Happy Halloween!!!!

Just When You Thought You Were an American... Conservatives Say Not So Fast.

By Burns Strider

Governor Palin and her brand of Republicanism are about to overcook my grits.

She and those who drink from the same mug have decided that you are not a real American, maybe you are even anti-American, if you either don't have the same views as they do or you are from the wrong part of the nation, or both... I'm a little confused as to the specific criteria.

I think I may be fine since I was born and raised in Mississippi even though I have lived in Washington, DC for quite a few years.

I worry, though, about my two boys. They were both born and are being raised inside the beltway so I don't think they are fully American in the eyes of Governor Palin, Congressman Robin Hayes (R-NC), Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and all their friends. And this is what is scorching my grits.

But first, this is what Governor Palin said late last week:

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans."

What does she call Brazil, MS? Is it real America or does that community's name disqualify the Brazilians of the Mississippi Delta?

Then Governor Palin's spokesperson added this on October 18:

[Pfotenhauer] acknowledged [McCain's] difficulties in Northern Virginia but said the region is not "real Virginia." She added, "The rest of the state, real Virginia, if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain's message," Nancy Pfotenhauer said.

So, if you are for Senator McCain or from an area largely supporting Senator McCain they you are "real."

Over the weekend North Carolina Republican Robin Hayes said this:

"Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

Okay... so if you are a liberal you hate real Americans who work and believe in God. What if you are also from northern Virginia, don't work and don't believe in God? Do you have to move to another country?

And Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, the Republican of Minnesota, on Chris Matthews this past Friday emphatically pontificated the following:

"Barack Obama didn't have a mild association with Bill Ayers, he had a very strong association with Bill Ayers." She then went on to say, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."

So being 8 years-old at some point in the 1970's may be a bad thing because a guy you would meet decades later was doing bad things during the disco era. I often wonder if Senator Obama and I ever listened to My Sharona at the same time. But what if Senator Obama, Bill Ayers and I listened to My Sharona at exactly the same time? Does that then disqualify my Mississippi roots and make me anti-American?

Governor Palin, Congressman Hayes and Congresswoman Bachman need to check their language. And they need to re-examine the meaning, beauty and greatness of our nation.

We are a patchwork quilt, a Baptist blanket, of families and communities that have come from all over the globe to become real Americans.

Our ancestors may have arrived prior to the First Continental Congress or our families may have immigrated through Ellis Island in the last century. Some of us may have risked our very lives on sinking rafts and some of us may have risked great fortunes. But, we are all real Americans.

My little boys are very much American. My first grader has been singing "This Land is Your Land" to me. He has been learning it each morning in the DC Public Schools. They play a lot of soccer, I prefer baseball but you should have heard them cheering for Michael Phelps during the Summer Olympics.

I fear that somehow Governor Palin, Congressman Hayes, Congresswoman Bachman and their ideological friends have allowed scales to cover their eyes. They have been led astray by the sound of their own politics and they sadly find exceptionalism only from their own voices, their own mirror image of America.

Think about how limiting this is... think about all the potential and real American dreams that would never be realized through such a narrow vision of our great nation. They have allowed the values we hold dear, as one nation, to be tossed to the ditch in place for the rigid orthodoxy they prefer to proclaim.

Over 20 years ago, the late, great Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was speaking to the Baptist Joint Committee and was asked how to properly articulate values in government. Her response went something like this (and I paraphrase but wouldn't you love to hear her voice right now say these words):

"You would be well to pursue your causes with vigor, while remembering that you are a servant of God, not a spokesperson for God and remembering that God may choose to bless an opposing point of view for reasons that have not been revealed to you."

I hope Governor Palin, Congressman Hayes, Congresswoman Bachman and all their friends will stop their divisive, ugly cultural warfare... it so belittles them as they sound like a throwback to earlier elections and instead embrace our real American values and find all Americans to be real and all pockets to be real American places.

Burns Strider
Founding Partner
The Eleison Group
www.eleisongroup.com

Catholics for Obama

Joining the other Catholics for Obama site, launched a couple months ago and a few blogs by the same name, now comes "Catholics for Obama", a project sponsored by the Boston based Catholic Democrats.

