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!

Catholic News Agency: Catholics in Alliance "Abortion Reduction" Study Found to be Faulty - Social Welfare Policies Have Little Effect on Abortion

Surprise, surprise:

Washington DC, Feb 11, 2009 / 04:09 am (CNA).- Until recently, a Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study of abortion data claimed that increased spending on welfare programs results in substantial reductions in state abortion rates but many pro-life laws do not. However, the study’s results have been revised following the discovery that incorrect abortion data was used and after criticism from a professor that the group’s conclusions did not follow from the data.

In August 2008, the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good announced the release of a study on the effects of public policy on abortion rates over a 20-year period. The group had commissioned Joseph Wright, who is a political science professor at Penn State University, and Michael Bailey, who is a professor of American government at Georgetown University, to conduct the study.

“The study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that benefits for pregnant women and mothers, employment, economic assistance to low-income families, quality child care for working mothers and removal of state caps on the number of children eligible for economic assistance in low-income families has reduced abortions,” the group reported in an August 28 press release. “In contrast, permitting Medicaid payments for abortions increased the abortion rate.”

The old version of the report was removed from the site in November 2008 after critics pointed out problems with the study.

***
The feedback of Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, was acknowledged in the new version of the report. Writing at the web site MoralAccountability.com, New said that the authors of the study discovered that they had used incorrect abortion data for the years following 1997.

***
“The new version provides evidence that welfare policy has no more than a marginal effect on the incidence of abortion,” he argued. “In fact, the new regression results indicate that none of the three welfare policies which the authors previously argued were effective tools for reducing the incidence of abortion have a substantial abortion reducing effect.”

***
He also criticized the report’s finding that parental involvement laws and other state laws restricting abortion have little impact on overall abortion rates.

“Since parental involvement laws only directly affect minors, Wright should have mentioned that analyzing their effects on the overall abortion rate is not a methodologically sound way to gauge their actual impact,” New wrote.

The argument that informed consent laws are ineffective, New claimed, fails to acknowledge the “substantial differences” in the effects of informed consent laws that have been enacted and those that have been nullified. By the report’s criteria, New argued, the results provide evidence that informed consent laws are effective.

***
However, Professor New also pointed out that events in the political arena were impacted by the first study.

In an essay at MoralAccountability.com, New accused Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good of misleading the public and referred to “plenty of peer reviewed studies” which find that public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws reduce the incident of abortion.

He claimed the study had a “substantial impact” on the pro-life debate in the 2008 Presidential election and gave “intellectual legitimacy” to those such as Doug Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi who argued that pro-life voters should vote for Democrats to advance the pro-life cause.

In a Tuesday e-mail to CNA, Prof. New said that the research produced by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems unwilling to acknowledge the “positive effect of pro-life laws such as parental involvement and informed consent laws.”

CNA asked New to speculate why welfare spending generally does not decrease the abortion rate.

He suggested that welfare “undermines societal mores against premarital sex” by enabling women to have more children out of wedlock. Welfare may result in more unplanned pregnancies and possibly more abortions, New said.

“Regardless of how generous welfare benefits are, women facing crisis pregnancies can find financial and medical resources at one of the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers across the country,” he added.

New noted the finding in both the current and previous versions of the group’s report that shows higher female employment is correlated with higher abortion rates.

***
New also mentioned a 2002 study which showed that Medicaid recipients have a higher incidence of abortion in states where Medicaid funds the procedure.

“In states that provide Medicaid funding for abortions, women with Medicaid coverage had an abortion rate more than four times as high as women without such coverage (89 vs. 21 per 1,000),” New summarized. “In contrast, in states that do not cover abortion services for women on Medicaid, the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was only twice that of women without Medicaid coverage (35 vs. 16 per 1,000).”

While the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good study reports an increase in abortion rates in states where abortions are funded by Medicaid, New charged: “they do not give this finding much attention in the write-up.”

“Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to miss opportunities with their abortion research,” New told CNA.

