These pro-Obama people and "Catholics" like Doug Kmiec are doing a great disservice to the Right to Life movement in this country.

"They are trying to muddy the water and make the abortion issue go away in this election."

To quote another well-known pro-choice politician, suggesting that Obama is pro-life requires a willing suspension of disbelief. And this after his attack on Gianna Jessen for simply telling her story. What a disgrace!

This is getting more pathetic everyday. I am getting very discouraged.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!

--Isaiah 5:20-21

Once upon a time in New Jersey, a candidate for deacon,Deacon "J",who happened to be a lawyer,was nominated by the governor for a judgeship. Deacon J had been a local mayor, and garnered headlines when he refused to perform civil unions,the New Jersey equivalent of gay marriage. But when asked at his judicial confirmation hearings about this, Deacon J was quick to point out that as a judge, he would follow the law and perform civil unions.
Deacon J is no longer a candidate for the holy order, having chosen the world.Kmiec? Some say he seeks a federal judgeship, others Obama's ambassador to the Vatican should he win.Kmiec's price? Cover for the candidate of infanticide and partial birth abortion.If this doesn't put him beyond the pale, what will it take?

When Deal is an advisor to the McCain campaign. Let's look at this objectively. Barack Obama's social policies--from poverty reduction (or elimination in an ideal world), education, health care, labor standards and immigration policy much more neatly fit within the guidelines of Catholic Social Teaching than McCain's. In other words, Obama's social policy is one based on social justice; McCain's is based on the false ideology of the free market. On abortion, Obama's stance does not match the church's. Obama is not pro-abortion any more than McCain, in the sense that no one is pro-abortion. However, Obama has shifted the Democratic party to focus on abortion reduction, which is surely better than not focusing on abortion reduction. On stem cell research, McCain is equally out of step with church teaching than Obama. The real question is whether the concerns over Obama's abortion record justify going against what is a compelling case for Obama on social teaching grounds. There is no right answer to that question in the church's eyes. Some rogue bishops may take that position and Deal Hudson reports on each and every one of them here--but it's still a tiny minority of Bishops who do. The real answer is that Catholics should vote for who is best, on balance, for the country. Barack Obama's domestic agenda alone, not to mention his much more Catholic approach to diplomacy and foreign affairs, justify a Catholic voting for him. That's what I plan to do and I feel justified in God's eyes for doing it.

Hudson is a GOP advisor and unfortunately his role as editor of this site has devolved into Catholic GOP attack dog. He regularly lets loose hyperbole like "The candidate Kmiec is touting as pro-life is the most extreme pro-abortion presidential nominee in the history of American politics" knowing full well that terms like "pro-abortion" are deeply misleading. Let's hope he is also aware that abortion hasn't been a political issue since the founding of the republic: it's been a wedge issue conceived by likes of Nixon-era Pat Buchanan, expressly to divide voters politically, not to faithfully represent Catholic morality. It is fully within reason to support Obama from a pro-life perspective, given the ethics of mercy and care and stewardship discernible in a diversity of his proposals, ranging from health care to immigration to foreign policy. The policies put forth by Sen. McCain align closely with those of Bush, whose calamitous foreign policy and merciless economic policy (to name a few) stand in violent contrast with the lion's share of Catholic teaching.

Catholics should vote for the candidate who is best, on balance, for the country, in the event that no Culture of Life candidate is available. One is available. Life is the only non-murky issue here. Who the heck knows about immigration, health care, etc? Maybe Obama is right about these. I don't really think he is, but it's debatable. Abortion, however, is murder. And by the by, Obama thinks that a little abortion survivor should be left exposed and alone in some room until he dies. That's not just one of those things, boy it's unfortunate, not exactly in line with the Church, blah, blah, blah--it's Monstrous.

I am not sure that it is a "tiny minority" of bishops who hold this view. It is just that too many do not have the courage to speak out against the Obamanation. Obama is more of a socialist than someone who supports the Church's view of social justice.....given that the Church clearly states that the act of abortion is the greatest violation of her belief in social justice.

