Is It Fair to Say Barack Obama Supports Infanticide?

Objections continue to be raised to the charge that Senator Barack Obama supports infanticide, most recently in a Huffington Post column by Seth Colter Walls. I have made this claim myself, as have Sen. Rick Santorum, Terry Jeffreys, Jill Stanek, Bill Donohue, Gary Bauer, and Nat Hentoff.
It’s a dramatic charge, but here are the facts.
No one disputes that for three years running, while an Illinois state senator (from 2001 to 2003), Barack Obama was faced with a decision about a bill mandating medical care for children born alive during induced abortions. (The Illinois bill was referred to as “Born-Alive Infant Defined.”)
No one disputes that in 2001 he voted against medical care for these children in committee and voted “present” on the floor; in 2002, against the bill both in committee and on the floor; and in 2003, as chairman of the committee, kept the bill from going to the floor at all.
And yet in spite of the facts, Obama’s backers continue to insist that he should not be considered a supporter of infanticide.
But why shouldn’t his opposition to the Illinois bill earn him that label? After all, in opposing the state legislation, Obama signaled his willingness to allow newborns to die without receiving medical attention after surviving a failed abortion.
Jill Stanek is the nurse who — after witnessing babies being left to die in a Chicago hospital — testified several times before Obama’s committee. She reports that her testimony, including the pictures she displayed, “did not faze [Obama] at all.”
Nonetheless, Obama’s supporters deny the charge. Here are their claims, and the facts:
  • They argue that each year the bill was “bundled” with other measures, and Obama had objections against other parts of the bundle.
The fact is that the three bills were not bundled — each had its own number and was considered separately (in 2001, no. 1095; 2002, no. 1662; and 2003, no. 1082).
  • The Medical Society of Illinois opposed the bill on the basis of an already existing law dating from 1975.
Yes, such a law existed, but babies were being allowed to die in hospitals anyway, as witnessed by Stanek. The bill was introduced to end that practice. It’s like refusing to pass laws against speeding because AAA objects to them. The intention was to force doctors to end a barbaric practice.
  • Obama claims he would have voted for the 2002 federal bill if he had been presented with it.
That’s a strange assertion, given the fact that the 2003 state bill was identical to the 2002 federal bill.
It’s true that the 2005 Illinois bill passed by the state legislature had two sentences not contained in the 2002 federal bill or the 2003 state bill. But Obama has already claimed that he would have signed the 2002 federal version of the bill, which did not contain the two sentences of the 2005 Illinois bill.
Also, the additional two sentences of the Illinois bill merely reiterate the crucial sentence of the 2002 federal bill that allowed pro-abortion senators like Ted Kennedy to sign it.
Here’s the sentence: “(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”
Even NARAL did not oppose the 2002 federal bill.
When Obama spoke on the floor of the Illinois senate against the protection act — in fact, he was the only senator to do so — he made it clear that his reason for rejecting it was his fear of its overturning Roe v. Wade:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute (emphasis added).
The 2002 version of the federal bill contained the sentence quoted above, which directly addressed Obama’s concern. Every pro-abortion senator in the U.S. Congress voted for the bill — it passed unanimously.
Yet when Obama was presented with an identical bill in committee in 2003, he wouldn’t allow it to pass committee and go to the floor. Why did Obama block the 2003 bill when it satisfied his concern about overturning Roe v. Wade?
As Gary Bauer put it, “If abortion stalwarts such as Boxer and Kennedy were satisfied with the federal born alive bill, why wasn’t Obama satisfied with an identical state bill?”
Obama’s record makes it very difficult to believe anything other than he has been a supporter of infanticide. If he has changed his mind, all he has to do is say so.
 

Editor’s Note: This article originally referred to the Illinois bill in question as the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act” (SB1094); the bill is actually “Born-Alive Infant Defined” (SB1095). The text has been changed to reflect the correction; we regret the error.

 

Deal W. Hudson

By

Deal W. Hudson is president of Catholic Advocate, an organization which engages and encourages faithful Catholics to actively participate in the political process to support elected officials and policies that remain consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Formerly publisher and editor of Crisis Magazine for ten years, his articles and comments have been published widely in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and U.S. News and World Report. He has also appeared on TV and radio news shows such as the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, NBC News, and All Things Considered on National Public Radio. Hudson worked with Karl Rove in coordinating then-Gov. George W. Bush's outreach to Catholic voters in 2000 and 2004. In October 2003, President Bush appointed him a member of the official delegation from the United States to attend the 25th anniversary celebration of John Paul II's papacy. Hudson, a former professor of philosophy for 15 years, is the editor and author of eight books. He tells the story of his conversion from Southern Baptist to Catholic in An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), and his latest, Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, was published in March 2008. He is married to Theresa Carver Hudson, also a Baptist convert, and they have two children, Hannah, 21, and Cyprian, 13, who was adopted from Romania in 2001.

  • Eric McFadden

    I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Lizzie

    Of Course it’s fair.

    Obama supports a woman’s right to kill her child right up until the moment of birth.

    It’s infantcide and Obama supports it, any way you slice it.

  • R.S.Newark

    Next Write about Teddy the K. and more especially about the views of Sen Boxer (D.Cal.)with regard to what they see as a “problem”.

  • Felicia

    Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute (emphasis added).

    I never read that quote before!

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention Deal.

    The most troubling thing about this is that clearly, the Obama camp is lying and can’t be trusted.

    Why would they be trying to wiggle out of this knowing that quote is out there? As your above poster said, he supports killing an unborn child (even third semester) unless the mother is willing to deliver the baby without using the technology to kill him/her before delivery. His platform is pro infantcide.

    I read an editorial in our local paper yesterday that pointed out the weirdness of creating his own presidential seal, his activities in Russia, the fact that his seat on his private plane says “president” – and related these strange behaviors to his tanking numbers.

  • Tito Edwards

    The moment the mainstream press begins to cover this abhorrant moment in Mr. Obama’s judicial past is the moment that Mr. Obama loses the election.

    Ironically I even blogged about this yesterday:

    http://tinyurl.com/6ktb6u

  • Deal Hudson

    I think there is more to this story that will be told, but I have done my best to clarify the known facts thus far.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • NorthoftheBorder

    Your comments are the same “Safe, Legal, Rare” we have heard for a while. Plus, the issue of overturning Roe v Wade has precious little to do with the article – it is about children actually out of the womb. As he points out, even NARAL did not oppose this legislation.

    The point of the article was to point out Obama’s extremism in willing to let a born child die. I hardly see how Deal’s point is tired or extreme, I’m suprised you wouldn’t be outraged at Obama over this.

