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:

(more…)

(LvErick)

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)

(more…)

Erick Erickson has the details.

Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Barack Obama: “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”

(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.

(Cross-posted)

Soren has the details over at RedState.

Update: David Freddoso has more here.

Rod nails it:

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.

There is a great article by Fred Thompson about the recent crisis in Georgia and the response of the 2 candidates for President at the Townhall website.  I love the last line:

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.

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.

(LvEE)

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.

Courtesy of First Things:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 14. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 278. What is actual sin? A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.

From Senator Obama:
Q. Do you believe in sin? OBAMA: Yes. Q. What is sin? OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

Not that there is anything to the chatter about Senator Obama’s “Messiah complex,” mind you.

O.k., this is really funny:

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…)

Absolutely.

That’s putting it mildly.

LifeSite News has the details.

And so it begins.

Professor Gerard V. Bradley nails it (as usual):

[Barack Obama's America] is a place where some children born alive in hospitals are persons, and some are not. Some of these babies are entitled to legal protection, and some are not. Some get the best care which today’s hospitals can give to a sick newborn. Some are put into a soiled utility closet at the hospital. Alone. To die.

In Barack Obama’s America, a law which would eradicate this awful inequality, and which would establish that every child born alive is entitled to the protection of law, would be opposed. Repeatedly. As Barack Obama reads the United States Constitution, such a law is “probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny” — even though the Constitution guarantees to every person the equal protection of the law. Obama is quite wrong about the Constitution, thank God. Despite his opposition, many states and the United States have passed “Born-Alive Infants Protection Acts,” precisely to establish the legal equality of all newborn babies. Despite Barack Obama’s arguments that such laws are unconstitutional, none has been invalidated by any court. None will be.

It’s not pretty, folks.

Is it any wonder that Senator Obama is afraid of debating Senator McCain in a town-hall format?

(LvEE)