Posted on 09/11/2008 9:33:12 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Have you met the "Welfare-Only Pro-Lifers"? They are spearheading Barack Obama's effort to tell pro-life voters that Obama will reduce abortion. What WOPLs are not telling people is that John McCain would fund abortion-reduction, too, while Obama's other policies will vastly increase abortion.
WOPLs believe that being a pro-life candidate means nothing more than giving government funding to low income women during and after pregnancy. WOPLs take their lead from Obama himself. Alongside his clumsy abortion comments, Obama often suggests that government funding would help women choose not to abort.
WOPLs include people like law professor Doug Kmiec, whose book Can a Catholic Support Him [Obama]?" will be released September 15. Kmiec and Obama both point to the Democratic Party platform's new call for government-funded health care related to pregnancy (even though the platform no longer wants abortion to be "rare"). Not coincidentally, the WOPL group "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good" released a study during the Democratic convention claiming that government funding can reduce abortions.
In a recent New York Times interview Kmiec issued his audacious claim: if Obama will "reduce the incidence of abortion," "how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?" (Emphasis added.)
Kmiec's problem, and that of other WOPLs, is that they don't know how to balance an equation. They ignore two essential facts: that most of Obama's actions will increase abortion, and that their speculation about abortion-reduction would also occur under McCain.
Obama will strike down every limit on abortion in all 50 states, including parental involvement in abortion. This revolution will come through the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama solemnly told the abortion industry he would sign immediately upon becoming President.
Obama will then change federal law to fund abortions directly. A 2007 study by Dr. Michael New shows that these laws collectively prevent tens of thousands of abortions every year.
Obama will also legalize partial-birth abortion, appoint only pro-abortion judges, and continue to rationalize his pro-infanticide voting record.
McCain would do none of these things, and has chosen a staunchly pro-life running-mate. Most importantly, McCain does not oppose government funding around pregnancy. A closer look shows that Obama, not McCain, opposes several types of government aid for women and their babies.
The Pregnant Women Support Act is a bipartisan federal bill that the "Catholics in Alliance" study praises. Yet Obama voted against a provision, which is in one version of the PWSA, to fund health insurance for unborn children.
Moreover, Obama almost certainly opposes funding for the thousands of pro-life pregnancy centers that are the real leaders in directly assisting women every day. Obama has pledged his unswerving loyalty to the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
PP considers pro-life centers to be public enemy number one, and actively works to outlaw them. Obama's abortion handlers would mutiny if he ever hinted at funding pro-life pregnancy centers.
Meanwhile, the McCain/Palin platform declares that "government must find new ways to empower and strengthen" pro-life pregnancy centers, which "provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need." They also point out McCain's extensive voting record in favor of adoption assistance.
And McCain has given a prominent role in his campaign to pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, a longtime supporter of funding abortion alternatives.
Funding for women that don't abort would not fall prey to McCain's well-known budget hawkishness, which instead seeks to eliminate wasteful earmarks. Perhaps McCain might veto a bill that, in addition to funding alternatives to abortion, also funds abortion and Planned Parenthood (which seems to be Obama's "abortion reduction" approach). Such a veto, however, is not an argument why pro-lifers should vote for Obama instead of McCain. Quite the contrary. If Obama wants that kind of bill, he is not serious about "rising above" the abortion wars to reduce abortion.
In sum, there no tangible reason to fear that McCain would veto abortion-alternative funding. McCain could make it even more clear by publicly stating his support for specific types of funding, in addition to those he mentions in his platform.
The WOPL argument is therefore irrelevant to this presidential campaign. Yet WOPLs will persist. They will continue to gush about Obama's emotional attractiveness. They will also revert to the old liberal Catholic attack against "single issue voting," by which the only issue they don't consider important is abortion.
But history is against them. In the past two presidential elections, more rather than fewer devout Christians decided to vote pro-life. That's why liberals adopted their new "WOPL" persona in the first place, and that's why it will fail in 2008.