“I think that they would be more effective if they would be more willing to publicly acknowledge the positive impact of pro-life legislation and try to constructively work with pro-life groups to promote social policies that will further reduce abortion rates. Instead Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems primarily interested in providing moral, political, and theological cover for supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats who support ‘abortion rights.’”

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


UPDATED (12 February 2009)
Regular Guy Paul has something to say about the lies and those who chose to believe them:

It was a lie. The left told a convenient lie, and the Catholic left opted to accept it. As I said at the time, they knew it was a lie.

***
They would rather claim to believe lies than vote against abortion. And, having won, they offer nary a keystroke to argue against abortion. They claimed to believe this study. They claimed that Obama's pro-abortion promises were just pandering. They claim to be pro-life. They, like "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good," are liars. They don't oppose abortion. They've made a negotiated peace on a non-negotiable issue. As I've called them before, they are turncoats in the culture war.

See also:
Prof. Robert George: Notion that Obama's Policies Will Reduce Abortion is "Delusional"

National Catholic Register: "Pro-Life Candidates Save Lives"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

USCCB Sets Record Straight Re: Catholic Stance on Overturning Roe

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

U.S. Catholic Bishops: "You Can't Reduce Abortions by Promoting Abortions"

Blackadder: "Would Overturning Roe Reduce the Abortion Rate?"

"Poverty and Abortion: A New Analysis"

Discussion of Catholics and abortion removed from still on Bishops' general conference agenda

Religion News Service reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' plans to discuss abortion and politics next week in Baltimore have been scuttled:

In a September, after high-profile Catholic politicians challenged church teaching on abortion, the bishops announced that they "plan to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters at the U.S. bishops' Nov. 10-13, 2008 general meeting in Baltimore." ...

[Sister Mary Anne] Walsh said the bishops' discussion has been removed from the agenda as of late Friday. The agenda will not be finalized until Saturday afternoon, Walsh added.

"I think this is something that has evolved since September," Walsh said. "Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there's not the same need they saw in September."

The article mentions the likely possibility that the topic will be raised in close-door sessions, but Catholic News Service' Diogenes (Off The Record) is skeptical:

So what has "evolved" to allow the bishops to skip another difficult discussion? Let's see:

• Have prominent Catholic politicians ceased to be advocates of legal abortion? Not at all. This year's two most conspicuous offenders, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, will soon stand 2nd and 3rd in line for the nation's highest office. They continue to advance not only the 'culture of death' political agenda, but also a skewed quasi-Catholic theology to justify it.
  
• Have the bishops reached agreement on how to handle the problem? Nope. Right through Election Day individual bishops were issuing their contrasting statements, drawing out different aspects of their malleable common statement, Faithful Citizenship. The most forthright bishops were acknowledging that an air-clearing discussion was overdue.
  
• Have the media moved away from the issue, now that the campaign is over, so that the bishops can retreat into undisturbed silence, away from the glare of publicity? Bingo.

On the other hand, Amy Welborn advises us to "Chill, and Pray":

There are two days of public meetings and two days of private, executive sessions. The issue has obviously exploded beyond the relatively narrow agenda item originally planned for public discussion. I have no problem (as if it matters) with bishops taking this to private discussions in which they can speak freely to each other without the rest of us watching. As enjoyable as that might be for the rest of us.

As we celebrate the feast of the Dedication of St. John Lateran, the church of the Bishop of Rome, it seems a good idea to pray for our bishops. It’s particularly apropos on this day because St. John Lateran represents a great deal - and part of symbolism it bears after a millenium and a half regards the complicated and perpetually vexing relationship between Catholicism and civic life, the original church being built by Constantine and the palace, as the residence of the popes for almost a millenium being a center of both politics and religion in Rome - for good and for ill, for the benefit of the Body of Christ and sometimes to its great detriment.

Have you prayed for your bishop lately?

* * *

In other news, noting that Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Senator Barack Obama, Peter Steinfels recommended to the Bishops a change of strategy (Catholics and Choice (in the Voting Booth New York Times 11/07/08):

Anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. Will that fact be candidly addressed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meets next week in Baltimore?" ...