The site has a nice quote from Caroline Kennedy and it also includes a fifty eight page down loadable document citing the Catholic case for Obama. It includes a nice intro by Vicki Reggie Kennedy, wife of the Lion of the Senate, Senator Edward Kennedy. The document was written by Patrick Whelan PhD., founder of Catholic Democrats.

The site is certainly the best of the Catholics for Obama site. Even though a late entrant into the game, it will quickly gain attention and will be a valuable resource for swing Catholics in battleground states.

View the site here...

Catholics United Responds to Allegations Made by Maverick Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput

It is clear that Archbishop Chaput is a surrogate for the McCain Campaign and his continued clumsy forays into politics further illustrate McCain's Catholic problem. McCain is Bush and Catholics like Chaput supported a virtual culture of death by supporting the Bush Administration over an issue that will never be resolved by the politics of old that Chaput and other's with the extreme position of criminalization support.

Media Release From Catholics United ....

Washington, D.C. – Catholics United executive director Chris Korzen issued the following statement today in response to Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s accusation that Catholics United has “done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.” The archbishop’s comments were delivered at an Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women dinner in Denver on October 17, 2008.

“Catholics United welcomes an open, honest, and productive dialogue about how best to represent the values of the our faith in public life. We recognize that Catholics can differ in good conscience about which policies will achieve the most effective results, even on issues as important as abortion. We are concerned that Archbishop Chaput’s comments – even those made in his personal capacity – will have a chilling effect on this dialogue. It is also profoundly unfortunate that Archbishop Chaput has chosen to make personal attacks on lay Catholics acting in good faith to promote Catholic values in the public square.”

“During the past eight years we have watched a president rise to power on a ‘pro-life’ platform only to pursue other priorities: perpetrating an unjust war, opposing expanded health care coverage for pregnant women and children, promoting the intrinsic evil of torture, deregulating the financial markets, and mortgaging the future of America’s hard-working families on tax cuts for the rich and powerful. Scant, if any, progress was made toward ending or reducing abortions – quite the contrary, we fear that the looming economic crisis will impel more women to have abortions as people lose their jobs and their homes. This experience serves as poignant reminder of the need for Catholics and other pro-life Americans to look beyond campaign rhetoric and elect candidates who will deliver real results on the issues that matter most.”

“With due respect to Archbishop Chaput, we believe that by pursuing efforts to de-polarize the abortion debate and bring Americans of varying ideological backgrounds to the table to find common ground solutions, organizations like Catholics United are doing at least as much to promote Church teaching on human life as those who have insisted on the same ineffective strategies of the past 35 years.”

Catholics United is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic Social Tradition. This is accomplished through online advocacy and educational activities. For more information, visit www.catholics-united.org.

Sanctity of Life, Human Dignity, Fairness & Prosperity, National Security, Common Good, Stewardship

A great, let me repeat..... Great Voting guide from Catholics United. Just out. Get em out to your friends today.

Don't be fooled by Joe Orthodox in your parish who tells who to vote for McCain over a single issue.


Click here to get yours...

Group hits parishes in key states with anti-abortion brochure

By Michael Humphrey
Published:
October 14, 2008

Voting guides: The brochure on the left is the official U.S. bishops' voting guide; the brochure on the right is the Terry brochure.Kansas City, Mo.

An antiabortion brochure that claims voting for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, “flagrantly violates Catholic teaching,” is being distributed to parishioners at Catholic churches across nine battleground states and beyond.

The method of distributing the flier, titled “Faithful Catholic Citizenship Based Upon the Gospel of Life,” includes placing brochures on cars parked outside of parishes, handing them out before or after Mass and distributing them online. No Catholic dioceses have sanctioned the brochure or its distribution methods and one archdiocese told NCR they strongly disagree with the methods of disseminating the material. Several persons distributing the gospel of lief brochures who refused to leave church properties have been arrested for trespassing.

Nevertheless, Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, told NCR he is targeting nine states he thinks are key to this year’s election – Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado. But he’s sending brochures to whoever requests them, even if the state is not in play.

“We have over 500 teams across the country who are distributing two different brochures,” Terry said, “and we’re looking for more volunteers. I recognize in many people’s minds we are skating on thin ice, but so was St. Thomas More and St. Catherine of Siena, and many prophets who spoke the truth when it wasn’t sanctioned.”