Matt Bowman directs the website and blog at www.AbortObama.com, and is a constitutional law attorney in Washington, D.C.
Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years:
Barack Soetoro Obama is a far more radical pro-choice candidate than he is trying to portray. Obama has a history of defending infanticide and he tried to conceal it at the Saddleback forum, recently. And he’s still trying to divert attention form his deception.
When Barack Obama made his famous, flippant remark of ‘above my pay grade’, it came after he had skillfully changed the focus of Rick Warren actual question.
When one watches the video, it is clear that Pastor Warren asked, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Rick didn't ask about a fetus, he asked about a baby, the name given a born infant! Obama changed the focus to create a confusion he assumed would give him wiggle room. But why?
While Barack Obama was in the Illinois legislature, on three separate occasions he worked hard to prevent a bill to come into law that would extend medical attention to infants already born as survivors of abortion attempt. The reality is that abortionists had begun causing premature births to terminate pregnancies.
Instead of killing alive children in the womb, then delivering the corpse, abortionists were causing premature births and leaving the little struggling babies to die unattended, alone. Yes that’s ghoulish, but it is what was happening all over the nation at the time Obama worked to prevent laws from being passed that would force medical attention for the preemies!
Killing alive unborn children in females’ bodies is bad enough, but Barack Obama went even further, to defend the killing via neglect of alive BORN children. It is downright ghoulish that he is proud of that record and is still trying to spin his deceit in the Saddleback interview.
Barack Obama is pro-life like Las Vegas is the Mecca for treating compulsive gambling. Barack Obama is pro-life like Wahabbi Madrasses are for training Catholic Priests.
Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act. Enough said. Doug Kmiec: Du bist ein Idiot.
Supports FOCA and opposes DOMA. Enough said. Two ironclad reasons for Catholics to throw Obama under the bus. And Doug Kmiec with him.
When an atrocity is going on in your midst you oppose it altogether, anything less is immoral.
I read an interesting piece during the Dem convention, when someone spoke to some Dem vets. They were absolutely convinced Obama would send in MORE troops and do some nationbuilding.
OReilly also. People so fast forget the NUMBER ONE political rule, which in NEVER listen to what the candidates say, especially during elections.
Look at their past and WATCH WHAT THEY DO.
Obama has no achievements to stand out, for a reason. But you can still tell his character by the ASSOCIATIONS he has kept.
Doesn’t the bible say a foolish man is told by the bad company he surrounds himself with?
First line from the 2008 DNC platform on abortion:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
Notice the absence of the previously qualifying word “rare”. Now the door is open to having taxpayers pay for anyone’s abortion, presumably including kids and illegal aliens. And the platform could reopen opposition efforts to deny restrictions on partial-birth abortions (BAIPA 2002 that Obama opposed in its Illinois state senate version) and protection for born-alive abortion survivors.
http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-by-Cmte-08-13-08.pdf
Can he sign enact the “Freedom of Choice Act” without Congress?
He seems to think so, if I understand his promise.
But is that possible?
But is that possible?
Trickle down abortion reduction.
“With Obama, nothing is impossible.”
But keep in mind Obama's very close relationship with eugenicist mega-SIG, Planned Parenthood. Mostly, they're about killing black babies.
It's all a part of BHO wanting to become a "post racial" president, you see.
I’m sure he is for more abortions of white and hispanic babies too. He’s for CHANGE!
I don't know them as the welfare only" pro-lifers...they must also go as the "blinded by drugs" pro-lifers as well, because that's the only way they could honestly arrive at such a view.
Obama’ll let the middle-aged fathers kill the girls when they first mention their pregnancies.
Fewer abortions.
WOW! What a way to frame it! Brilliant observation, TE. And if Barry ‘the balck messiah’ Obama can get more Hispanics to murder their alive unborn, they won’t overtake blacks as the number one minority! Method in his ghoulishness don’tchaknow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.