If the bishops sweat a little over these figures next week, the reason won’t be worry about their political prowess but about their pastoral and moral effectiveness. By appearing to tie their moral stance on abortion so closely to a particular political choice, have they in fact undermined their moral persuasiveness on that issue as well as their pastoral effectiveness generally?

Update The Catholic News Agency says the meeting is on:

[A] bishop who requested anonymity, confirmed to CNA that the bishops will not drop the issue of abortion or hold the conversation behind closed doors. On the contrary, they will discuss it on no less than three occasions: “in our regional groups, in executive session, and in the public session.”

The sessions open to the media will take place on Monday, November 10, from 9:00 a.m. to mid-afternoon, and Tuesday, November 11, from 9:00 a.m. until mid-afternoon. The rest of the meeting will be for breakout sessions, executive sessions, and prayer and reflection.

Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland -- a member of the task force on the faith formation and sacramental practice -- confirms as well:

“We plan to set aside time to discuss practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion, an issue that remains problematic for us and our people,” he confirmed.

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]

New Political Blog: American Catholic

Today is the first day of operation for a new political blog that you should definitely check out: American Catholic.

Here is the description of the blog that I received from the blog's founder, Tito Edwards:

I have assembled twelve bright, engaging, thoughtful, and faithful Catholics to blog on American politics from a Catholic perspective. This new blog is called American Catholic.

We hope to share our Catholic faith in the public square of politics and culture for the betterment of the common good.

... We hope (I want) to make a major impact in the public discussion of politics not only in the Catholic blogosphere, but in the Political blogosphere as well. We have answered the call from the Second Vatican Council to positively engage the world with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Catholics in the Public Square's own Christopher Blosser is one of the contributors to American Catholic, and I'm looking forward to their having a big impact on the discussion of politics, public policy, and the common good in the Catholic blogosphere.

Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Amy Welborn offers a provocative resolution for discussion:

The discussion of the post below is veering, quite naturally, to the subject of Roe and the place of legal restrictions on abortion in the pro-life movement.

So, we might as well go ahead and go there. I have company drifting in over the next few hours, so I really am not in the proper frame of mind to compose a post, so I’ll be lazy and just throw this out there:

Resolved:

The anti-abortion movement should abandon any attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade or even work for legal restrictions on abortion. That battle has been lost. Further, it is not required, from the standpoint of Catholic teaching, to work towards criminalization of or restrictions on abortion.

Discuss.

My own thoughts on the subject can be read here and here. Be sure to check in over at Amy's every so often to follow the discussion.

Fidelis Debuts CatholicVote.com

From Fidelis:

CHICAGO – Fidelis announces the launch of a new website - CatholicVote.com – to educate and inspire Catholic voters this fall and beyond. The site includes a powerful video designed to encourage viewers to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family. In addition to the video, the site contains resources on how to register to vote, research on candidate positions, documents from the Bishops and an invitation to join in prayer.

The highlight of CatholicVote.com is a powerful 3:30 minute documentary on Catholic contributions to American public life. The video connects the fight for civil rights, human dignity, and the family throughout the history of our country. The dramatic conclusion of the film urges viewers to “Vote Your Conscience.”

“The U.S. Bishops have stated that ‘responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation,’” said Brian Burch, director of CatholicVote.com. “We launched CatholicVote.com to provide Catholics and all people of good will with the tools to both educate and inspire their fellow citizens as they prepare to vote in November.”

“Our goal with CatholicVote.com was to develop something that could complement the many excellent voter guides, statements, and resources developed by other organizations. Our hope is to not only win over the minds of voters, but also the hearts of American Catholics and Christians,” said Burch.

“There’s no reason Catholics should be silent about the wonderful contribution Catholics have made to American life. Catholics have a rich heritage of fighting injustice and helping the poor and the defenseless. As Archbishop Chaput says so wonderfully in his new book Render Unto Casear, we serve the nation when we live our Catholic beliefs in political life,” said Burch.

