A Letter To Catholic Democrats

Brothers and Sisters,

The 2008 presidential election is over and done with. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate has won. In unity with all Democrats around America, I am excited about the end of George Bush's presidency. The current president has proved to be a disaster for our country. In regard to President Bush -- I repeat -- no Democrat will find any disagreement with me. However, as a pro-life Catholic, I am terrified by the incoming Obama Administration.

Catholic Democrats are needed now more than ever. I'm not talking about the modern pro-sexual revolution feminist Catholic Democrat, who undoubtedly supported the right candidate, but pro-life traditionalist Catholic Democrats. Why? President Obama has an unprecendented position on abortion that's so extraordinarily horrifying, so unusual, and so scary that it demands immediate attention and the response of the pro-life movement. The agenda that President Obama has promised to deliver would be the greatest blow to the pro-life movement since the 1973 decision to legalize abortion.

With little surprise, the mainstream media glossed over abortion extremism as they literally campaigned for him. I know many of my fellow Catholics in the Democratic Party voted for our party's candidate. I didn't. None of that matters now. What matters now is that we all unite with the single goal of ensuring the common good, which particularly involves opposition to President Obama's agenda on abortion and embryonic stem cell research -- the latter of which, he has already indicated that he is going to reverse Bush's policy and expand efforts and fund the massive killing of embryonic human life with federal tax-payer dollars.

On the issue of abortion, Obama's actions and statements are not only outrageous morally, but they are outrageous by the standards of the Democratic Party. Obama blocked legislation to provide life-saving medical care to babies that survived abortions in an Illinois state version of a bill that soared into law unopposed in the Senate, even by staunch abortion rights' advocates like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Once Obama left the Illinois Senate, the bill unanimously passed in the state legislature. It is no exaggeration to say that the incoming President of our nation preserved a literal form of infanticide.

As if that isn't bad enough, Obama has championed the Freedom of Choice Act which would eradicate every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade. This would effectively -- in one stroke -- wipe out all fully bipartisan initiatives passed by both Democrats and Republicans in legislatures all over America to reasonably restrict abortion. It's pure madness. To "top off" this madness, Obama advocates funding abortion with tax payer dollars through the medium of a national health care plan -- as if healing a human life with medical care is fundamentally no different than destroying one in the act of an abortion.

This just begins the list. Obama doesn't support funding pregnancy crisis centers because they allegedly spread lies about women's health issues and hinder women from making choices about their health -- in essence, they don't promote and encourage abortion the way Planned Parenthood does. The list goes on.

This nightmare couldn't have worse timing. The next president is likely to nominate one or two Supreme Court Justices and the highest ranking court is finally at a tipping point, where the court had McCain won could have been in position to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now it seems that Roe v. Wade might survive another generation or two. This is not good news. Since Roe became law in 1973, in this nation alone nearly 50 million unborn children have perished. This sort of death toll makes American casualities in World War II (300,000 dead Americans) look like a picnic. In fact, the American casualities in Iraq are at best 15 days of abortion. This, of course, isn't to demean any American that has died in war or to devalue the worth of their life. But it does show the extent and seriousness of the attack on unborn human life.

We all bear moral and spiritual responsibility for the decision of America to elect Obama. Some 2,000 years ago, a good people were offered a choice between Life itself and a murderer. They chose Barabbas. Please don’t misunderstand: I’m most definitely not comparing John McCain to Jesus Christ or calling Barack Obama a killer. I’m talking about rejecting rather than choosing a Culture of Death.

We must recognize that abortion is going to be with us for some years to come. The number of years is entirely contigent on the effort we put in to stopping it. We cannot continue falling for the fancy rhetoric and word gymnastics pro-choice Democrats put forth to establish themselves as better in combatting abortion than their Republican foes. It's simply not true. Obama doesn't even support the Pregant Women Support Act advanced by pro-life Democrats. How can he find common ground with Republicans on abortion if he won't even listen to members of his own party?

What we need to realize is the chilling similarities between the arguments for slavery and thosed used to defend abortion and the absolute aburdity in rhetoric that Democrats use, i.e. "reducing the number of abortions" as common ground, as if anyone would agree to leave slavery legal and only reduce the number of slaves. Like today's pro-choicers, slaveholders said they weren't forcing anyone to own slaves. They simply pleaded for the "right" to do what they wanted with their own "property" -- conveniently, blacks didn't meet their criterion for personhood. The word "property," of course, disguised the fact that human lives and the inalienable right to liberty was at stake. The question that pro-choice Americans ask today is similar: "Do we not think a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body?" The question similarly disguises the fact that exercising these so-called "rights" involves the deliberate murder of another human being. The slaveholders' pro-choice argument also lives on in bumper stickers that read: "Against abortion? Don't have one." As if, the slogan "Against slavery? Don't own one" would be in any sense tolerable though the logic is entirely consistent from issue to issue.