Colin, I have read your position, one which I note largely coming from Catholic men, though they don't hold the patent. I wonder if the "we've lost on abortion, let's move on" position that I now see articulated by faithful Catholics who truly despise abortion understand fully the ground you are conceding, the direction you are headed. Many of you have stood beside a wife birthing a child - but I wonder how many have stood beside a lover aborting a baby? The fact is that women are left, as John Paul II so caringly observed, alone, all alone. That's the only way I can understand Catholic men like you supporting Mr. Obama's radical abortion agenda - you simply don't grasp the violence being done to women and the unborn behind doors men rarely breach. Mother Teresa warned of the great evil that flows from a society which leaves women pregnant, alone, unsupported, without except, if Mr. Obama gets his way, fully subsidized, unrestricted abortions. Catholic men who are convinced that the violence in Iraq warrants a vote against a supporter of that war have either hardened their hearts to the violence done 4000 times a day since Roe v. Wade in the US abortion clinics, or simply don't understand the sheer violence inherent in each and every abortion. Look at www.abortionchangesyou.com. Abortion is inherently grave violence that breeds despair and, more, hardened sensibilities toward our fellow beings. Yielding that ground, abandoning the unborn and women, neatly and effectively sets the stage for forms of violence we can barely anticipate. First it's the unborn and embryos. Next, it's the terminally ill and suidical and anybody who really wants to die right now. A prominent English woman only this week extended the logic to patients with dementia. It's a very dangerous slope I see some Catholics tilted to travel. I urge you Colin and all Catholic men not to abandon women and the unborn - and all of the "burdensome" lives who stand next in order of inconvenience for societal subsidies to terminate.

Obama doesn't think or do what Andrea claims. That's more execrable right-wing Catholic spin, likely passed around in little chain e-mails and quaint blogs. If someone of intelligence can truly believe that a candidate for president, a former lecturer on the Constitution, believes that a human being in need of medical care should be refused that care, well, I don't know what to tell you. NOBODY BELIEVES THAT. Certainly no politician, on either side, and certainly not Sen. Obama. The fact that so many Catholics are so credulous and so easily manipulated by Republican distortions (esp. about BAIPA) is disturbing in the extreme. That these folks vote is the real monstrosity.

Pat Buchanan invented the issue of abortion??? Tell that to the millions of Catholics in America who pray, fast, organize, work, etc. to bring an end to this horrendous practice. They truly represent Catholic morality. Your words do not make it otherwise!

[quote=Roque]Obama doesn't think or do what Andrea claims. That's more execrable right-wing Catholic spin, likely passed around in little chain e-mails and quaint blogs. If someone of intelligence can truly believe that a candidate for president, a former lecturer on the Constitution, believes that a human being in need of medical care should be refused that care, well, I don't know what to tell you. NOBODY BELIEVES THAT. /quote]

Dear Human Being Roque,
Andrea's statement is not inaccurate. The "human being in need of medical care" was a male, Down syndrome baby who the abortion practioner anticipated was pre-viable and would die during the induced, birth abortion. He did not. Jill Stanek, a nurse at that time, took the child into her arms, because the parents were unwilling, and stayed with him while he died. I recall that was about 45 minutes - but I could be wrong. Because the "human being in need of medical care" was supposed to be an "abortion" who failed to die, the child was being placed into a storage closet to complete the "abortion". Barack Obama has consistently refused to support Born Alive legislation that would prevent this practice. Andrea is simply relating information available from any number of sources. But www.bornalivetruth.org is a good starting point.

Roque:

If you are interested in learning the truth, which your comments do not seem to indicate, please check the website for the National Right to Life: www.nrlc.org for a clarification of Obama's REAL position on abortion & infanticide. After they exposed him, he called them liars--but FactCheck.org verified their claims. Obama,of course, will not apologize for his slander of the National Right to Life...he will never apologize for any of the lies he tells because in his mind--and the minds of those who support him blindly--he can do no wrong. May God have mercy on America if this man becomes President--we're going to need it.