  • Bridget

    Thanks Deal for the “facts” on Obama’s infanticide voting record. Facts are truth. Therefore, the Obama supporters cannot deny truth no matter how they try to slice & manipulate the facts for their own agenda. If Obama becomes president, no doubt, he will support,100%,the killing theatres of innocent babies . What it boils down to is that Obama’s liberal Catholic supporters believe that giving comfort to the living (social doctrine of the church),taking care of the environment (hug a tree, kill a baby), etc. carries more moral weight than ripping babies from their mothers’ wombs,denying them the chance to take a first breath, for the convenience of the mother/society. As a Catholic, our doctrine tells us that there is nothing more precious than supporting the life of people who are helpless. We are mandated by our religion that the strong take care of the weak. The weakest of society are those who are sentenced to death without even a trial. The culture of death tells us that the strong can eliminate at will,the unborn, the sick or handicapped. A so called “civilized” society that allows such killings to continue on a daily basis ought to be ashamed of itself. There was more outcry in this country regarding the immorality of keeping slaves than there is about killing innocent babies. How sad!

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Sam

    Eric,

    My brother Knight, how could you tacitly support Obama like this? His pro-death extremist voting record completely disqualifies him not only as President but as town dog catcher!

    Among the reasons you cite for abortions, you say that increased sex ed and increased access to contraception would lead to less abortions: the “safe, legal, and rare” fallacy. Bill Clinton argued this lie successfully to terms in the White House, and now Obama is taking the same page from his playbook.

    Both sex ed and contraception are false solutions to the problem! Both are condemned by Catholic teaching, and both do not lead to less abortion but more. As a brother Knight, you should know this.

  • Eric McFadden

    Sam wrote: Eric,

    My brother Knight, how could you tacitly support Obama like this? His pro-death extremist voting record completely disqualifies him not only as President but as town dog catcher!

    Among the reasons you cite for abortions, you say that increased sex ed and increased access to contraception would lead to less abortions: the “safe, legal, and rare” fallacy. Bill Clinton argued this lie successfully to terms in the White House, and now Obama is taking the same page from his playbook.

    Both sex ed and contraception are false solutions to the problem! Both are condemned by Catholic teaching, and both do not lead to less abortion but more. As a brother Knight, you should know this.

    The bloggers on this site like to delete my posts as apparently they do not allow any view that does not fit their world view. I know many Knights who agree with me. I am not saying Rare Safe and Legal. I am proposing policy that will reduce and eliminate abortion. Deal wants to shift the conversation away from realistic policy that will do that. He wants to level untrue charges against Senator Obama that are simply false and untrue. Deal should debate these issues, but he won’t. I am open to that anytime. It is sad that all he and his staff can do is hurl false charges against Senator Obama, and not debate the facts.

    I am pro life – I have different point of view – why not debate it Deal?

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Sam wrote: Eric,

    My brother Knight, how could you tacitly support Obama like this? His pro-death extremist voting record completely disqualifies him not only as President but as town dog catcher!

    Among the reasons you cite for abortions, you say that increased sex ed and increased access to contraception would lead to less abortions: the “safe, legal, and rare” fallacy. Bill Clinton argued this lie successfully to terms in the White House, and now Obama is taking the same page from his playbook.

    Both sex ed and contraception are false solutions to the problem! Both are condemned by Catholic teaching, and both do not lead to less abortion but more. As a brother Knight, you should know this.

    Sam – it is really easy to support Obama. I care about all life, and he offers the best alternative. There is no perfect candidate for the life issues.

    As a Catholic going to the polls this November, I am mindful of these shared problems we face as Americans. My faith and love for my country compel me to vote for a candidate that will bring a systematic reform of No Child Left Behind. As a Catholic I am called to vote for the candidate that will bring improved access to health care for the poor and working families. As a Catholic, I seek a candidate who supports a lowering of the federal deficit. I seek a candidate who seeks a realistic investment in alternative energy speaking to the call I have as a Catholic to be a good steward of the environment. As a Catholic watching my country from a world view, I seek a candidate that will end the harsh interrogation of detainees and restore our respect and relations globally. As a Catholic I seek a candidate who works to address the circumstances surrounding a woman

  • Hank

    Seth Colter Walls at the Huffington Post has written the most detailed and accurate account of Senator Obama’s voting record and the actual history of the Illinois bill. The complete facts soundly debunk the Rovian infanticide accusation against Senator Obama. The accusation is a lie.

    The abortion and infanticide hysteria flames fanned by Mr. Hudson do nothing to eliminate or reduce abortions in the U.S., just as the Republican Party and the Bush Administration have done nothing.

    Whoa! What happened to Eric’s comment? It was here a few minutes ago. In it, he mentions the factors that influence women’s decisions to have abortions and solutions for how to modify those factors. Isn’t InsideCatholic interested in eliminating, or at least, reducing abortion, or just using it as a partisan political smear weapon?

  • Hank

    OOPS! I’m sorry! Eric is still here.

  • Eric McFadden

    Hank wrote:
    Whoa! What happened to Eric’s comment? It was here a few minutes ago. In it, he mentions the factors that influence women’s decisions to have abortions and solutions for how to modify those factors. Isn’t InsideCatholic interested in eliminating, or at least, reducing abortion, or just using it as a partisan political smear weapon?

    I don’t know Hank. They keep deleting them. I don’t think they are interested in actually doing something about Abortion. I would like to debate Deal on this, if he is truly a pro life person.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Hank

    Taking back the apology. Eric’s comment(s) is/are deleted.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Hank

    Hang in there, Eric!

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Blake

    … it must be true then.

    Please, spare me the drivel. Obama has said he would sign a law that would essentially codify legal abortions at the federal level as one of his first acts.

    Either way, if you go through the mental gymnastics of supporting a pro-Abortion/Choice candidate, you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and your faith.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Obama is ruthless. The facts speak for themselves. But then: who really cares? and I mean to ask that question. Let us face the political reality we have been immersed into since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

    What have the Republicans done? Nothing. Abortion is as real now as it was then. Throw in homosexual marriage, assisted suicide and the sure to come euthanasia. It seems to me we are not getting any better.

    The Republican Party has not become the “Party of Life”. Oh no! They are “fair and balanced” and they take into their ranks both the pro-infanticide and the anti-infanticide NOT like those awful Democrats, no siree!

    Are you still awake? Good. In practical terms it is the same to vote for one or the other. The GOP gets the votes for being supposedly pro-life but in the end that does nothing for cute “baby-in-the-uterus” he or she (mostly “she”) gets her pretty little head axed by a scalpel and sucked into a vacuum pump anyway. Or acid injected in her veins, take your pick. It’s the law, it is the AMERICAN LAW.

    So we are left with what to decide about our lives, while God in His patience still lets us have a country. Before the divine bill arrives for this awful atrocities we still have to make a living. So, having realized that the GOP does not give a rat’s ass about Roe v. Wade (they never even bother with a special investigation in the many irregularities of that judicial decision) we have to weigh both parties on what is left.

    With that in mind compare the eight Clinton years with the eight Bush years. During the former I was affluent. As soon as the later arrived I was broke and I have been ever since. I would not mind being broke it that would have stopped the millions of infanticides perpetrated during the last eight years. But that was not to be. Abortions continue unabated.