For months, I watched as Catholics fell one by one into the temptation of voting for the Democratic candidate despite his pro-choice position. It was all well-crafted and well-protected behind the controversy of "single issue" voting. In doing so, many Catholics (Doug Kmiec) began to qualify Obama's pro-choice position while maintaining that they themselves were "pro-life." The same thing happened n the 2004 presidential election. There was a wave of pro-choice Americans following John Kerry's twisted logic on abortion. As the science rolls in and the facts become impossible to refute, the latest tactic was to shift the focus. Right? They'll concede it is a human life, but it does not constitute a person -- therefore, it doesn't have any rights. This rolls into the dangerous game of defining personhood based on functions. A person, in this view, is a conscious, self-aware, independent, capable rational creature. We can see where this goes in the case of euthanasia and so many other issues, e.g. people who are mentally disabled. It's even present in the argument for slavery when "personhood" conveniently defined only includes whites. Blacks didn't constitute a "whole person" and didn't have rights as a consequence.

We cannot call ourselves Catholics and tolerate this. Abortion is not just one issue among many. It's curious that we are capable of making a distinction -- when pregnancy is embraced, it's obviously a child growing in our midst; yet when it's not wanted, it's a fetus--an instantly different thing.

Those who insist on a vastly improved, compassionate network of support for women are absolute right to do so. But to suggest that the Church herself has advocated anything short of this in both action and in preaching is bogus. The allegations made by progressive Catholics about obsessive "single-issue voting" driven by some pelvic theology is junk. No one is voting on a single issue, but there is one issue that is so fundamentally evil that it constitutes a decisive opposition to a candidate endorsing it -- in the same way, the same people attacking pro-life Catholics voting against pro-choice candidates themselves would not vote for a racist candidate no matter what, nor would they vote for a pro-slavery candidate, nor would they support a pro-Final Solution genocide of the Jews candidate. Yet, when a candidate supports the federal (as well as international) funded, systematic genocide of unborn children, issues of minimum wage and the economy are of paramount importance as if human life can be priced.

The singular issue of the right-to-life is the cornerstone of all human rights. We, Catholics, are not "single-issue voters." But we cannot deny that there is one issue, without which, the ennobling others have no hope of any stability. Building a society on the right to "choice" instead of the right to life is like building a house on sand.

President Obama has been called the personification of the hope and change we all need. That's not true. The hope and change we need already came. It's the Wisdom personified that was foretold in the Old Testament. The Wisdom of God -- the Logos -- God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.

We Catholics have so much to contribute to the unfolding American political experiment -- far more than we tend to imagine -- because we bring the mercy and justice of God to society. When Americans are as ashamed of abortion as we now are of slavery, the battle will be won. I'm in trenches as a pro-life Catholic fighting for the soul of our party. Will you join me?

- Just Another Catholic Democrat

National Right to Life Exposes Obama

Obama Distorts His Abortion Record In Third Debate

WASHINGTON -- "On partial-birth abortion and on the rights of infants who survive abortions, Barack Obama's answers in the third presidential debate were highly misleading," commented Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life organization.

-- The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary sources.

-- Because 720 ILCS 510.6 gives complete discretion to the abortionist himself, and because a 1993 consent decree issued by a federal court nullified key provisions (such as the definition of "born alive"), the law was so riddled with loopholes as to be virtually unenforceable even with respect to babies who had clearly achieved the capacity for long-term survival. During Obama's time in the state Senate there were bills (other than the BAIPA) to close some of these loopholes in order to provide more effective protections for post-viable abortion survivors. Obama opposed those bills, too. On April 4, 2002, Obama opposed a bill (SB 1663) that would have more strictly defined the circumstances under which the presence of a second physician (to care for a live-born baby) would be required during a post-viability abortion; Obama argued that this would "burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . [I]t’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."

-- In the debate, Obama said that the state BAIPA "would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade." To evaluate this claim, one must examine the actual language of the BAIPAs. The original 2001 bill was only three sentences long; the third sentence was as follows: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." As recently as August 19, 2008, the Obama campaign issued a memo in which it singled out that sentence as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." This claim is consistent with Obama's 2001 argument that a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a person, even when born alive.