There are Catholic men who support women and children regardless of circumstance. Some of these same Catholic men oppose abortion in all cases, but they recognize that abortion as a political issue is different from the slaughter of the unborn. Abortion has become mere political capital and as such has no bearing on saving the lives of the unborn.

It seems that some Catholic women (and others) have become convinced that supporting pro-life political candidates will cause an end to abortion. I urge Catholic women (and others) to abandon this illusion.

Basically this is the deal:

Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed Congress and required doctors to provide medical care to any child born as the result of an extremely rare type of abortion procedure. Senator Obama opposed a state version of this legislation in Illinois because it was redundant to an existing state law that had been on the books for 20 years and had already required such medical care, it was drafted in a way that would have rendered it unconstitutional, and it was even opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society (Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04). For a full legislative recount of the Born Alive legislation in the Illinois State Senate, see Eric Zorn's chronology in the Chicago Tribune .

This state bill wasn't about addressing the root causes of abortion, but rather creating a political wedge to divide voters.

RK, I am a Catholic woman who supports pro-life candidates. I am not ready to characterize as "illusion" the facts that legalized abortion has resulted in (1) the slaughter of the unborn, (2) the abandonment of paternal responsibility and (3)the withdrawal of societal support often needed for both birthing and raising a child. I am not ready to characterize as "illusion" the fact that broad domestic and worldwide subsidies for "abortion services", often far more generous than, if any, prenatal care subsidies, will further these same "results". Also, I am not ready to characterize as "illusion" the emotional pain and physical consequences of the killing practice called abortion that I have witnessed since Roe v. Wade. More, I am not ready to characterize as "illusion" the growth of a multi-million dollar industry that advertises, sells and delivers abortions, disproportionately to poor, minority women. I cannot dismiss as "illusion" the money that will be captured by this industry from worldwide government subsidies. RK, it's like calling lung cancer an "illusion" from the production and sale of tobacco products. All of these factors respond to the state of the law, RK, which expresses our cultural expectations and limits. Don't give up, RK.

Roque, it has already been established by National Right to Life, behind any doubt, that Obama voted against the federal version of the bill in the Illinois State legislature in 2003. You can go the their web site and look at the bill and his vote, both on paper.

Let's use a little common sense, kathy. Abortion wasn't invented by Pat Buchanan, fortunately, but the concept of abortion-as-divisive-tactic was cynically included in the man's 1971 "Dividing the Democrats" memo to Nixon about so-called positive polarization. In other words: cleaving the country apart solely for Republican political gain. This is as nihilistic as it gets, and should be an affront to any practicing Catholic. Below is George Packer's account:

Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in “the Old Roosevelt Coalition,” it recommended that the White House “exacerbate the ideological division” between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon’s policies; highlight “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party”; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

No, you are wrong Roque. This has been worked over in the media, and I see that you are aware despite your earlier allegations that Andrea posted "falsehoods". I think the best bottom line on this issue appears at http://www.factcheck.org - search Obama and infantcide. BTW, I would agree that Mr. Obama has not advocated "infantcide" in the sense that ethics philosopher Peter Singer might advocate - that a mother could kill an live infant that she determined she did not want based upon factors she learned after the child's birth. Mr. Obama appears to have taken that position that falls a tad short of that. He has taken the position that it is ethically acceptable to complete an intended abortion when the child is unexpectedly born alive by withholding medical care and seeing if the child will die. There is a difference - not a big one and certainly not a difference that would endure.

This is unbelievable.

One version of BAIPA was redundant and (maybe) not constitutional, but then they rewrote the bill to exactly the same wording as the federal bill, which he claims to have agreed with, and he still voted against it.