Catholics play a major role in American politics. Since 1976, winning the Catholic vote meant winning the White House except in 2000, when Al Gore won both the Catholic vote and the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.

“At 67 million strong, the Catholic vote is critical to American elections,” said Burch. “Catholics vote in higher numbers than the rest of the population and they live in important swing states like Michigan, Ohio and Florida.”

“We encourage all Catholics to take a look at CatholicVote.com,” said Burch. “At the site, you can register to vote and join other Catholics in prayer. You can also read up on the issues, and most importantly, send the video to your friends. There is plenty of evangelization to be done when it comes to voting.”

CatholicVote.com is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy. The website does not endorse any candidate for office.

Delegates to Knights of Columbus Convention Adopt Resolutions Challenging Catholic Office-Holders

I received the following email from the Knights of Columbus earlier today:

Knights of Columbus convention delegates adopt resolutions challenging Catholic office-holders on abortion, affirming marriage as union of one man and one woman

(Quebec City, Quebec) - Delegates to the annual international convention of the Knights of Columbus today adopted a resolution opposing "any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other offenses against life."

The delegates also challenged "our fellow Catholics who are elected officials to be true to the faith they claim to profess by acting bravely and publicly in defense of life, affirming with Pope Benedict XVI that 'there can be no room for purely private religion.'"

The resolution stated that the organization reaffirms its "commitment to building a culture of life by promoting policies that favor the family," and reaffirmed the organization's "long standing policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children."

The resolution on life issues follows by several days the opening convention address by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, in which he called on Catholic voters to "stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians," and encouraged them to "say 'no' to every candidate of every political party who supports abortion."

Delegates also adopted a resolution calling for "legal and constitutional protection . . . for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The resolution declares that "marriage is a natural institution based on ancient human values that have evolved over time into a unique and deeply rooted social, legal and religious institution," and that it "reflects the natural biological complementarity between man and woman which predates the state and which is woven into the social and religious fabric of every major culture and society."

Marriage between man and woman "provides the most favorable environment in which to protect the rights and the best interests of children," the resolution stated.

Convention delegates adopted resolutions dealing with other public policy issues as well, including building a culture of life, religious liberty, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, decency on the Internet and in the media, Catholic education, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The texts of all the resolutions can be found at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/resolutions/index.html

For complete coverage of convention events, go to the "Convention Central" web page at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/index.html

"Catholics United" Gets Divisive

From The Washington Post: "Catholic Activists Ask McCain to Boot Faith Adviser"

Tensions are heating up among politically-minded Catholic activists after a group of left-leaning Catholics today publicly asked Sen. John McCain to boot a faith adviser who resigned from the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of allegations he sexually harassed a college student.

"Deal Hudson is not the type of Catholic leader you want publicly associated with your campaign," read the letter from Catholics United to McCain.

The allegations against Deal Hudson are not new and their reappearance reflects the nasty back-and-forth among Catholic activists as the election draws closer. Hudson, a member of the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee, resigned as publisher of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis after the allegations first surfaced in 2004 in the pages of the National Catholic Reporter.

The Catholic League: "Phony Assault on Deal Hudson"

“There is nothing Catholic about these charges. Catholics put a premium on forgiveness and reconciliation—they do not conduct vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause. Hudson has made several public statements of apology regarding his improper sexual encounter with a coed in 1994. What are we to do as Catholics—say it isn’t enough? Ted Kennedy belongs to Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. Should he be criticized? Certainly: I did just that when I cited his 100 percent NARAL record. What I didn’t do was cite his past sexual indiscretions, one of which left a young woman dead.

Deal Hudson: "A Few Words About My Past Scandal"

As you might have read, my 1994 scandal is back in the news. My past continues to be a source of shame to me and, unfortunately, my family.

My wife forgave me 14 years ago, and my daughter did the same 4 years ago when she read the National Catholic Reporter story. I hope my son will also be forgiving when he's old enough to find out his dad is very far from perfect.