-- At the March 13, 2003 committee meeting over which Obama presided, the "immediate protection" clause was removed and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied from the federal BAIPA, which said explicitly that the bill had no bearing on the legal status of any human "prior to being being born alive." Obama then led the committee Democrats in voting down the bill, anyway. For years afterwards, Obama claimed that the state BAIPA had lacked the "neutrality clause," and on August 16, 2008, Obama said that NRLC was "lying" when we said otherwise. This dispute was reviewed by both FactCheck.org and Politifact.org, both of which came down on NRLC's side. To read the original 2001 Illinois BAIPA side-by-side with the amended 2003 version -- both of which Obama voted against -- click here.

-- In the presidential debate, Senator John McCain accurately noted that Obama had opposed Illinois legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. This is true -- indeed, during his primary contest with Hillary Clinton, Obama's supporters presented detailed accounts lauding his leadership in opposing legislation to ban partial-birth abortion, afford legal protection to born-alive babies, and require parental notification for abortion. (Under Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution, the effect of voting "present" on the Illinois Senate floor is exactly the same as voting "no.") In his response to McCain in the debate, Obama said, "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception." Here, Obama packed two distortions into a single sentence. First, Obama is using the phrase "late term" to refer to the third trimester of pregnancy. It has long been established that the great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months; these are babies developed enough to be born alive (hence the term "partial birth"), but are not "late term" in the sense that the phrase is used by pro-abortion advocates. Secondly, the Supreme Court has defined the term "health" to include, in the abortion context, "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient."

-- Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) (S. 1173), which would nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion before "viability" (as defined by the abortionist). The bill would also nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion after viability if deemed to enhance "health." Because the term "health" is not qualified in the bill, no state would be allowed to exclude any "health" justification whatever for post-viability abortions, because to do so would impermissibly narrow a federally guaranteed right. In short, the FOCA would establish a federal "abortion right" broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." The chief sponsors and advocacy groups backing the legislation have acknowledged that it would make partial-birth abortion legal again, nullify state parental notification laws, and require the state and federal governments to fund abortions.

-- Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

-- In the presidential debate, Obama said, "But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together" -- for example, by "helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Yet, Obama advocates cutting off all federal aid to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). Across the nation, CPCs provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. There is a very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's written response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."

********************************

From 'Reproductive Reality Check' (a pro-choice advocacy group) -- the following questions were answered by the Obama campaign.

How does Sen. Obama's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?

Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service -- just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan. [In other words, Obama will fund abortion as 'healthcare' undermining the Hyde Amendment]

Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

Obama does not support the Hyde amendment (which banned government funding of abortion with tax payer dollars). He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?

No.

If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?

Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA (funding abortions overseas with American tax dollars).

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion

It’s often said that “nobody is pro-abortion.” In fact, this was uttered by Senator Barack Obama at the last presidential debate. Perhaps no one is, though admittedly people’s political actions make a hard case for this proposition. Nevertheless, I think a careful distinction needs to be made between ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-abortion.’ It isn’t bogus to think so, either.

These are two distinct positions, both of which are contrary to Catholic teaching on the matter of abortion. The ‘pro-choice’ position is rooted in moral relativism and thus, posits no judgment on the moral good or evil of the act of abortion. At best, a ‘pro-choice’ position will concede that grappling with the decision to have an abortion, or worse, having one is a position no woman desires to find herself in, thus we should reduce the number of abortions. This is the point where their argument breaks down. The lack of objectivity hinders a ‘pro-choice’ individual from framing in any meaningful way their personal opposition that cannot be imposed or any reason why we should really commit ourselves to limiting the number of abortions. Either way, this position holds abortion should be left legal so that those who choose it may do so.

The ‘pro-abortion’ position views abortion not only as a legal right, but as morally good either as a means or an end in and of itself. Margaret Sanger is arguably pro-abortion because it was the mechanism by which she wished to eliminate black people. Someone who is ‘pro-abortion’ may see it as a means of population control, which is allegedly a problem, and so forth.

Both positions are absurd, but there is a subtle difference between the two and perhaps the fundamental difference is one’s intention, though the end often remains the same.

I think any good Catholic should be aware of this, particularly in dialogue with someone who is pro-choice. Christ preached charity and compassion. If we cannot dialogue with our brothers and sisters who are profoundly mistaken without labeling them as ‘baby killers’ or ‘pro-abortion’ explicitly (though it may otherwise be true), we are in some ways alienating those who may be receptive to the pro-life message if it is presented in a kind, understanding way, e.g. understanding a ‘pro-choice’ person’s concern for the woman involved, but calmly (I can’t emphasize this enough) explaining why being pro-woman is truly to be pro-life and that society should be pro-motherhood so that no woman feels she is incapable of welcoming her child into this world.

This is a fundamental element missing from the abortion debate. There is profound temptation to attack the other side or worse, respond to their attacks with even more disdain. A house divided against itself will not stand nor will it save unborn children. Are we in this for our pride or to save unborn human life?