Terry's brochure is designed to reflect the November, 2007 document put out by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," which can be distributed freely in parishes. Terry referred to the visual similarities as "comic relief," rather than an attempt to confuse matters, and noted that his brochure stresses "Catholic Faithful Citizenship."

A second brochure, entitled “Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama for President?” is targeting non-Catholics and being distributed at Wal-Marts and malls as well as Protestant churches.

Terry would not give exact numbers of how many brochures are being printed, stating there are “a lot” and agreed it was in the tens of thousands. The brochures, along with other materials, including a “Palinator” t-shirt that shows Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin brandishing a weapon are being distributed on line.

The brochure, which is written in question and answer form and most often quotes Pope John Paul II, at one point references "certain clergy and laymen" such as Catholic author Doug Kmiec, who is quoted, "it violates no aspect of Catholic teaching for a Catholic voter to endorse, support, or vote for Barack Obama." The question asked is, "Are they correct?"

The answer: "No. They are not correct. Endorsing, support, or voting for Obama in the 2008 Presidential election flagrantly violates Catholic teaching."

The argument that voting for a Democrat violates Catholic teaching, because of the abortion, has been cited as a key element of the 2004 victory for President George W. Bush, especially in Ohio.

Unlike that election, says Eric McFadden, former director of Catholic Outreach for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Democrats are not caught off guard.

“This time around the left has a very strong and viable presence,” McFadden says. “They are taking opportunities to share the breadth of Catholic social teaching, not just one issue. Mr. Terry claims to be working with faithful Catholics, but they are openly defying the bishops.”

Terry is not arguing that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supports his stand. He disputes the November 2007 document released by the USCCB on faithful citizenship, which states that, “there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.”

“The faithful citizenship document is not the teaching of the Catholic Church,” Terry said. “Evangelium Vitae (an encyclical by Pope John Paul II in 1995) is the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Faithful Citizenship document is a disaster. It’s being quoted by every pro-abortion group out there.”

So Terry’s group, which is sometimes confused with the Operation Rescue in Wichita, Kan. (Terry left there in 1991 and there is pending litigation over the group’s trademark), is deliberately doing acts of civil disobedience on church properties.

Tuesday morning, Joseph Landry was in court on charges of trespassing at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore on Sept. 14. He was arrested after being asked several times to leave the shrine’s property by security guards and later by police. Maryland is not considered a contested state, with polling showing Obama ahead by more than 20 points.

Landry said in an interview with NCR that this was his third arrest for trespassing, once in St. Petersburg, Fla. and recently in Arlington, Va., which are both contested states in this election.

“No one from the Baltimore Basilica showed up,” said Landry, 27, “so they dismissed the case for non-prosecution. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the Arlington case.”

Asked if he’s willing to serve jail time, Landry said, “Yes, that’s fine.”
Sean Caine, director of communications for the Baltimore archdiocese, said the archidiocese was not named in the complaint against Landry, so couldn’t comment on the status of the case. He did say that the archdiocese strongly disagrees with the approach Terry’s group is taking.

“I think to the reasonable and objective person,” Caine said, “their efforts could be seen as intentionally aimed at getting arrested and getting the attention that comes with getting arrested. We provide materials that are approved by the archbishop and the U.S. bishops. There are any number of ways of getting a message out, but they have to be appropriate.”

The problem with that thinking, said Terry, is that it implicitly allows for “the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies.” “When babies are about to be murdered,” Terry said, “and you can stop it by lifting up your voice on church property, the bishop does not have the authority to tell you to remain silent.”

McFadden strongly disagrees that Terry’s primary objective – overturning Roe v. Wade – would even begin to stop abortions.

“The abortion rate is affected by many different issues, including health care, education, the biggest is the economy. If you are unable to provide for that child, I would say the abortion rate is going to spike. A McCain administration will not have policies that actually reduce abortions. They’ll supply the same tired politics of the last 30 years.”

(Michael Humphrey is a free lance writer living in Kansas City, Mo.)

Copyright © The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company

Lay Catholics Push Back on Abortion and Politics

Thursday October 16, 2008

When Carl Anderson publicly rebuked Sen. Joe Biden last month for opposing the Catholic Church's stance on abortion, Anderson said he was speaking "on behalf of the 1.28 million" Knights of Columbus in the U.S.

Everyone, that is, except for Knights like Rick Gebhard of Manistee, Mich.