I'm not blaming anyone for this. It was my own fault. And while the revelation of my failing was deeply humiliating, it was also an important wake up call for me. Over the past four years, I've tried to make amends with family, friends, and supporters. People close to me say I'm a different person now, and I’d like to think that’s true.

Deacon Keith Fournier: "In Defense of Deal Hudson: 'Catholics United' Should be Ashamed!"

... First, let me put it bluntly, for a group calling itself “Catholics United”, you should be ashamed of yourself! Do you believe in the efficacy of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

***
You can disagree with Deal Hudson’s Politics. I do, and I have, on many occasions and over many issues. I have made it known quite strongly. Every time I have done so, he has been a worthy opponent.

You have had every opportunity to take your own Policy disagreements to the Public Square. I for one would have welcomed an intelligent debate. Instead, you have now resorted to impugning a fellow Catholic’s character by bringing up a past indiscretion which was forgiven in the Sacraments.

By resorting to such calumny and vicious written attacks like the kind you entered into in that E-Blast, you have also undermined your own moral credibility. After all, at the heart of the entirety of Catholic Social teaching is the virtue of Charity.

It was "Gotcha" politics at its worst 4 years ago when Joe Feuerherd (he of "the Bishops can go to hell" fame) revealed Deal Hudson's past sinful behavior on the pages of National Catholic Reporter as "payback" for the USCCB's firing of a staffer after Hudson had revealed the staffer was moonlighting by working on the Kerry campaign; and it's "Gotcha" politics at its worst 4 years later as "Catholics United" decides to get into the gutter rather than refute Hudson on the issues.

But what can they say to refute Hudson's arguments that their candidate is out of step with Catholic teaching on such non-negotiable issues as abortion? Nothing. And as the Catholic supporters of Democrats are wont to do when the facts are against them, they change the subject. Deflect and defame (in true Clintonian fashion).

The most positive aspect of this controversy is that the jerks at "Catholics United" have now completely discredited themselves. Contrary to the image they seek to portray of a "non-partisan" organization "refus[ing] to water down our faith in service of partisan politics", so-called "Catholics United" have exposed themselves as petty, partisan hacks who will go to any extreme - including dragging a Catholic brother through the mud by republishing his past sin - in order to advance the political cause of electing Democrats.

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

(Hat tip: Fumare)

Professor Hadley Arkes writes at The Catholic Thing on the "madness" of Prof. Doug Kmiec's Obama love:

Is it a certain madness, a certain distraction of mind, induced by the sudden onset of summer heat? The polls in early June find Barack Obama notably behind among Evangelicals and whites, but--wonder of wonders--actually holding a slight edge, of a point or two, among Catholics.

Some of our readers know that I was associated with the drafting of the “most modest first step of all on abortion,” the bill to preserve the life of the child who survived an abortion. It was called, in that awful legislative style, the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act. When it finally passed the Congress in 2002, not a single Democrat in Congress voted in opposition. But Barack Obama, as a Senator in Illinois, actually led the opposition to the comparable measure in that state, and as the chairman of a legislative committee managed to kill it. How does one explain then this close division among Catholics, with a tilt actually in his favor? And what is the worse account: that most Catholics in the country simply do not know about his radical, pro-abortion position, or that American Catholics by now have heard about Obama’s position, and they don’t especially care?

The latter account would surely mark the graver state of affairs. And the signs seem to be pointing in that direction, as seen in the positions reported recently for two prominent Catholic academics, both thoughtful, sensible people, moving in those circles I move in myself. Douglas Kmiec, a good friend, had been Dean of the Law School at Catholic University and Cathleen Kaveny, is a professor of law at Notre Dame. Kmiec joined a meeting of Catholics with Obama and pronounced him a “natural for the Catholic vote.” Kmiec became persuaded that Obama, radically pro-choice, would nevertheless be open to serious measures for “reducing the number of abortions.” Kaveny could hardly be unaware of Obama’s position on abortion, and yet she thinks that other parts of Obama’s program would fit a Catholic vision--most notably, "ending the unjust war in Iraq, providing decent jobs, ensuring affordable health care for all, and working for comprehensive immigration reform."