    I am not voting this year. And don’t push me because I may even vote Democratic before I go home and puke.

    WE are all supporters of infanticide. Obama is simply more “hands-on”, cynical, and more ruthless than we are.

  • Lisa

    I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

  • Brian Saint-Paul

    Lisa wrote: I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

  • Bridget

    Carlos -

    You say we are ALL supporters of Infanticide. Where do you get that from? Certainly, McCain is not perfect on the life issues. But the Republicans are much better on the life issues than the Democrats which I consider the PRO DEATH PARTY! Until that changes, I won’t given them a second look.
    Obama is the most pro-abortion, pro-death presidential candidate EVER. The left-wing of the democratic party thinks he’s their savior, their Jesus Christ Superstar come to save them from those terrible right-wing Republicans. You have many so-called “catholic” blogging sites that are a cover for these liberal democrats. Vox Nova is one of them! Their covert chief aim to to win the Catholic vote under the guise of the Catholic Social Doctrine. Smart Catholics know that whoever wins the catholic vote, wins the presidency. Obama supporters do everything in their power to win over marginal catholics including lying, by posing as authentic catholic sites who are anti-war, care for the poor, the environment, etc.. They never mention the abortion issues on their sites because that would discredit their chosen candidate, Obama.

  • cathyf

    Well, to provide some nuance here, I think that you can argue against this law, and laws like it, based upon solid Catholic moral theology. I have seen no sign whatsoever that Obama made any of these arguments, though.

    For what I mean about a valid argument against this law:

    1) Infanticide against the fully-born was already illegal in Illinois, and in the US. (This is why the partial-birth abortion procedure was invented — to murder babies without running afoul of the law.) It is and was also illegal to withhold needed medical care. So, as far as what the proponents of the bill were claiming, everything that they wanted the bill to do was already done without the bill. And if the problem is that the laws that made infanticide illegal somehow weren’t being enforced, another law wasn’t going to do anything to fix the problem.

    2) What such a law could do is to prevent hospitals from providing appropriate hospice care to babies who cannot survive. You know, as Catholics, we haven’t ever been hesitant to hold theological positions that — even in the teeniest tiniest type — won’t totally fit on a bumper sticker. And yes, we simultaneously run pro-life offices and hospices. This one isn’t even all that hair-splitting — you can be against murder while simultaneously not consider every death a crime. (Considering every death a crime would be pretty impractical, since everyone dies eventually!)

    This is not something that gets talked about a lot, but when a baby is born alive but hopelessly premature, or with devastating untreatable birth defects which will cause sure death, sometimes one or more of the adults goes a little crazy in the tragedy. Sometimes it’s a parent or grandparent who is insisting on planning for the baby to come home, sometimes it is a doctor or nurse who gets furious at other members of the hospital staff for “refusing to treat the baby.” That’s why I’m a little skeptical of Jill Stanek’s stories — what she claims she saw happened would have been a crime, and she should have called the police right then and there. That she didn’t makes me wonder if there was more to the stories.

    Medical treatments are wonderful things — when they can do some good. But when a “treatment” is utterly futile, especially when it is painful or even just uncomfortable, then it is simply torture, and immoral to inflict it upon the helpless dying victim.

    When a baby is born who will surely die within a few hours or days, the correct action is to give the family some quiet peaceful place where they can spend those precious few hours together with their baby, their clergyperson, etc. “Comfort the dying” — one of the corporal works of mercy, right? Especially as a Church that runs hospitals, we surely do not want some badly-written laws passed that makes doctors or hospital administrators fear that they might face legal consequences for comforting the dying and refraining from performing futile procedures on them. Especially if the bill is just posturing and has no positive effects above and beyond already existing laws.

  • Bridget

    Cathy F,

    Are you, or are you not, for comforting the dying infant and /or just letting it die without pain medicine, comfort, holding, because you fear the law!… Beats me how this can be Catholic doctrine. Aren’t we as Catholics encouraged to give comfort to the dying regardless of what others think, maybe even under punishment of the law. Can you clarify your point for me.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Bridget,

    Read it again. What I am saying is simply:

    1) There is an unjust law (permitting abortion)
    2) that was passed without a vote and based on false evidence (Roe. V. Wade)
    3) Republicans raised hell about what Monica did under the desk of Bill
    4) But never seriously challenged the Roe v. Wade verdict

    Reagan did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade
    Bush Sr. did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade
    Bush Jr. did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade

    and it is safe to conclude that McCain will do nothing to repeal Roe v. Wade.

    5) But the GOP pays lip service to the pro-life movement and gets votes.

    They don’t deserve MY vote. DO something for the babies and I will vote for you. Keep treating me like an idiot who will vote for something that is a non-issue for the GOP and I will leave you alone and you will not have my vote.

    I am tired of the right and the left.

    It is time for real change and I am not talking political change. No election is going to fix this. The whole system is corrupted and must be replaced.

    Think about it and read before opining.

    Thanks!

  • John Jakubczyk

    I continue to read posts that make excuses for Barack Obama and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The latest asks if there should even be a law.

    We would not need a law against killing if people did not kill.

    Back in 1982 in Bloomington, Indiana, a hospital refused to treat a baby born with a disability over the objections of many. The baby was rolled into a room and left to die despite efforts to save the child and provide surgery that would have easily saved the child’s life and given the child the same opportunities that we all would have wanted. Laws were passed throughout the country to prevent this barbarism from happening again. Countless lives have been saved because of those efforts.

    When people learned that babies were surviving late term abortions and being left to die, the legislatures of various states responded. Thus was born the language of the BAIPA.

    Now Obama opposed this legislation because Planned Parenthood opposed the bill. He refused to consider the bill because as a lawyer he knows that to consider an unborn child at any stage of gestation a person means that the law should recognize the unborn child a person at all stages of gestation.

    Being controlled by the pro-abortion lobby means doing what they bid. It therefore becomes implausible to even consider that Barack Obama might ever consider the reasonableness of the pro-life position. He can’t and he won’t.

    Die hard Obama fans who think he just might reconsider are deluding themselves.

  • Hank

    cathyf,

    Thank you for your rational, clear and calm clarifications.

  • GBurns

    Carlos,

    Since the Supreme Court of the United States(Scotus)has handed down the rulings in the cases of Roe and Doe. NO ONE, no President, no legislature, no state representatives, no city counsels may overturn those decisions. Abortion is the ONLY right completely protected by the orders of Scotus.

    The president may have the power to nominate new justices who are prolife to the court but the nominee must past muster through a grewling nomination process which is anti life by the Judiciary comittee. Then through the congress itself. Ask Robert Bork about his experiences with this process. The last thing these commitee members want to do is to approve and appointment of a judge who will read and interpret the constitution for what it really means. Someone who has the guts to overturn Roe and Doe. and abolish the “penumbra “of a personal right to abortion which doesn’t exist in the constiutuion. You might want to read a copy of the constitution. It is an amazing document. Written for the people to understand.