Gebhard, a 36-year-old public school teacher, says he founded Knights for Obama early this month to counter Anderson's "tacit endorsement" of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

Gebhard now says he's been told he will likely be booted from the Catholic fraternal organization. The group's rules forbid members from endorsing political candidates, said Knights of Columbus spokesman Patrick Korten.

Gebhard, a member of the Boston-based group Catholic Democrats, counts himself part of a resurgent Catholic Left that's finding its voice during the 2008 presidential campaign. After struggling to be heard four years ago, when conservatives dominated the "values" debate and a majority of Catholics voted for President Bush, progressives say they have returned to the political arena this year with more supporters, deeper pockets and sharper ideas.

"We've been playing catch-up," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a progressive online community that has grown from two volunteers with $1,000 and dorm-room headquarters in 2004 to now include 30,000 members and a $200,000 budget.

"And I think we've done it, to a great extent."

Hoping to reach Catholics who are upset with the Bush administration, groups like Catholics United are posting billboards in swing states, papering Catholic households with mailers and flooding the airwaves with progressive messages on everything from abortion to home foreclosures.

Lay Catholics like Gebhard are resisting church pressure to make abortion the primary issue that should drive Catholics' votes, and also pushing back when high-profile Catholics like Anderson single out Democrats like Biden for public criticism.

"I thought it was an overtly partisan maneuver," Gebhard said of Anderson's rebuke.

Anderson, the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, regularly speaks for the group on public policy issues, and, despite his background in GOP politics, steers clear of partisanship, Korten said.

Since Gebhard started his group on Oct. 3, between 50 and 100 fellow Knights -- including former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Thomas P. O'Neill III-- have joined Knights for Obama.

The newly revived Catholic Left is part of a larger effort by religious progressives to expand the definition of "values issues" to include war, the economy and the environment.

"I think the `values' debate was fairly one-dimensional," said Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which drew some 800 social-justice-minded Catholics to a meeting in Philadelphia last July and has been active during the presidential campaign.

Progressives say neutralizing abortion as a Republican wedge issue is key to their campaign. While many accept the church's teaching that abortion is evil, they reject the idea that voting for a pro-abortion rights candidate is akin to heresy.

"Coming out of 2004, the abortion issue was paralyzing the prophetic religious community," said James Salt, Catholic United's director of organizing. "Our contribution to the abortion debate was inadequate."

Progressives say they now have a persuasive contribution: that addressing the root causes of abortion, such as poverty, can be more effective in the short term than working to criminalize the procedure.

Salt said his group is mailing that message directly to 50,000 Catholic families in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Perhaps as important are the prominent Catholic scholars taking the message to the public at large, such as Douglas Kmiec, former legal counsel in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and Nicholas Cafardi, former dean of the Law School of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, and a past chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse.

"When a very articulate conservative like Doug Kmiec all of a sudden lays out this case, you can't say it's ideologically motivated," said Patrick Whelan, director of Catholic Democrats. "People stop and pay attention."

Still, a number of Catholic bishops reject progressives' arguments.

"The so-called `new' approach of groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good doesn't seem to take into account that children continue to be killed every day through abortion," said Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who has published and spoken widely on religion and politics.

Overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, "remains an important and attainable goal," Chaput said. "But the priority has always been legal protection for the unborn child and legal restriction on abortion, however that can be accomplished."

Despite opposing progressives' ideas, some conservatives say their ideological opponents have come a long way.

"Progressive Catholics have finally gotten their act together," said Brian St. Paul, editor of Crisis Magazine and InsideCatholic.com. "They are more organized and effective. Certainly they are a force."


By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.

New Matthew 25 Video - Martin Sheen

The Matthew 25 Network

Pro - Life Means Action on Behalf of ALL Human Life

Great new resource flyer from Catholics United - it can be downloaded here. Just in time for Pro - Life Sunday!

From Catholics United:
October 5, is Pro-Life Sunday, and with the November elections just around the corner, some groups on the far right are bombarding Catholics and other people of faith with the message that all that matters in this election is a candidate's stated position on the legality of abortion. To help inform Catholics about the fullness of our Church's teachings on life, Catholics United has published a new flyer entitled "Pro-Life Means Action on Behalf of All Human Life."