Also, he says he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This odious piece of legislation is the executive branch's overkill weapon to wipe out all the progress the pro-life movement has made over the last thirty years. It could overturn the partial birth abortion ban. It would negate all disclosure laws. It would also make it illegal to require parental consent for teenagers to have abortions. Say whatever you want about privacy - teenagers cannot get tattoos, piercings, or even aspirin from a school nurse, but they can get abortions? These limitations are the only shred of control the states have over what should be a state issue anyway. Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because it tramples over states' rights.

Also, there are plenty of "peace and justice" type social issues that Obama is weak on. When his business taxes cause widespread unemployment, you really think the government will be able to afford to care for them? A welfare state is an affront to human dignity. That doesn't mean you don't have programs to care for the poor, it just means that you don't create equality by lowering everybody's standard of living.

If someone can show a position of McCain's that is as un-pro-life as abortion on demand, I'd love to see it.

Marjorie, I am a Catholic man who doesn't support pro-life candidates. I find nothing disagreeable about your points (1), (2) and (3). In fact, I agree with almost every one of your other points too. But you seem to believe that those points necessarily lead one to support candidates who tell you they are pro-life. That's where we'll have to agree to part company.

From my experience, claiming to oppose abortion is a convenient way for republican candidates to drum up passionate support from pro-lifers. This is a campaign ploy and that's where the illusion lies. With all due respect to the decent pro-life folks, I think it's pretty much a waste of time to support these candidates. Abortion continues unabated despite almost forty years of political shenanigans.

Facing facts is not giving up. On the contrary, it's where becoming productive really begins.

Planned Parenthood wants Barack Obama to win.

Why?

To increase the number of abortions, the sale of contraception, sterilizations, promotion of sex education contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church AND to promote universal health care of which abortion would be paid for by the taxpayers.

If you want Barack Obama - you want Planned Parenthood in your school and in your pocketbook.

If you support Obama you are a bigger fool than you will ever know.

Marjorie, you are right that some people just want to quit. Well tell that to the 50 million dead babies. Tell that to the women I meet who have been physically harmed by Planned Parenthood.

I would contend that all of these Obama apologists have not lifted a finger to REALLY help the women and children. Otherwise there would be no question as to their efforts. as for Kmiec, what is he being paid by the Obama campaign (30 pieces of silver to sell out the least of these our brethren). We have seen our Benedict Arnold of the Pro-life movement.

It disgusts me.

Especially when I think about the story of a tragedy recently caused by Planned Parenthood.

you apologists for Obama have no idea what you are wishing for this country. You are the reflections of the "good Germans" who voted in the 1932 elections for the fellow called Adolf and unleashed the demons from hell.

Roque,
I did not say that Pat Buchanan invented abortion. I was quoting YOU when you said he invented the ISSUE of abortion.

Thank you Marjorie, Clare and John. You all said it much
better than I could.

I've wondered why Kmiec has switched his allegiance to the Party of Death. He has gone from one extreme position (support for Reagan) to the opposite extreme (support of Obama's party of extreme liberalism). Hmm, me thinks he likes to ride on the shirtails of power,i.e.switches to whoever happens to be in power or will be in power. Could it be he's hoping to get a position in the Obama administration? He feels pretty confident Obama will win the White House. Many orthodox Catholics have lost respect for Kmiec - they see him as a turn coat by abandoning pro-life for a shot at a job with Obama. His actions are totally disgusting. He feels giving comfort to the living is more pro-life than helping innocent babies be born alive and not be riped from limb to limb for the convenience of the mother/society! His logic makes no sense to me! The liberal Catholics (I call them "cultural" Catholics) love to quote the social doctrine of the church, e.g.beware when you hear them spit out phases like "the dignity of work, etc" Would someone please pound into their heads that not all issues carry the same moral weight in Catholic doctrine. Or are they just desperately trying to win the Catholic vote for Obama who is totally the opposite for what Catholism stands for??