    The only party willing to put forth judges who are NOT predisposed to continue the farce of legal abortion is the Republican party. Democrats NEVER WILL!!! We don’t have the best record for this but Geroge W did gain the appointments of two justice who know that Roe v. Wade was bad law as was Doe v. Bolton. When a majority of clear headed justices are appointed then we will see real change in the law.

    Obama will never appoint pro-life justices to the court. This is reason enough not to vote for him. Catholic Social Justice notwithstanding. Obama is not the proper leader for the United States.

    Pray for an end to abortion.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Carlos Caso-Rosendi wrote:
    Reagan did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade
    Bush Sr. did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade
    Bush Jr. did nothing to repeal roe v. Wade

    ROE v. WADE is not legislation. It cannot be “repealed.”

    It can be REVERSED by the Supreme Court. The only effect a President can have on this is by nominating Justices who are likely to do this.

    What a President and the Governors COULD do is refuse to obey ROE and the other abortion decisions, asserting that THEY hold that unborn human beings ARE persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

    Because of generations of propaganda asserting the absolute supremacy of the Supreme Court over the other two branches of government, no one running for President or Governor has ever CONSIDERED running on a platform of refusing to obey the Supreme Court, even when it has usurped power to this extent–claiming the right to authorize murder.

    One movement DID challenge the Supreme Court’s claim to absolute supremacy: The Rescue Movement. This movement gave the police, local judges, governors, and the President, the opportunity to support non-violent, but direct, resistance to the Supreme Court. The response of the Catholic bishops was almost perfect indifference, with some open hostility. The response of the Congress was to pass the FACE Act, which crushed the Rescue Movement.

    Since non-violent resistance to abortion was tried, and was crushed by the Catholic bishops and the Congress, there will never be another opporunity for non-violent resistance to abortion. Abortion will continue until it is ended by violence. Probably not violence coming from Americans, but violence from foreigners–whose primary aim will probably not even be, consciously, ending just abortion.

  • Bookmark

    I have a friend who argues like you do, only he goes even further and uses the accusation against the Republicans to justify voting for the Democrats. I have some sympathy with the argument, because I think that the Republicans could have done more, even within the restrictions imposed by Roe vs Wade. Still, I have disputed my friend’s assertion that the Republicans have done absolutely nothing.

    For my part, even if I allowed for the sake of argument that the Republicans have done nothing, I still draw a different conclusion. I would still rather have Republicans who do nothing to stop abortion than Democrats who DO EVERYTHING TO PROMOTE IT. It is, after all, the lesser of two evils.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • What is the truth Brian?

    Brian Saint-Paul wrote: [quote=Lisa]I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

    [/quote]

    First off Brian, I should be allowed to respond when you posting about me directly.

    I do not change my IP address at all. Maybe it is the ISP I use? Sorry it does not comply with your posting box. Call Verizon.

    I have never attacked Deal. I have simply posted facts that are public record and widely available on the internet.

    And maybe Deal and inside Catholic would like to talk about the very large file I have on the lady from Boston that stalks me on behalf of Deal and Inside Catholic.

    I would rather discuss the issues. I have posted a very legitimate and valid point on abortion and this subject, but Deal and Brian want to avoid that in favor of divisive labels and charges like infanticide.

    Deal and Brian? Why don’t we talk about legitimate and realistic ways to address the abortion issue, rather than the name calling? Infanticide is not a charitable charge to make and it is certainly not Catholic.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Ok. I should have said “reversed”. I meant rejected, repealed, destroyed, eliminated, discarded, erased, crushed, reduced to smithereens. You get the idea. Don’t come now with semantic baloney while babies are being killed.

    When I say that Republicans have done nothing, I mean “nothing effective”. If the dead babies ask: “what have you done for me lately?” Would you tell them “Hi, baby dismembered in the womb. Hey, good news old chum! We have two additional conservatives in the USSC!”

    When someone is trying to break into your house with the clear intent to kill you, you don’t call the police to discuss the appointment of a more conservative Commissioner. You need help now. The difference is babies don’t have phone in the womb. They cannot call 911.

    I assume you are all familiar with Scripture and Sacred History. In the Bible there are plenty of examples of awful disgraces that came upon those who sacrificed their children. You also have the case of “trouble makers”; donatists, tricapitulists, arrians and so forth that festered in the churches of Asia Minor and Northern Africa for centuries. God waited patiently for their repentance: then came Islam . Read the end of Fr. Joseph’s response:

    “Since non-violent resistance to abortion was tried, and was crushed by the Catholic bishops and the Congress, there will never be another opporunity for non-violent resistance to abortion. Abortion will continue until it is ended by violence. Probably not violence coming from Americans, but violence from foreigners–whose primary aim will probably not even be, consciously, ending just abortion.”

    For emphasis read 2 Chronicles 7, 14.

    We need action: collective, courageous action to end the march of the Party of Degeneracy. The Republican Party is not the solution. I have seen that from the inside: they are the gang that cannot shoot straight. The proof is in the pudding. After four decades we still have abortion, we have added assisted suicide and homosexual marriage PLUS euthanasia is coming at us fast.

    Give the “lesser of two evils” explanation to the babies that are being killed right this minute. Go there and tell them “Timmy, Rose… we are doing the best we can to ‘revert’ this situation: hang in there little buddies!”

  • Bridget

    The solutions you provide to end abortions point to more government programs for these women. We already have free contraceptives (Planned Parenthood), free health care, food stamps, etc. for poor women. Governmen programs are NOT THE SOLUTION to stopping the killing, as evidenced by the last 30 years of free, or almost free, contraceptives provided by Planned Parenthood . How about trying to change people’s “personal behavior”. Have you considered that providing “moral” education to these women instead of throwing more contraceptives at them, or providing more sex education to prevent pregnancy! They already know about the birds & bees. AND IT IS easier for women to justify killing their babies because the government says it’s okay. Therefore we need to change the law. BUT let’s not kid ourselves, the solution is more moral behavior.

  • Bridget

    We only have 2 political parties at the moment. You’re solution to ending abortion is possibly not voting for either one. For my part, I will NOT vote for the 100% Party of Death and we all here know which one that is. Under a Republican presidency there is a better chance of appointing conservative judges on the Supreme Court. That MIGHT be a small part of working towards eliminating abortion. I’m willing to hope. With the Democrates, all I see is death & destruction in the future for this country with NO HOPE of saving the unborn at all.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    As it turns out, the only person with a serious and workable plan for overturning Roe v. Wade right now is Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination. In accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Paul’s bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning Roe through a simple majority vote in Congress.
    I bet you’ve never heard about that bill before. That’s because neither major party actually wants to see the abortion issue disappear from public life at the federal level — too much fundraising and grandstanding depend on maintaining the status quo.
    We sometimes hear it said that the United States needs a third party. Maybe so. But if we could be permitted a second party, alongside the Republicrats, that would be a pretty good start.