From the flyer

Many candidates say they're pro-life. But do they really have a record to run on?


Here are some important facts for pro-life Americans to consider when deciding how to vote.

The BEST way to combat abortion is to give women and families the tools they need to choose life.
Studies consistently show that when women and families have health care, jobs, education, and other essential supports they are less likely to have an abortion. In fact, more than three out of four women who obtain an abortion say that economic factors were a primary reason for doing so. Instead of helping struggling American families, our leaders have left them to fend for themselves.

Being pro-life is 1 percent talk, 99 percent ACTION.
Being pro-life is not just about what our elected leaders say they believe. It's about the things they do. During the Clinton Administration, the U.S. abortion rate declined nearly 30 percent without enacting any legal prohibitions on abortion. Under President Bush, this decline stagnated. Even the appointment of two new Supreme Court justices was unsuccessful in making any meaningful progress toward building a culture of human life. For all its talk about being pro-life the Bush Administration hasn't protected a single unborn child.

Pro-life means ALL human life - WITHOUT exceptions.
How can our leaders say they are pro-life, while starting unjustified wars, supporting torture, opposing expanded health care for children, cutting school lunch programs, and standing by as hard-working Americans lose their jobs and retirement protections? They can't. To be pro-life is to answer a deep call to support and defend human life at all stages - from conception until death. It means caring for the unborn, for the children, for the less fortunate, and for all hard-working Americans.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will NOT end abortion in America.
All too often, what passes for an authentic pro-life agenda is a candidate's stated opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. While legal protections for the unborn are an important part of a pro-life strategy, overturning Roe v. Wade would simply let states decide whether abortion should be legal or illegal. In a post-Roe America, only a handful of states would impose penalties on those who obtain or perform abortions, and women living in these states could still go elsewhere to get an abortion. Overturning Roe cannot be seen as a substitute for policies that can work RIGHT NOW to end abortion, namely supporting women and families.

The Professer vs The Student - The Catholic Problem of John McCain - "Sarah Palin"

By now I am sure everybody has read about the debate last night between Senator Biden and Governor Palin, and a lot of folks watched it. From my sofa I saw Senator Biden win the debate hands down. At times it looked like Professor Biden debating a first year student. Senator Biden offered real solutions that an Obama / Biden administration will bring to real issues facing Americans in these uneasy times. We heard a valid and solid plan for a two front war, health care, education, the environment and most importantly the economy.

What we got from Palin was at times a deer in the headlight look while she nervously avoided looking Senator Biden in the eye, dodged questions and spun answers like a puppet being played by Karl Rove. She looked more like a game show contestant at times than a serious candidate for the second highest office in the land. If this is the best McCain can bring to the table to replace him in the event of the unthinkable, then please leave me out.

I love Hockey Moms and Joe Six pack just as much as anybody. I believe the common folks are often left out of the conversation. However I do not want Joe Six Pack or Hockey Mom calling the shots. I want experienced competent people that are informed on the issues from various fronts and can actually cite the media sources they read everyday.

Beyond the debate however Sarah Palin is just wrong for Catholics as evidenced by her lack of grasp and knowledge on the debates and further proof is provided below.

Sarah Palin: Wrong For Catholics

Palin Cut Nearly $200,000 From Catholic Run Social Programs. During her two years as Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin cut $190,000 in funding from Catholic Community Services.

From the Alaska Budget:

Catholic Community Services - Angoon Senior Center Stove, Refrigerator, and Freezer
Palin Cut $20,000 - S.B. 53 FY 2008 and an additional 20k for the same project from S.B. 221 FY 2009- So Catholic Community Services is out 40k thanks to Sarah Palin.

Catholic Community Resources - Fairbanks Counseling & Adoption
Palin cut $150,000- S.B. 221 FY 2009 - Apparently Palin's "Family Values" do not apply to the Catholic Community Resources in Fairbanks.

If Sarah Palin rejects the good work of the Catholic Church in Alaska, how are Catholic voters expected to support her for Vice President?

Catholic voters should not have a hard time saying "thanks but no thanks" to McCain and Palin this November.

