral truths.

Feuerherd's incivility is striking. The crude reference to the Eucharist as "the wafer" should be beneath anyone who respects people's religious sentiments, let alone an acknowledged Catholic. Belief in the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics, yet Feuerherd treats it in a belittling manner.

His final salvo, damning the bishops, is unworthy of both Feuerherd and The Post. It's hard to imagine The Post giving its pages to a writer suggesting the outright damnation of the leaders of any other religious body. Feuerherd's vitriol might be understandable if the bishops were concerned, like a typical special-interest group, only with what benefits them. However, the bishops' defense of the right to life of the unborn is a principled commitment in justice to the good of others who are vulnerable and with no voice of their own.

[Read the whole thing]

Former Head of "Catholics for a Free Choice" and So-Called "Philosopher of Abortion Movement" Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary

From LifeSiteNews:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Not all pro-abortion feminists from the heyday of the Sexual Revolution are behind Hillary Clinton as their abortion candidate. Frances Kissling, former president of the abortion advocacy group, Catholics for Free Choice, has instead come out swinging for Barack Obama, whom she believes is the best abortion candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama's instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation," said Kissling.

Kissling, who has been called the "philosopher of the pro-choice movement" among abortion advocates, said she disagreed with the 10 fellow radical feminists, such as Martha Burk, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, and Gloria Steinem, who endorsed Sen. Clinton in a recent Huffington Post article.

She agreed that both Clinton and Obama would nominate pro-Roe v. Wade justices, overturn the Mexico City policy, and give back funding to UNFPA, which lost US funds after being exposed for its cooperation in coerced abortions in China. But for Kissling nothing indicates that Obama would be any less of a pro-abortion leader than Clinton.

The main difference between the two candidates, for Kissling, was that Sen. Clinton was not radical enough on the issue of abortion and "had more than once failed the movement." Kissling criticized Clinton for failing to require abortion coverage in her health care reform plan as First Lady in 1994, and for allowing "any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation."

According to Kissling Clinton still has not sufficiently addressed whether her plan for universal government health care would require abortion coverage or whether it "will give religious organizations the right to refuse to provide services they consider 'immoral' - emergency contraception, voluntary sterilization, condoms to prevent HIV, and assisted reproduction come to mind."

Kissling also chastised her radical feminist colleagues for not holding Sen. Clinton to task for not restoring Medicaid funding for abortions, which were banned under the Hyde Amendment signed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"It is no longer about 'winning, the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify," Kissling concluded. "That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness ... I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that."

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
That's quite an endorsement of Obama's pro-abortion bona fides.

Robert P. George's "Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice"

On her website, famous author Ann Rice has defended her personal endorsement of Hillary Clinton (to the tune of Ave Maria, no less):

. . . To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels.

Princeton Professor Robert P. George challenges her in "An Unrequited Letter to Ann Rice" (First Things' blog; December 17, 2007):

. . . I once had the honor of representing Mother Teresa of Calcutta as counsel of record on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (I would be happy to send you a copy, if you like.) Mother made the point that we cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killing by abortion. In this, it seems to me, she stated with characteristic simplicity a profound truth.

You have endorsed a candidate and a political party that believes that abortion, far from being an injustice, is a fundamental right. They are pledged to oppose any meaningful legal protections of the life of the child in the womb. They have even sought to protect the grisliest of methods of abortion–the “dilation and intact extraction” procedure. In this, they are promoting the greatest injustice and abuse of human rights to be found in our country today. . . .

Off the Plantation

It is delightful to watch the Clinton steamroller in the Democratic race hit a major unexpected obstacle: African-Americans like Obama and Oprah who do not reflexively defer to the scenarios dictated by white Democrats. As a pro-life Republican, I certainly don't espouse the politics of Obama; but I think we are seeing something very healthy when African-Americans no longer play the subservient, taken-for-granted role they have had for decades in the Democratic Party. My hope is that this new generational boldness will eventually translate into boldly challenging other Democratic shibboleths that are harmful to African-Americans, in particular, the destructive Democratic embrace of abortion that kills many African-American babies and the traditional Democratic hostility to school vouchers. School vouchers offer a promise of real emancipation and liberation to thousands of African-American kids trapped in dysfunctional, union-dominated, and mediocre public school systems in many of our major cities. In the past, a few African-American politicians, especially some mayors, have seen the light and defied the establishment anti-voucher orthodoxy of the "master" class in the Democratic Party--a class which can afford to send their kids to exclusive prep schools. Hopefully, the boldness we are seeing now in the Democratic race will extend to overturning the Democratic dogmas and policies that are directly harmful to many African-Americans. It's good to see people defy their former political masters. That's the American way.