    Enough said.

  • Eric McFadden

    Bridget wrote: The solutions you provide to end abortions point to more government programs for these women. We already have free contraceptives (Planned Parenthood), free health care, food stamps, etc. for poor women. Governmen programs are NOT THE SOLUTION to stopping the killing, as evidenced by the last 30 years of free, or almost free, contraceptives provided by Planned Parenthood . How about trying to change people’s “personal behavior”. Have you considered that providing “moral” education to these women instead of throwing more contraceptives at them, or providing more sex education to prevent pregnancy! They already know about the birds & bees. AND IT IS easier for women to justify killing their babies because the government says it’s okay. Therefore we need to change the law. BUT let’s not kid ourselves, the solution is more moral behavior.

    I am talking about laying all of this out on the table and working to hit the problem from all angles. However Brian and Deal do not want to have that conversation apparently. Why Brian?

  • Eric McFadden

    Brian Saint-Paul wrote: [quote=Lisa]I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

    [/quote]

    First off Brian, I should be allowed to respond when you posting about me directly.

    I do not change my IP address at all. Maybe it is the ISP I use? Sorry it does not comply with your posting box. Call Verizon.

    I have never attacked Deal. I have simply posted facts that are public record and widely available on the internet.

    And maybe Deal and inside Catholic would like to talk about the very large file I have on the lady from Boston that stalks me on behalf of Deal and Inside Catholic.

    I would rather discuss the issues. I have posted a very legitimate and valid point on abortion and this subject, but Deal and Brian want to avoid that in favor of divisive labels and charges like infanticide.

    Deal and Brian? Why don’t we talk about legitimate and realistic ways to address the abortion issue, rather than the name calling? Infanticide is not a charitable charge to make and it is certainly not Catholic.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Brian Saint-Paul wrote: [quote=Lisa]I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

    [/quote]

    First off Brian, I should be allowed to respond when you posting about me directly.

    I do not change my IP address at all. Maybe it is the ISP I use? Sorry it does not comply with your posting box. Call Verizon.

    I have never attacked Deal. I have simply posted facts that are public record and widely available on the internet.

    And maybe Deal and inside Catholic would like to talk about the very large file I have on the lady from Boston that stalks me on behalf of Deal and Inside Catholic.

    I would rather discuss the issues. I have posted a very legitimate and valid point on abortion and this subject, but Deal and Brian want to avoid that in favor of divisive labels and charges like infanticide.

    Deal and Brian? Why don’t we talk about legitimate and realistic ways to address the abortion issue, rather than the name calling? Infanticide is not a charitable charge to make and it is certainly not Catholic.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Fr. Joseph

    Carlos Caso-Rosendi wrote: As it turns out, the only person with a serious and workable plan for overturning Roe v. Wade right now is Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination. In accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Paul’s bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning Roe through a simple majority vote in Congress.
    I bet you’ve never heard about that bill before. That’s because neither major party actually wants to see the abortion issue disappear from public life at the federal level — too much fundraising and grandstanding depend on maintaining the status quo.
    We sometimes hear it said that the United States needs a third party. Maybe so. But if we could be permitted a second party, alongside the Republicrats, that would be a pretty good start.

    Enough said.

    I agree with you 100% about Congress’s failure to strip the USSC of jurisdiction over the state’s abortion laws. They have used this same power on several occasions in recent years–with respect to vastly less important matters.

    I do not believe my comment about the word “repealed” was “semantic baloney.” The correct word indicates that the speaker knows how we might be rid of Roe v. Wade. The wrong word suggests that the speaker does not know.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Fr. Joseph,

    I don’t claim to know anything. I just honestly declare what I believe to be the truth. You are used to people genuflecting before you on your immense knowledge of all things. I am just a humble lay person and will never be as knowledgeable and wise as you are. It so happens that I am forced to speak five different languages all the time and sometimes, because of age or simply for being tired I confuse words that sound alike to my ear.

    In any case, in this world we live too many people get entangled in the meaning of words. I subscribe to the Han Solo Doctrine (“This is a stupid conversation”) and shoot. It clears the subject pretty quickly.

    I am sure everyone understood that the “elimination” of the unjust law is what I meant call it reversal, repeal o revertion or whatever… If I was not clear enough just blame it on my being a foreign-born American.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Carlos Caso-Rosendi wrote:

    I don’t see why you feel the need to indulge in such sarcasm. Or is it just anti-clericalism?

    Several years ago, John McCain made quite a lengthy statement about how “we should repeal Roe v. Wade,” but not until this, that, and the other had been accomplished. “Then, we can repeal it.”

    I was appalled, because he was running for President, and is a Senator, and ought to know that a judicial decision can’t be “passed” or “repealed” when “we” think the circumstances are just right.

    There is no “we.” Only the Court can reverse Roe. There is no “time” that “we” can do anything. The Court will reverse itself when the proper case comes along, and if the right kind of judges are on the court.

    It was because of the appallingly illiterate statement of McCain several years ago that I was a bit sensitive to the use of the word “repeal.”

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Fr. Joseph,

    May be McCain had in mind other mechanisms like the one proposed by Ron Paul–removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the USSC which can be done by a simple vote in Congress. In that case it would not be a reversal of the USSC but something else, a repeal, a removal, a… (whatever!).

    I am not anti-clerical and by the way, as far as I know you can be anyone just trying to pass for a priest. Your nick can be adopted by anyone, really. Now if you were as daring as myself and sign with your full name like others do, then… may be I could be accused of anti-clericalism… or anti-mrmagooism. Who knows!!

    I don’t like ‘clericalism’ specifically, because it is a form of excess and a sin bordering on idolatry. I can plainly see that many curates are out of line and I think I have the right to call them on their most obvious mistakes. Jesus did it in His day and St. Paul did it too on both the Jewish and Christian sides. So… if you want immunity from criticism you’ll have to convene a Council and pass some new laws.

    You original observation was semantically exact but silly and you forced it in an uncharitable and pedantic way.

    Then, if you don’t like it done unto you, don’t do it unto others.

  • RK

    Carlos Caso-Rosendi makes some insightful points here. Neither the Congress nor the Court have any vested interest to reverse R v. W. The Roberts Court will be defined by inertia. Stare Decisis is the real litmus test for Senate approval and Roberts and Alito passed.

    I know that’s hard to acknowledge for many pro lifers but it’s time, after 35 years, to face facts. Despite the sincere dedication of many a change in course for the pro life effort is urgently needed. A less emotional, more strategic approach (perhaps the Ron Paul bill is a good starting point) is absolutely necessary. With all due respect the present course hasn’t worked. Nor will it. It’s just spitting in the wind.

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Eric McFadden

    Brian Saint-Paul wrote: [quote=Lisa]I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

    [/quote]
    First off Brian, I should be allowed to respond when you posting about me directly.

