That is the title of the latest essay by the inestimable Hadley Arkes at The Catholic Thing. As Peter Wehner points out at National Review Online, the federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act is the brain-child of Professor Arkes. You can read about the Act and its history in Professor Arkes’ wonderful book, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose (Cambridge University Press, 2002). Here are some excerpts from The Catholic Thing piece:
This from NRO’s The Corner:
Rudy on McCain and a Possible Pro-Choice Pick [Byron York]
From a conference call with Rudy Giuliani, a few moments ago:
“It would seem to me that the Republican party is not, as far as I can tell…a one issue party, and that would be just one issue among many that would have to be evaluated…I know John McCain. I know his seriously seriousness, his love of country…He will choose the best person, and if that person happens to be, among other things, pro-choice, the party will support that.”
Re: Rudy on a Possible Pro-Choice Pick [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Doesn’t Giuliani’s experience in the primaries argue against a pro-choice pick? Here you had a candidate who had a lot going for him and whose principal defect was his pro-choice position, and he absolutely bombed. Doesn’t that tell us something about where the party’s sentiment is?
Yes, it does, Ramesh. Yes, it does.
You would think the GOP’s party elites would recognize this simple truth, but apparently this clear and unequivocal “party sentiment” has yet to sink in with them.
Peter Wehner has today’s must-read piece. Here’s a taste:
. . . Obama’s record on abortion is as extreme as one can possibly be. Senator Obama is unable to point to a single abortion he would oppose (his “health exception” for the mother is a well-known loophole whose effect would be to allow even late-term abortions), to the point that he was not even willing to extend basic protection to a child born during a failed abortion and living outside the womb. For a person who said, during his conversation on Saturday with Rick Warren, that the greatest failure of America is not to take seriously the injunction in the Gospel of Matthew that “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me,” this is an extraordinary position . . . . (more…)
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who allowed this foolishness to pass from his lips:
O’REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?
HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.
O’REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, “Partial-birth abortion: No problem”?
HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are –
O’REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?
HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues. I think a fundamentalist understanding of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is misguided and actually misses the point. And I think Barack Obama understands this kind of thing — (inaudible) close to the center –
O’REILLY (incredulous): That would be a stunning dissertation if the Senator would give it. And I would absolutely want to hear it.
HILL: And I think he would. I think he will!
This is the kind of person Obamamessiah’s candidacy attracts, folks.
Here’s a report of Professor Kmiec’s thoughts on the Warren Forum:
Douglas Kmiec, a conservative lawyer who is pro-life but has endorsed Mr. Obama, called the Democrat’s answer “much too glib for something this serious.”
He added, however, that Mr. Obama’s entire response was more “thoughtful” than Mr. McCain’s.
I suppose in Kmiec’s newly-formed world view, this is what passes for “thoughtful”:
(see transcript and additional commentary below the fold)
David Limbaugh says what so many of us are thinking:
We don’t need exit polling data — only the powers of observation, experience and common sense — to know that many pro-lifers are either single-issue voters or consider abortion to be by far the most important issue.
You can be sure that they won’t vote for McCain if he picks a pro-abortionist running mate. They will not have that blood on their hands; and you can bank on that.
Damn right. If McCain picks a proabort running mate, then I am done with him. The only thing worse than an Obama presidency is sending a signal to the GOP that having proabortion politicians as leaders of our party will be tolerated by the prolife community. And if it takes four years in the wilderness to teach the GOP elite this hard lesson, then so be it. They tried to screw us with Rudy, and now they’re pushing to have Ridge on the ticket. These New York and D.C. folks need to understand that while they may run the party, we control it. And we’re perfectly willing to burn the ship on principle.
What kind of “Catholic” sneers dismissively at an evangelical pastor for fully accepting the Church’s fundamental, non-negotiable teaching on abortion?
Erick Erickson has the details.
Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
(For alternative images, see below the fold) (more…)
Senator Barack Obama, from last night’s Saddleback Valley Civil Forum on the Presidency:
“We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”
First, it’s not Matthew’s precept. It’s Jesus’ precept, which appears in the Gospel of Matthew (25: 40). Second, the context of Matthew 25 is the Last Judgment at which the Son of Man separates the sheep from the goats, with the latter going to eternal punishment and the former to eternal life. Third, it is telling what Christ in fact says about the goats (v. 41-43 - NIV):
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
When Senator Obama, while in the Illinois senate, had the opportunity to require by law that medical professionals provide nutrition (something to eat), hydration (drink), protection (clothes), and shelter (inviting them in) to the smallest and most vulnerable strangers of all, the true “least of these,” newborns who had survived abortions, Senator Obama stood with the goats.
Soren has the details over at RedState.
Update: David Freddoso has more here.
Courtesy of Media Monitoring Suite:
REV. WARREN: let’s go into the tough ones. that was just a gimme. let’s deal with abortion. i as a pastor have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the different decisions. 40 million abortions since roe v. wade. some people, people who believe that life begins at conception believe that’s a holocaust for many people. what point is a baby entitled to human rights?
SEN. McCAIN: at the moment of conception. i have a 25-year pro-life record in the congress, in the senate, and as president of the united states, i will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. that’s my commitment. that’s my commitment to you.
Update: Ed Morrissey rips into Obama’s non-answer to Warren’s question of when life begins.
Obama totally dodged Warren’s question about abortion: “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Obama’s answer: “That’s above my pay grade.”