Can a Catholic support Obama? - Prof. Kmiec responds to deceptive critique

Recently Deal Hudson published a statement by Doug Johnson - Legislative director of National Right to Life, where Johnson and Hudson refer to abortion reduction as a “scam”. Hudson called the statement “authoritative”. I recently went over the fine points with Doug Kmiec, an authority on this issue in his own right. His response to the Johnson piece is as follows” - read statement from Hudsons site here

Eric McFadden: Doug Johnson - Legislative director of National Right to Life and some others have suggested that “Abortion Reduction” is a scam used by Democrats to gloss over the issue of abortion with Catholics. They believe that you create the impression that Obama will merely preserve the legal status quo on abortion, while creating a token government handout for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. These folks are convinced that an Obama administration will simply increase the numbers of abortions performed.

Doug Kmiec: First, as I indicate in my book Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama (Overlook Press, NY), my endorsement of Senator Obama has from the beginning indicated places where this conservative Republican (me) disagrees with the Senator, and we disagree on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which I oppose, and indeed, believe in its current form exceeds the power of Congress. Second, to the extent FOCA is believed to mandate the public funding of abortion, and that is not explicit, I would oppose that as well.

That said, while the Senator and I are in disagreement, it does not dim my enthusiasm for his presidency since I believe for the first time we will have a president who genuinely intends to address the poverty and anxiety that in the vast majority of cases determines a woman’s decision.

Second, I greatly respect Doug Johnson and his work in behalf of life. In this regard, he has been in this vineyard long enough to know that there is a meaningful difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. Indeed, in Senator Obama’s case, it is more aptly a difference between criminalization and compassion, or to be even more fair to the approach advocated by Mr. Johnson, regulation and restriction or the encouragement of a responsible exercise of freedom.

In any event, Senator Obama has never been pro-abortion, and is not now.

Eric McFadden: Some have claimed that Obama advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment? -- and he would enact national health care that would also mandate coverage of abortion on demand.

Doug Kmiec: Again, “mandate coverage for abortion on demand”? This has never been Senator Obama’s position, which instead: Accepts the Roe framework, leaving the ultimate decision to the expectant mother, and consistent with language the Senator was instrumental in having added to the Democratic Platform also “strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care,parenting skills,income support, and caring adoption programs.”

Eric McFadden: Abortion opponents have argued that Obama will not renew the Hyde Amendment.

Doug Kmiec: As Doug Johnson indicates, the Hyde Amendment is renewed year by year. Even were FOCA to pass, and even if my doubts about its unconstitutionality were determined by an appropriate court to be unfounded, Congress has it well within its power to renew the Hyde Amendment after FOCA, which by well-settled, last-in-time interpretative principles would keep the abortion funding limitation in place. What’s needed is what has always been needed, a convincing and legislatively winning argument that on balance public funding for abortion wrongly implicates the taxpayer in what many citizens, including me, see as a moral wrong.

I have not discussed this with him at great length, but I imagine that Senator Obama views health care funding as something that as much as possible should be governed by the needs and determinations of a patient and the patient’s doctor, and it is this nondiscrimination principle, which convinces him that just as public funds should be available for pre and post natal care so too a woman’s choice to bear a child cannot be coerced under criminal or regulatory penalty. Again, not my view and given that FOCA in one form or another has been stalled in Congress since 1989, arguably not the view of the public at large. Indeed, on that score, FOCA’s fate will be more determined by the electoral outcome in Congress than the presidency.

Eric McFadden: Some abortion opponents have claimed that the “Freedom of Choice Act” (S.1173) would invalidate existing federal and state limitations on Abortions.

Doug Kmiec: I am not convinced this wholesale invalidation of state law is what is intended by the drafters of FOCA; what they have provided for in the draft legislative language; or what the judiciary would construe that language to mean. There is still a presumption against preemption that is respectful of the different choices of the states – at least in areas where a constitutionally-affirmed fundamental right is not present (and abortion, as Doug Johnson knows, is not that) -- so I do not accept that regulation, for example, that is evenhandedly drafted by the states to preserve patient health and well-being across multiple medical procedures including abortion automatically is invalid as a “discrimination.” Even the statement of that proposition seems absurd on its face.
Eric McFadden: Johnson and others point to a quote from Senator Obama: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." – they express the same fear that state laws would be nullified by the "Freedom of Choice Act."