    I do not change my IP address at all. Maybe it is the ISP I use? Sorry it does not comply with your posting box. Call Verizon.

    I have never attacked Deal. I have simply posted facts that are public record and widely available on the internet.

    And maybe Deal and inside Catholic would like to talk about the very large file I have on the lady from Boston that stalks me on behalf of Deal and Inside Catholic.

    I would rather discuss the issues. I have posted a very legitimate and valid point on abortion and this subject, but Deal and Brian want to avoid that in favor of divisive labels and charges like infanticide.

    Deal and Brian? Why don’t we talk about legitimate and realistic ways to address the abortion issue, rather than the name calling? Infanticide is not a charitable charge to make and it is certainly not Catholic.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    RK — Thank you for your support. You summarized the point perfectly. If we raise x millions od dollars and we vote y millions of votes and the basic issue persists, it makes a lot of sense to try something else.

    Eric — Anyone who kills, helps to kill or justifies the killing of an infant is committing infanticide. So, it is not uncharitable to use the term. What is certainly uncharitable is to recall the sins of a brother unmercifully over and over. If you did not figure that from attending Mass and reading Scripture I must let you know: we are all sinners and we under Divine Commandment to forgive others and to do so to the utmost extent.

    I did not read any priest or otherwise religious person under orders advice you on the matter: if you persist in doing what you are doing, you are surely going to Hell, save for a wide and generous act of Divine Mercy or last minute true repentance.

    I don’t know why you act like that but I suggest you pray and examine your conscience before writing that stuff. Besides, you end up looking like a jerk.

    I hope they find a way to block you off for good.

    Peace, brother!

  • Eric McFadden

    I see Deal has dispatched Carol McKinley to stalk me again. Nice!

  • Eric McFadden

    Deal,

    I am Pro-Life, just like you. I am a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus as well. We take all life issues very seriously.

    However I believe the conversation you want to have Deal, on abortion is the same tired extremist position of the past thirty years. This position has been front and center of the recent appointments of Supreme Court Judges. It is hoped that they will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which will in turn lead us into another long divisive struggle as the abortion issue is determined, if ever, at the state level. All the while mind you, abortions will continue on demand in this country. It seems as if the right wants women to continue to seek abortions so they can continue to roll it out every four years to inflame the conservative electorate.

    I believe Senator Obama wants to move forward and talk about the circumstances surrounding not only why women choose to have an abortion, but also how women can be empowered to make other choices instead of abortion.

    The most fundamental underlying circumstances that lead to abortion include lack of comprehensive sex education of both sexes starting early in school, poverty, cyclical family attitudes, and impeded access to both contraceptives and quality and affordable healthcare.

    It is reported that nearly six million American women become pregnant each year. Of these, almost half are unintended. 80% of these unintended pregnancies are teen pregnancies. Over half of unintended pregnancies each year occur among women aged 15-44 who do not use contraception. As part of the unfortunate circumstances listed above, the lack of access to education and health care is the main reason women don

  • Oh Brian

    Brian Saint-Paul wrote: [quote=Lisa]I find it odd that you consider your site a legitimate Catholic news journal and at the same time you remove opposing comments from your blog because you disagree with them. It shows a lack of intellect, and is more becoming of a cold war dictator than a person interested in meaningful dialogue among Catholics. Shame on you Deal Hudson!

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for the question. Eric’s comments keep getting removed because I banned him from the comments box a few weeks ago. He continues to get through because he keeps using new IP addresses, which makes it impossible to block him.

    His ban had nothing to do with his positions, which other regular commenters either share or exceed, but because of repeated personal attacks on Deal Hudson (specifically, as regards his past scandal). Personal attack on anyone is a fast track to getting blocked.

    (For the record, the dozen or so people I’ve banned fall 50/50, ideologically. The only thing they have in common is that they kept going after other columnists or commenters personally, even after we warned them.)

    We’re happy to have a range of views on Inside Catholic, but we ask that in discussing our difference, we leave each other’s personal failings out of it. We can talk issues without sinking to that.

    Obviously, we’ve not always been angels ourselves, but this site represents a new approach. I know you may not agree with me here on every point, but I do hope you better understand where I’m coming from on this.

    [/quote]

    First off Brian, I should be allowed to respond when you posting about me directly.

    I do not change my IP address at all. Maybe it is the ISP I use? Sorry it does not comply with your posting box. Call Verizon.

    I have never attacked Deal. I have simply posted facts that are public record and widely available on the internet.

    And maybe Deal and inside Catholic would like to talk about the very large file I have on the lady from Boston that stalks me on behalf of Deal and Inside Catholic.

    I would rather discuss the issues. I have posted a very legitimate and valid point on abortion and this subject, but Deal and Brian want to avoid that in favor of divisive labels and charges like infanticide.

    Deal and Brian? Why don’t we talk about legitimate and realistic ways to address the abortion issue, rather than the name calling? Infanticide is not a charitable charge to make and it is certainly not Catholic.

  • Shy Lurker

    Take this quote: “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” and make a poster out of it. Or even make it a campaign. Put Obama’s face as the background or at a side of it. You could add a tag line like “Obama says a baby born alive should be left to die. What do you say?” This _needs_ to get out there.

  • stop hiding

    For weeks, John McCain has resisted calls to dump one of his leading religious representatives who critics say is an inappropriate surrogate because of links to allegations of sexual impropriety with a teenage student…

    [Deal W.] Hudson left in disgrace from a tenured professorship at Fordham University in New York after a 1994 incident in which he was accused of having sex with a teenage freshman.

    Hudson, a self-styled “theocon” who now lives in Fairfax, Va., left Fordham after one of his former students sued him, claiming he plied her with drinks and had sex with her when she was 18 years old.

  • CTrent1564

    The notion that the GOP has not done anything with respect to Abortion is not supported by the facts. When Roe was decided in January of 1973, it was by a 7-2 vote, and this court was considered the most Liberal and activist in U.S. history (The Warren Court). Only Byron White and Rehnquist dissented.

    Given the makeup of the court today, there are 4 Justices, Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 1), Roberts and Alito (Bush 2) [All who are Catholic) who have shown a willingness to restrict unlimited Abortion, which came about under Roe. Of the other 5 Justices, 2 are far-left Liberals appointed by Clinton (Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg). Bader-Ginsburg was Lead Attorney for the ACLU and both have 100% NARAl ratings. Two other justices John Paul Stevens (Ford appointee) and Souter (Bush 1), while appointed by GOP Presidents have come by alligned more often with the 2 Left-wing Pro-Abortion Democrat Appointed Justices giving the Pro-Abortion group 4 solid. Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) appointee, who is also Catholic, is kind of the swing vote.

    Thus, most pundits think that Stevens and Bader-Ginsburg, who are 88 and 73, respectively, are the most likely to retire in the next 4 years due to age and health reasons. Given this, a McCain presidency is “MORE LIKELY” to result in 2 additional Justices to allign with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito, and give 6 potential votes to overturn Roe. Who knows, perhaps Kennedy could be brought over given the right case.