Marjorie:
As a man, I beg to differ with you. Yes, perhaps we men can be lumped together and stereotyped on some things, but I think you've made a big stretch to lump us together on abortion. In my experience, Colin is the exception, not the rule. In my conversations with other Catholic men about this issue the vast majority have expressed opinions far from what I would term as ones that "abandon women," as you say. On the contrary, the vast majority go by the Book -- abortion is murder, plain and simple, and goes against Catholic teaching.

Lest you think I'm in total disagreement with you, I think your other posts have been right on target. Love the "Illusion" response. Thanks for your passion.

Marjorie, please don't pretend to speak for me, or for Catholic men in general. It's insulting. Especially when we agree on the utter tragedy of abortion and the despair connected to it. Certainly I've met plenty of Catholic women who are as fatigued as Colin is about the vulgar politicization of abortion. One of the key areas where we all disagree with you, Marjorie, is on the proper way to address and redress abortion, which has been shown to have roots in concrete, economic despair. Obama wants to attack the economic causes, among many other causes, and to furnish the education and health care and adoption apparatus and support systems that will prevent women from resorting to abortion. We who see Obama as the true pro-life candidate are hardly trying to prop up some kind of fantastical baby-killing industry, or to make infanticide some sort of modern convenience, which many right-wing Catholics seem to perversely imagine. We also are unwilling to let Republicans continue to manipulate the Catholic vote by pressing the abortion button whenever it's electorally helpful.

To Mr. Hudson and everyone else citing NRTL's accusations as some sort of deathless verity about Obama's record: they are misleading. Simply by pointing to papers from committee proceedings and the like, they want to present their case as objective. The fact is that their interpretations of the documents willfully distort the actual text in order to falsely support the anti-Obama rhetoric they are committed to. The federal bill still had a far different effect on law at the federal level than the state bill would have had on the state level. That is a fact that is reflected in the bipartisan support for this profoundly imperfect piece of legislation.

Relatedly, one has to wonder why NRTL, which pretends to objectivity, to favoring issues (especially the "non-negotiables") over candidates, isn't plotting a campaign against McCain on his stem-cell support? Why was Karl Rove at the NRTL meeting in VA? Clearly the organization, much like Hudson and his publications, are plainly committed to the Republican agendas over their Catholic faiths. And it's too bad.

It bothers me that the emphasis Christ gave to the so called social issues in the Gospels is so devalued by so many on this site. My reading of his words show an equal concern for all these issues, including nonviolence, and my conscience in regard to voting has been formed accordingly.

As to the repetition of the infanticide slander, I suggest applying some simple logic and common sense.

Annenberg's fact check states "there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony."

Since the laws he voted against neither added to nor reduced the protections already in place, how can his votes be considered supporting infanticide?

Further, isn't the Commandment against false statements still in effect?

Savannah,

Read up on Annenberg before you use that source for a "fact check."

Interesting piece over on Beliefnet...relating to this.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3phq2g

Interesting piece over on Beliefnet...relating to this.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3phq2g

You say Planned Parenthood wants.....



You're wrong. Dead wrong. Planned Parenthood will always tell you they want to reduce abortions. In this way they're no different than the pro-life movement and herein lies the contradiction inherent to pro-lifers. The more important issue is contraception but nobody, including most of the clergy have the courage to talk about it.

RK, Do you believe this? It's like the tobacco industry assuring the world they are just trying to reduce smoking. I cannot take seriously claims from Mr. Obama that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, while he simultaneously promises to expand and fund unrestricted abortion services and has yet to say "no" to any position taken by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Even Doug Kmiec recognizes how profoundly objectionable the pending FOCA legislation - but he has decided to ignore this massive assault on the women and the unborn. He was one of the "Catholic Men" I referred to in my earlier post.

Jonathan - just skimmed the piece you recommended. Kmiec is wishful thinking. Obama is so slippery on this issue, he can't be pinned down. Kmiec "imagines" Obama's views are one way, he "believes" something said about Obama may be an overstatement, he says Obama has "signalled" clear and strong support for something else, says Obama wants to "restrict" late term abortion...there is no COMMITMENT to the cause whatsoever on Obama's part.