Doug Kmiec: Again, I believe this to be overstatement, both in light of the preemption principle noted above and the underlying constitutional doubt about FOCA derived from well-settled law that Congress lacks authority to redefine constitutional rights and liberties. A Supreme Court that some years ago denied Congress’ ability to enact into law as against the states a super-protection of religious liberty is likely to have the same reservations, maybe more given the sensitive and controversial nature of the abortion subject.

Eric McFadden: Johnson has pointed out that Obama has also voted directly against parental notification requirements twice. He also refers us a study of Cardinal Rigali’s regarding the "Freedom of Choice Act," and the accompanying legal memo.

Doug Kmiec: I fully accept the teaching of my church. That teaching, including the thoughtful letter from Cardinal Rigali, indicates that “in recent months, the national debate on abortion has taken a turn that may be productive. Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society.” While his Eminence finds this consensus emerging especially on the regulatory front, I do not read his letter as denying the possibility of consensus by means of improved support for women in poverty and who are often alone and isolated. Quite the contrary, the Cardinal himself notes, quite consistently I might add with the perspective of Senator Obama (though, appropriately of course, the Cardinal does not mention any political figure by name), that “because many women have testified that they are pressured toward abortion by social and economic hardships, bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, . . . deserves Congress’s attention.” Senator McCain’s history here is curious. On the one hand, the Senator voted in favor of amending those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to include the unborn-while voting against legislation to expand SCHIP's coverage to low-income children and pregnant women at least six times.

With all due respect, that type of legislative duplicity is just political gamesmanship which squanders the kind of tangible consensus both the Cardinal and myself and pro-life advocates in both parties would applaud. Matt Bowman in The American Spectator in an essay calculated to bolster Senator McCain’s on again/ off again pro-life position (in the late 90s, the Senator spoke approvingly of Roe, for example) is reduced to writing: “there is no tangible reason to fear that McCain would veto abortion-alternative funding,” though he then urges that the Senator make it “more clear.”

Clarity is good, and like Mr. Bowman, I would hope Senator McCain would follow the lead of Senator Obama on this and support “pre and post natal care.” To do that, however, the Obama administration will first have to clean up the financial mess left behind by the misguided Bush-McCain economic ideology that favored maverick deregulation and tax subsidization of the wealthy -- though apparently not the economically savvy. In other words, to responsibly fund abortion alternatives, Senator McCain will need public resources. Such resources will likely only be possible by the repeal of high-end tax favoritism and the enactment of middle class tax cuts along the lines envisioned by Senator Obama.

Eric McFadden: Johnson and others have been critical of your claim that Republican office holders have not achieved a “Human life Amendment”. In their critique, they claim that Constitution does not give a president any formal role in the constitutional amendment process.

Doug Kmiec: Yes, constitutional amendments depend on the initiative of members of Congress, like that which Senator McCain could have undertaken – but did not -- during his almost 30 years occupying public office.

Eric McFadden: Johnson has stated that “Obama even advocates repeal of the national ban on partial-birth abortions, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007 on a 5-4 vote.”

Doug Kmiec: It is well known that Senator Obama has clearly stated on numerous occasions his support for restrictions on late term abortions. Indeed, Senator Obama has identified the need to draft a clearly defined health exception, the responsible narrowing of which Doug Johnson and I – and perhaps the entire right to life community, including the dear late Henry Hyde himself -- have been advocating for decades.

Eric McFadden: – In a statement Johnson wrote: “Finally: Kmiec has written elsewhere of the personal work that he and his wife have done in assisting women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, which is certainly commendable. Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) across this nation help many, many women each year, and save the lives of many children. Before Kmiec speaks again about Obama's purported commitment to "abortion reduction," perhaps he should reflect on the question put to the Obama campaign by RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website -- "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's official response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."”

Doug Kmiec: Continue funding? The counseling centers known to me and my very effective spouse have not had the benefit of such funding. Must be hard to get. Anyway, Senator Obama’s signal of clear and strong support for women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term offers the kind of complementary assistance that will hardly impede crisis pregnancy centers. And that’s the thing, you have to have the funding for pre and post natal care, income support and parenting skills before you can help anyone in the context of a crisis pregnancy center or otherwise. And as I see it, only Senator Obama has made this, well, “clear.” All McCain-Palin have is platform rhetoric about finding “new ways to empower,” which is really rather tired, old verbiage more likely to mean embarrassingly little.