No, Obama, that is the basic issue. It’s cowardly not to answer that question. Warren also asked him if he’s ever voted to restrict abortion in any way. Of course he has not. He never has. He said he’d be against partial-birth abortion as long as there was an excuse for the health of a mother — but of course that exception, insofar as it includes mental health, obviates the effect of the legislation.
Obama is radically pro-abortion. There really isn’t any other way to see it. At least none that makes sense to me. He told Warren that he had friendly pro-life language inserted into the Democratic Party platform, but as Ross Douthat and Steve Waldman have pointed out, the Democratic platform committee gave pro-lifers bupkis.
Paging Team McCain: This is the type of ad you should run in the near future. Americans need to know about Senator Obama’s extreme views on abortion and his unwavering support for infanticide. To put it bluntly, the man is a monster, and he must be stopped. And the best way to do that is to shine a light on Obama’s callous disregard for the most vulnerable members of our society–the unborn and “just unborn”:
(LvDC)
Apparently, the proabort wing of the Democratic Party–i.e., the overwhelming majority of its party members–is thrilled (see 4:17 to 5:35) with the “compromise language” crafted by folks like Professor Kmiec.
Much is being made of Senator McCain’s comment that Tom Ridge’s proabortion views do not necessarily rule him out as a potential running mate. And in many respects, I can appreciate Policraticus’s reaction. It goes without saying that Senator McCain was not my first choice, and his pro-life record is certainly far from perfect (albeit light years ahead of Senator “Born Alive” Obama’s abysmal record on culture-of-life issues). That having been said, I have been repeatedly assured by the McCain folks that the good senator will choose a pro-life veep.
So fedster, you might ask, then why is McCain saying that Ridge’s proabortion views aren’t necessarily a disqualifier to serve as his vice president? Well, my guess is that Senator McCain is holding out this remote possibility to appeal to socially liberal Republicans and independents (i.e., throwing them a bone without actually giving them one). A politician acting political? Yes, I know. It’s quite shocking.
But hey, it’s certainly possible that Senator McCain will choose a proabort like Ridge as his running mate, and, in turn, hand the election to Senator Obama on a silver platter. If he does, then so be it. I’ll roast marshmallows while Rome burns.
Oh, and for the record, I will not support any presidential ticket that includes a candidate with proabortion views. Indeed, I will actively oppose same. My loyalty to the Republican Party has its limits. I strongly suggest that Senator McCain refrain from testing those limits any further.
David Freddoso has today’s must-read piece. Here’s the money quote:
Given Obama’s position on babies born alive, it should come as no surprise that he opposes and denounces all restrictions on every kind of abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He promised at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007 that “the first thing” he will do as president — his top priority for the nation — is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions.
No humanitarian impulse or consideration of bipartisanship has every swayed Barack Obama’s legislative mind on the issue of abortion. Pro-life voters who try to convince themselves otherwise engage in willful self-deception.
You can view it here.
And Morning’s Minion (right on cue), explains why this ad–just like every other McCain ad–is “racist” and demonstrates that the McCain campaign is sinking even further “into depravity.”
If only Morning’s Minion got this exercised about the denial of basic medical care to children who survive abortions. Alas, we shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. Consider this response by Mr. Minion when one of his own co-bloggers presents him with evidence that his dearly beloved Obamamessiah is not only a radical proabort, but a liar to boot:
The National Right to Life Committee? Give me a break. Since when did they have an ounce of credibility? I remember once seeing pro-nuclear bombing Phyllis Schlafly at one of their events. These are the people who oppose universal health insurance, on the grounds that it promotes euthanasia (huh?). These are the people who invite Karl Rove– the man who opened the doors to those who supported forced abortion and sex slavery–in Washington. So please, if you want to oppose Obama for his stance on abortion, do not shoot yourself in the foot by appealing this this bunch of horrendous hypocrites.
But he’s not partisan, folks. No, not partisan at all.
to adequately describe just how deeply disappointed I am in Professor Kmiec’s uncritical, “gushing” support of Senator Obama.
What will it take for you to see the light, professor? A picture of Obama actually peforming an abortion? Is it not enough that this monster voted to deny children who survive an abortion (i.e., are born alive) basic medical care, and then lied about his reasons for doing so? Seriously, what in the Hell is wrong with you?
Update: Jay has more here.
The National Right to Life Committee has the details.
Another thoughtful post by Professor Rick Garnett.
I could not agree more with this editorial by Deacon Keith Fournier. Here’s the money quote:
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.
An excellent post by Peter Kirsanow over at NRO’s Corner. Here’s a taste:
The New York Times has an article today fretting that Obama’s views on abortion may divide Catholics. The piece is notable for a few reasons, but perhaps the most important is that it’s one of the rare times that the mainstream media has referred to Obama’s 2002 vote against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act (”IBILA”) while he was in the Illinois state legislature . . . .
IBILA would’ve extended the same medical care to babies born after surviving an abortion attempt, as is enjoyed by all babies born alive. When a similar measure, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (”BAIPA”) was introduced in the U.S. senate not one senator voted against it. Even NARAL didn’t oppose it . . . . (more…)
One of Murder, Inc.’s very own roughs up a pro-life activist.
LifeSite News has the details.
And what in the heck was my man Brownback doing endorsing Kline’s opponent?
Powered by WordPress