RK - The MOST important CATHOLIC aspect to the abortion issue that no one talks about is sexuality, not contraception.

I agree with you that false promises have been made by "pro-life" Republicans for years, and it is discouraging. So don't vote for pro-life candidates. But for heaven's sake, don't vote for Obama instead. Put the politics aside and remember, this is THE DEFINING ISSUE of our time.

Who gets to live and who doesn't? And who decides?

Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. And whether they mean it or not is not my concern here. The point is that they have laid claim on the same rhetorical ground that is the sole claim of the pro-life movement.

Abortion is a component of the contraceptive mindset. But the pro-life movement refuses to consider it in that light. Why? Because there's no better way to clear out a room.....or a church. A large percentage of church going Americans (including many Catholics and Protestants that are active pro-lifers) practice birth control. So the focus and the hand wringing is limited to fighting abortion. I guess it makes people feel good about themselves to be vehemently against abortion even though they themselves are avoiding pregnancy, albeit in a less grisly form than those who abort. To appropriate your analogy, it's like urging people to quit smoking because it causes cancer but giving them chewing tobacco.

Meg, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean promiscuity then, sure, that's a problem. But it ignores the widespread use of birth control by married couples. Or to put it another way, married Catholic couples are avoiding inconvenient pregnancies by practicing birth control. How is the motivation any different than the woman who aborts?

Just reading and applying the Gospel message, which is straight talk rather than convoluted arguments.

More than ever Chesterton's observation "The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting but that it has not been tried" seems relevant.

Ten Bucks says Roque works on the Obama campaign. These nuts are everywhere on comment fields (not just on this issue) twisting facts for their employer. The Obama camp has made it very clear they are targeting Catholics, and unfortunately some of the easily persuaded ones are buying into the twisted lies posted on blogs and news articles.

Savannah,

All I said was study up about Annenberg before you start trusting them for your "fact checks."

This is sounds like a classic dis-information effort worthy of the KGB or other groups in the cold war.

"Truly you have formed my inmost being;you knit me in my mother's womb.I give you thanks that I am fearfully,wonderfully made;wonderful are your works."Psalm 139."Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception."Catechism 2270.Heresy:pertinacious denial of any of the truths that must be beleived with divine and Catholic faith.Modern Catholic Dictionary 1980.

"Their determination to sell Obama to pro-life voters is admirable, while being completely ludicrous."--Deal Hudson

"Admirable"????? In the sense that Hitler's use of the word "relocation" for shipping people off to death camps was "admirable"?

With all due respect: What a bizarre word to choose.

This is baloney! Obama is definitely not pro-life.

If you want someone pro-life, check out Chuck Baldwin.
http://baldwin08.com/

What with...

- The "Alpha, Omega" chanting kids in one video; and,
- The Seattle musicians making up a song celebrating the coming of Obama as the start of some Aquarian transformation; and,
- Those kids singing that choral hymn to Obama on YouTube; and,
- That Smith College student editorial that amounts to a profession of faith in Obama; and,
- Media types getting "tingles" in their legs; and,
- all the other hagiography;

...is it fair to say the Catholic Bishops should come out and instruct Catholics not to vote for Obama because to do so encourages a new and disturbing trend in idol worship?

Up until the videos of the children, I wouldn't have said that. Or, I might have, but it would have been entirely facetious.

But now?

Did Jim Jones boast such a following? Did Sun Myung Moon draw such widely-distributed expressions of hyperdulia? I'd like to hear this as the topic of Sunday homilies. It's getting where people need formal instruction in how to differentiate between Obama and God.

I'm not wasting my time on this post if.....you won't even post what is submitted. Didn't think Roque could take what he dishes out??

If you're going to litter an otherwise acceptable post with personal attacks on other commenters ("a liar from the beginning," "selfish," "Anti-Catholic," "deluded not intelligent," "Satan's disciples," "not unlike a serial killer,"), then yes, we're going to remove it.