On the matter of reducing the number of abortions, imagine that there is a wondrous scheme for diverting women from choosing abortions: Let’s suppose that, in counseling centers, we find that playing “You’d be So Nice to Come Home To” had the wondrous effect of stirring 90 per cent of the women not to abort their babies--especially if the music is accompanied by the offer of a DVD player. Surely it would be a boon to save those lives, but we should tremble at what the move reveals about the terms of principle on which we live our lives together. For what is left intact is the understanding, deeply absorbed by our people, that there is nothing less than a “right” to order the killing of an innocent human being for reasons that need not rise beyond convenience or whims, and with no felt need even to offer a justification. To offer this state of affairs as a gain is to celebrate a law that has the most pronounced effect in misshaping the souls of our people.

[More]

(emphasis added)

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).

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"

McCain and Catholic Voters

Robert R. Reilly, a former special assistant to President Reagan who served as his liaison to the Catholic Church, writes at InsideCatholic on what John McCain should do to appeal to Catholic voters:

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. He needs to appear on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo and speak to that significance. He needs to do interviews in the National Catholic Register and other Catholic journals, and on Sirius radio's Catholic channel, which will cover the pope's visit by the hour. He needs to say that what the pope is expressing goes beyond a sectarian Catholic audience, as it addresses the core issues of Western civilization. He needs to say that Benedict was right at Regensburg in assessing moral relativism as the greatest threat to the West and to the integrity of reason, and that he was right also about the nature of the threat from an unreasoning version of Islam...

[Read the whole thing]

A fairly lively discussion is taking place in the comments to Mr. Reilly's piece.

Catholics and McCain

Recent stories on McCain and the Catholic "vote".

McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements

In an interview with the Associated Press the Republican presidential candidate said, "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics”.

John McCain rallies Catholics as he prepares for general election

Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months. McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

It is my prayer that Senator McCain will see the light on ESCR and change his position.

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Todd Aglialoro at InsideCatholic links to this piece at Slate by former Catholic University law school dean and advisor to Mitt Romney, Douglas Kmiec:

... But now that Romney's out, whom might Catholics turn to? Since I served at one time as Reagan's constitutional lawyer, it would be natural for me to fall in line behind John McCain. Don't worry about his conservative lapses, says President Bush, the foremost expert on lapsed conservativism. There is no gainsaying that McCain is a military hero deserving of salute. But McCain seems fixated on just taking the next hill in Iraq. His Iraqi military objective is laudable, but it assumes good reasons to be there in the first place. It also ignores that Catholics are looking to bless the peacemakers.

Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." ...

***
Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural...

***
So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Brian Saint-Paul responds to Mr. Kmiec at InsideCatholic:

Reaganites for Obama? How precisely is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan?

***
So Obama is ambiguously inspiring in the same way that Reagan was. That's great, but it doesn't take us very far. An inspirational speaker needs to inspire the listener to do something, or what's the point of it? Given that, what specifically does Obama want us to unify over? What are the particular fears he wants us to abandon? How does he think we're being divisive... and who are our nation's dividers?

These are all questions that Kmiec might have answered in his 1300 word essay. Of course, had he done so, he might not have ended up with much of an essay at all.

UPDATE
Brian Saint-Paul again:

Douglas Kmiec is pro-life -- let that be understood. But that doesn't stop him from employing the flawed ethical arithmetic of the religious Left...

***
... The Democrats support abortion and the Republicans support the death penalty, so it all comes out in the moral wash. But of course, this is wrong. While abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty is not. We may oppose the death penalty vociferously, as I do myself, but it is of a different moral quality than abortion.

Douglas Kmiec knows this. So why didn't he say it?

[Cross-posted with commentary at Pro Ecclesia]

McCain Scores with Catholics on Super Tuesday

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic that John McCain did well among Catholic voters on Super Tuesday.