    So, Obama, who wants to usher in “Obamatopia” will in “NO CIRCUMSTANCE” appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would challenge the Democratic parties most revered “sacrament” (i.e. Abortion on demand) and thus no “serious Catholic” should vote for him.

    On the other hand, “so-called Catholics” who do vote for Obama are actually more in line with Unitarians and Episcopalians. In fact, I have stated before, in every town there is a sign that states “The Episcopal church welcomes you”. IMO, this sign is speaking to “so-called Catholics” who believe in Abortion rights, same-sex marriage, etc, which are all the things that the Episcopal church holds sacred.

    Look at it this way, outwardly you all can “play Catholic” as externally, there are many elements of Catholicism, but inwardly you can hold to all those things that Rome dogmatically rejects (Abortion on demand, euthanisia, moraly relativism, same-sex marriage, etc, etc, etc).

    In fact, I propose an NFL style trade, I will trade all left-wing Catholics for all of the orthodox Anglicans and thus both churches would be getting members who fully embrace the doctrines of their respective Church.

    Pax et Bonum

  • Norah

    I have read these comments in a state of disbelief. I would love to have seen the comments from Eric which created such furor- possibly if you are going to censor him you should also censor the type of attacks on Obama that I read in this blog. The reason that you give for censoring Eric seems sketchy _ I had to research what you were referring to- but I am not sure how comments on that subject should ban him from commenting on other unrelated subjects.
    For anyone who believes that McCain cares an iota or will do anything about Roe vs Wade I have a bridge for sale that I would like you to take a look at. I would never vote for anyone who opposed Roe v Wade – nor should any woman. All of our battles are hard fought – we cannot back away or lose one single right. Pro choice is just that -it is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body. If you want to have a dozen children, wonderful. If you feel that you do not want to be a parent I respect that choice also.
    Abortion would be totally unnecessary if we had adequate means for birth control. I can assure you that if men had babies we would not only have safe, effective means of birth control, we would not be having this argument.

  • Norah

    I have been reading these blogs for a few days. I am an Irish Catholic – attended Catholic schools and college. I have participated in many discussions about the topics discussed in these blogs but have never seen the levels of hatred, bigotry and intolerance expressed by so many in this site. Frankly it is scary. There is one writer who basically has a love it or leave it attitude similar to another that allows no nuance or questioning. Another condemns a fellow contributor to hell for daring to disagree. I see no love for fellow man, no tolerance, no charity. So many are so arrogant in their beliefs as if to question them is sinful in and if itself. It is sad.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    May I ask you to read carefully before you respond and accuse?
    You wrote:

    “Another condemns a fellow contributor to hell for daring to disagree”

    If that was in response to my comment, please read again: I advise Eric that willfully and uncharitably bringing up accusations on our brother’s past sins is a mortal sin and deserves the punishments of Hell.

    You say “I am an Irish Catholic – attended Catholic schools and college”

    Well, I’m an Argentine convert and I did not attend any Catholic institution but I know from plain reading of the Catholic Bible and Catechism that the Devil is “the accuser of our brothers” (Job 1:9-12, Apocalypse 12, 10) and those who accuse will keep him eternal company.

    I can see plainly that your attending of Catholic schools and College did not succeed in teaching you neither text comprehension nor Catholic doctrine.

    I don’t know what kind of “nuance” justifies the right to dismember a live baby but, since you claim to be Irish, may be is the same kind of “nuance” that justified blowing up school buses and churches during the “troubles”.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Norah wrote: I would never vote for anyone who opposed Roe v Wade – nor should any woman. All of our battles are hard fought – we cannot back away or lose one single right. Pro choice is just that -it is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body. If you want to have a dozen children, wonderful. If you feel that you do not want to be a parent I respect that choice also.
    Abortion would be totally unnecessary if we had adequate means for birth control. I can assure you that if men had babies we would not only have safe, effective means of birth control, we would not be having this argument.

    Norah:

    What reasons does the Catholic Church give for believing that abortion should be illegal?

  • CTrent1564

    Norah wrote: I have been reading these blogs for a few days. I am an Irish Catholic – attended Catholic schools and college. I have participated in many discussions about the topics discussed in these blogs but have never seen the levels of hatred, bigotry and intolerance expressed by so many in this site. Frankly it is scary. There is one writer who basically has a love it or leave it attitude similar to another that allows no nuance or questioning. Another condemns a fellow contributor to hell for daring to disagree. I see no love for fellow man, no tolerance, no charity. So many are so arrogant in their beliefs as if to question them is sinful in and if itself. It is sad.

    Norah:

    Assuming you are referring to my post as the one who basically has a “love it or leave it attitude”. In fact, I think I am actually stating what is reality. There are many Catholics (too many) like you who are really more like Protestant groups who keep moving further and further away from orthodox Christian doctrine. IMO, the Episcopal church in the United States, along with the United church of Christ (Obama’s church) are the most radical Protestant groups who are moving towards Unitarianism quickly (I acknowlede that there are still some orthodox Anglicans in the Episcopal CHurch, but they are going to have to make some decisons here soon).

    IF you were honest with yourself, you reject much of the Catholic Church’s doctrine, and actually are 100% in line with the Episcopalians, UCC, Unitarians, and IMO, based on what you have written here recently and in the past, you would feel at home there. Nothing mean spirited but the Truth.

    Pax et bonum

  • Norah

    Well Carlos- what an example of extreme bigotry. Yes I am Irish and no I do not support blowing up school buses. You are a prime example of why people should not read the bible without guidance.
    And CTTrent – you are stating your reality not mine. I resent your implication that you are more catholic than me and others who disagree with you and you are in fact mean spirited.
    I actually came to this web site because I wanted to listen to and communicate with Catholics who I thought I had something in common with. If you have read my relatively few comments you may know that I have great respect for members of the clergy that I have worked with for many years in many humanitarian programs. I expected to find a little of that here. However I have found bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, arrogance and hostility. I do not think that anyone will care about my experience here but I am shocked and saddened.
    It is not necessary to respond because I will not be back.

  • Carlos Caso-Rosendi

    Norah,

    I do not think I am a bigot because I reminded you the “nuance” can lead anyone down a slippery slope.

    So if I need “guidance” (other than the Magisterium) to read the Bible: Who would be guiding me? You, perhaps?

    I would like to see the “nuance” applied to this simple comparison:

    Situation A: Timmy is in a bus crossing Londonderry and he is blown up to pieces by an IRA bomb.

    Situation B: Timmy is in his mother’s womb and he is hacked to pieces by an abortionist.

    Catholic Doctrine and my own ‘bigoted’ reading of the Bible tell me that both acts are crimes against humanity.

    I am sorry you consider our discussion so offensive and bigoted that you have to leave.