Your arguments are fine, but you need to have another look at our posting guidelines. "Avoid personal attacks." It's an unnecessary distraction from your more substantive points.

<i>his claims on behalf of his candidate grow ever larger</i>

Consonant with the growth of his nose?

Thank you for your correction; I will guard & watch personal comparisons more closely although I thought Roque's comment in one of the posts, in a broad sense, attacked every person who did not agree with his opinion--that they should not be allowed even to vote. His insinuation seemed quite an arrogant statement. I at least, did not suggest sequestering his right to vote no matter how much in disagreement with his views.

Rose

Obama words:
we’ve got ten billion dollars a month to fight a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. We can find the money to make sure our daughters have the same rights as our sons.”
Obama speaking to PP on tax-payer funded abortion
http://tinyurl.com/3j86yx

States that pay for more abortions end up having more abortions done. Heres examples of the 2 highest State funded abortions,California and New York.
CA had over 200,000 abortions and NY 121,278 in 2006.
Guttmachers: CA 94,602 and NY it says only 34,824(NY number is wrong on Guttenmacher link: actual amount 47,071,found in NY link)p27:
http://tinyurl.com/4dzwyy

IN NY 2506 unborn babies were killed 20+ weeks, 3804 females had 5 or more previous abortions.
http://tinyurl.com/4awqtx

Heres the latest report for year 2005 Taxfunded abortions in CA:
http://tinyurl.com/3mtwvg
which paid for 94,602 abortions.

Barack Obama has promised to sign in FOCA into law which is a possiblity because of the Democrat Majority! This would turn over all restrictions on abortions which includes the Partial Birth Abortion Ban(Obama is against the Ban on PBA)
Legal Analysis of FOCA by the USCCB Office of General
Counsel
http://tinyurl.com/3qs3sd

Obama has voted against parental notification laws which are shown to reduce abortions in teens. If doctors cant even give a child aspirin without parents permission why can they do medical procedures and give them abortion medication to teens without parents permission.

Democratic Platform Promises,Republican Platform Rejects More Abortion Overseas
http://tinyurl.com/4hzu3t

USAID Decision Points to How Barack Obama Would Fund US, Intl Abortions
http://tinyurl.com/4prjfb


World wide EVERYDAY 115,000 preborn babies are killed through abortion.Planned Parenthood is part of that number especially because their International Branch works to push abortion onto countries that dont want abortion and Obama is a supporter of PP.
An Overview of Abortion / 2-minute version
http://tinyurl.com/4jryc6

The petition stresses that “the right to life of every human being, from conception to natural death, each child having the right to be conceived, born and educated within the family, based on marriage between a woman and a man, the family being the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” The petition also stresses the right of parents to choose how their children should be educated.

The petition is being circulated globally in French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch and Slovenian. The C-FAM campaign will run until the end of November and partner organizations from around globe will be running similar campaigns to bolster support for the right to life and family at the international level.

http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.95/default.asp

In the last presidential election the choice was clear! Bush came out against abortion and Kerry was
Pro-choice.A self proclaimed Catholic that was pro-choice?
How can this guy go up and receive Holy Communion? Admitting that
Obama is pro-choice and the entire United States Catholic population will put John McCain at the reins of the oval office
because he will not reverse his stance once elected. Another one issue election just like before! You can't white wash the religious right with double-talk like Obama does! Example:
Obama came out in support of both World Series Teams? This guy
is as slick as snot! "I will say anything or do anything to get elected!", he claims. Case closed!

I hear many Catholics speaking of voting for the lesser evil...they ask:
Will more people die from continuing the war or from continued abortions? I think considering the 3,000 unborn infants who are murdered daily within their mother's wombs, it is evident that this slaughter far outnumbers those who are victims of the war.
We must be aware that God cannot look on abortion lightly.
Will God forgive us for killing off our children?