    God Bless

  • David

    I would like to see the exact bill presented to Obama in the Illinois Legeslature in 2003 without any exceptions or deletions, no … in the middle, just the way it was when he voted against it. People on both sides are always trying to interpret it for us like we are not smart enough to read and understand it ourselves.
    Why dont you post it here on this site so everyone can see what Obama would not support. If it is an exact copy even he can’t argue with it.

  • Aunt B

    Whenever I think of Obama and his stance on abortion and infanticide and I shudder. All anyone has to do is read the five steps used on partial birth abortion. Don’t know how this is done? Here are the five steps that are used:
    1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the full term baby’s legs with forceps.
    2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
    3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head
    4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
    5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

    All abortion is infanticide! Obama supports All abortion including partial birth abortion.

    The question of when is a baby a baby always reminds me of the day My sister Annie was brought home from the hospital to die.
    Annie was born 2 1/2 months early and she was under 3 lbs. This was in 1945, a time when you only went to a hospital to have a baby or had something very bad and were dying. No pre-natal care. All Doctors made house visits in those days. I can still remember our MD’s name, Dr. Montana.

    When Annie came home with my Mother she was put very gently into a shoebox lined with flannel that my Grandmother had made, and, put on the oven door with the oven set on low. My Grandmother said she needed to be kept warm. I still remember thinking that she was being cooked some more so she would get bigger. Well I was only four at the time. Annie was all blue, had a pointed head, and meowed like a little kitten. Grandma said “It was all in God’s hands” and knelt down and said the rosary and then put the rosary in the shoebox. Everyone, this included all my Aunts, who all lived within two blocks of our house, took turns feeding her with an eyedropper and saying the rosary. Well to make a long story short Annie survived and grew up to have a very normal and happy life. She never topped 5 ft but made up for it in lung power. She is the proud mother of four and now a grandmother.

    All I know is that any Catholic or Christian who supports abortion or votes for those who do are supporting evil.

  • Brian Kelly

    It amazes me when people say they are “Catholic” and they don’t believe the teachings of the Church. Nora knows she is Irish because she has Irish parent(s). If Nora knew the difference between a physical word and the concept for which it stands she’d know that she is not a Catholic. Yet, people like Nora, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, insist that they are Catholic. It’s astounding, I mean just the illogic of it, never mind the culpable dishonesty. How can anyone identify himself as a member of an organization, when one doesn’t believe in the organization’s statutes. It’s like these women who think they are priests because some bishop with valid orders ordained them. Why do they accept the Catholic teaching on valid orders when it suits them for the purpose of their own “ordination,” and reject the Catholic teaching on the invalidity of their own “ordination” when it doesn’t suit them? I mean the same authority that says there must be an episcopal line of apostolic succession to generate priests, and for validity the laying on of hands is a necessary part of the rite (which two criteria they apparently accept)also teaches that one must be a baptized MALE. Never mind the pride of these deluded women, I am astonished at their lack of logic. Why don’t they just jump in a lake and reach to the heavens and ordain each other by dunking? They reject the very authority whose rules they make use of when it suits them. Hey, but they want to be called Catholic.

  • Someone Wondering?

    Ok so does all this mean that he is prochoice?????? And if so no one will ever become president because as a republican McCain is prolife so???? Anyway I believe that opinions are like a**holes everyone has one!!!!!! So think about that one!!

  • Pamela

    I find it very frustrating when people use the argument that the Republican Party has done nothing and that Abortion is still legal, blah blah…so they therefore justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate in order to further their own socialistic ideologies at the expense of the unborn.

    While it is true that the Republican Party has not ended legalized abortion, things have been done. In addition to the Justices that have been appointed, President Bush has prevented funding of further lines of embryonic stem cells; he has supported the Mexico City Policy, preventing my tax dollar and yours from promoting abortion in other countries; the ban on partial birth abortion was signed as opposed to when Bill Clinton was in office; the ban on allowing abortions in military facilities is upheld, and this doesn’t include the many state level restrictions that have been put in place by conservative legislators and Governors. None of these steps in the right direction would occur under a liberal/Democrat government. Barack Obama has actually promised to repeal all of the pro-life advances by signing into law a Freedom of Choice act.

    So, please, be honest. It does and has made a difference, even if we do have a long way to go. I surely don’t want to have to start from scratch all over again after Obama sets us back.

  • Passenger57

    Here’s some things to think about:
    Today,many of the posters are up in arms about abortion.Tomorrow,the same people will be complaining about there being too many people on the planet,sucking up the resources faster than they can be replenished.
    Some of the same people-I’m referring to officials in charge,not the general public-who frown on abortion in public would nod their heads at ‘population control’- whatever that entails-in private.
    Some of the people posting here about how abortion kills a living being have no problem with the United States invading and occupying a country and blowing men,women(some possibly pregnant),children,and babies to bits-even if they are not “purposely targeted”.
    Some churchgoing folks,vehemently against abortions,have probably have at least one themselves.Some church leaders-all faiths included- have probably told their mistresses to get abortions.
    A poster here said that supporting abortion is evil-what do you call blowing them up? They have no more say when a bomb drops on their house than they do if they had been aborted.
    Obama has said recently that he wants to make sure that,when a woman finds herself pregnant and does not want the child,that she is made aware of other options besides abortion,and that these options are properly funded.

  • stephen

    Very good article by Chuck Baldwin, pastor and running under the Constituion Party…makes you think really who is the real pro-life candidate among all the 5 candidates.

    http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

    JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE

    By Chuck Baldwin
    August 22, 2008
    NewsWithViews.com

    Once again, “pro-life” Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain’s commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle.

    Dare I remind everyone that the “pro-life” GOP controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006 and nothing was done to overturn Roe v. Wade or end legal abortion-on-demand? When George W. Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001, over one million innocent unborn babies were being murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. And when George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, over one million innocent unborn babies would still be murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. Eight years of a “pro-life” President and six years of the “pro-life” GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby’s life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.

    Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

    What would Congressman Paul’s bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul’s bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul’s bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?

    How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are “pro-life”? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use “pro-life” rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is–it works.

    check the link for the rest of the article…..
    http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

  • Lily

    I would like to know a few things about your ”things to think about”:
    What do we do with the officials who, if they promote population control, are not truly pro-life to begin with ? Are you saying we should not vote for pro-life ‘officials’ because they might be included in the ”some” who secretly are not pro-life? Or are you simply saying that once officials realize the effects of supporting life-i.e. more people- they’ll begin to support the generally invasive idea of population control?
    I too find it hard to see the difference between a victim of war and an aborted baby. But there is a fundamental difference. People all over the world believe that abortion is a right. If anyone thinks that killing families with bombs is a right then then they are not popular with the moral or politically correct parties. Some people might still do it, but it has never been made ”law”. Oh, and if there is ever disrespect for human life, where ever it might be, you might say it began in the womb.

    Sorry about all the questions.

MENU