Michelle Obama on Her Husband and Abortion

Catholic News Agency is reporting that Michelle Obama defended her husband's position regarding abortion on demand saying,

"He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood."

What baloney!

Parenthood begins at fertilization. We don't tell our friends the happy news that we are pregnant with a "fetus." We tell them we are having a baby. We don't say that we went to the obstetrician to hear the heartbeat of the "products of conception" we are carrying. We tell them that we heard "our baby's" heartbeat.

It is about the time a woman finds out she is pregnant that her baby's heart begins to beat. At eight weeks, a baby has all of its organs and the brain waves can be detected.

Parenthood is a great responsibility but it begins long before birth--Michelle Obama can try to whitewash it but the goal of an abortion is a dead baby.

She is right about one thing, her husband is unparalleled in his defense of abortion on demand.

Sarah Palin-- Yes!

God bless her! I am so excited that John McCain picked Sarah Palin. She is not only a lovely woman but also articulate and conservative!

She brings a great deal to this ticket as a politician, a woman and a mother.

We're in for an exciting time in history. No matter who wins in November, it will be a historical election: we will either have a black American in the White House or a woman as vice-president.

Pro-Life Plank Retained. . .

The GOP platform committee responsible for the pro-life plank in the party platform released the reviewed and approved pro-life plank late last night.

CNS News has more.

NRLC v. Barack Obama

Factcheck.org released a report declaring that Obama was wrong and NRLC was right.

NRLC has the latest in a white paper the Federal Legislation Department has produced.

National Review on Obama/Ayers Connection

Here's the link. . .

h/t Sister Toldjah

Alex Jones Goes After Michelle Malkin

I am not going to paint all liberal Democrats with the same brush. I will say that protestors outside of GOP conventions tend to be very, very, very liberal and fringe. I can't speak about those protesting the DNC convention.

The closest I ever got to the DNC conventions I ever "attended" was several blocks away from the convention center. For some reason (mmm, I wonder why?), DNC organizers wouldn't give NRLC passes to the convention and we had difficulty booking space for a press conference anywhere near the convention site.

There were a few times I called a hotel in preparation for a press conference we wanted to hold at a DNC convention. The hotel had space available that the DNC had booked and decided not to use, however, the hold was still in place. I wanted to book the space but when hotel catering called the DNC to release the hold, the DNC wouldn't release it when they found out who wanted it.

C'est la vie.

This year, one protest by liberals in Denver involved a confrontation between liberal talk show host Alex Jones and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. You'll notice that Jones does nearly all the talking:




h/t Sister Toldjah

Ramesh Ponnuru on the Obama "NRLC Lied" Contention

Sorry! This week has had me swamped more than I ever thought possible so I'm behind on posting.

Related to the Obama campaign's assertion that NRLC lied: Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review did a very nice job answering the campaign's criticisms.

Obama/Biden

In the wee hours this morning, the text went out-- it's Obama/Biden for the Democratic ticket. I'll have more on this later but, for now, check out Douglas Johnson's release on Obama vs. Biden on abortion issues.

CBN/CNN Interview with Barack Obama Re: NRLC "Lied" Statements

Here is the CBN Interview that also aired on CNN. This comes to you by way of Newsbusters.

National Right to Life on Barack Obama

First of all, let me apologize for not posting earlier today. I started a new job today (amazingly, writing doesn't pay all that well). I promise that I will try not to collapse under the weight of existing obligations as a writer and my new responsibilities. I will also continue posting on a daily basis but I may not get to comment on events of the day until evening.

National Right to Life and Family Research Council sent out a press release today about the Obama campaign's "adjustment" to comments Barack Obama made about his record on abortion and National Right to Life's (accurate) portrayal of it.

Here are the opening paragraphs to the NRLC press release:

NRL Update: Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying"

By Douglas Johnson
NRLC Legislative Director

WASHINGTON (August 18, 2008, Noon) -- Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.

In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a videorecorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was "lying" in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 -- documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.

In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he's called liars.

We don't have an apology yet. But now there is this, in a news story posted on the New York Sun website on the evening of August 17th: "Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday . . . [Obama's] campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . ."

You will find the rest of the release here.

Saddleback Forum

I didn't get to watch last night (we have three kids we have to put to bed) but Ann Althouse liveblogged the whole thing.

Tom Ridge for V.P.-- No Way

Okay, I have to admit that McCain's comments about Tom Ridge were, shall we say, a little surprising. I think, however, when the time comes, John McCain will pick a pro-life running mate.

Why?

Because a majority in the Republican Party are pro-life and pro-family.

If McCain picked someone like Ridge, he certainly wouldn't be pulling any pro-abortion supporters from the Dems and he would bring in very few pro-abortion voters among independents. The advantage to him is to pick a pro-life running mate. Ridge is very strong on national security but McCain himself isn't a slouch in this area. A pro-life running mate wouldn't have to be an activist in the movement but certainly would have to be someone holding what would be considered a real pro-life record.

And I mean real. The MSM likes to annoint politicians with the pro-life label when their record isn't 100 percent in the camp of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. For example, I couldn't believe my eyes the other day when I saw a news story that dubbed as pro-life Virginia Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. I thought, "Since when and in what universe?!"

McCain would have to pick someone like a Pawlenty or Palin or Jindal who would add to the ticket and show a genuine commitment to the pro-life cause.

To do otherwise would be the death knell for this campaign.

The "Brain Trust" Meeting

C-FAM's Friday Fax reports on a secret meeting designed to discuss ways of promoting abortion on demand through a country's crisis situations.

From the story:

A group calling itself the "brain trust" met in secret recently to plot how to take advantage of conflict situations to advance the abortion and radical feminist agenda. A new group called the Global Justice Center (GJC) hosted the New York meeting on June 9 of this year. The Friday Fax was given the chance to listen to a recording of the inaugural meeting of the "brain trust” which details the GJC's plan to exploit ceasefire and peace talks to gain leverage in newly-formed governments. . .

Knowing how these groups work, this does not surprise me. I used to be astonished at the callousness they could display in their pursuit of fostering abortion on demand in developing nations. Not anymore.

Women (and men and children!) in developing nations need clean water and antibiotics yet these groups push condoms and abortion kits. Now it seems that regardless of religion or tradition, if conflict arises in a country these groups will be first in line to help. . .push abortion on demand.

South Dakota Ballot Initiative

Tuesday, leaders from pro-abortion groups held a press conference at the National Press Club to highlight their opposition to Initiated Measure 11. This ballot initiative would ban abortions in the state of South Dakota except for cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Such a challenge to Roe could possibly make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the course that ballot initiative organizers want it to run. The goal of course would be to challenge Roe's strangle-hold on abortion legislation and possibly return such decisions to the states.

Whether it is successful is another story. Ballot initiatives often do not fair well (regardless of the issue) because people who would agree with a ballot initiative would rather vote "no" than make changes to state law. This is a large reason why ballot initiatives aren't always the best way to go.

It's interesting however to note the language pro-abortion groups used when arguing against the initiative. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood (PPFA) and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the political arm of PPFA, said:

"It is a cynical effort, I believe, by anti-choice groups to simply use the state of South Dakota and the voters of South Dakota to do their ultimate goal which is to challenge the fundamental right of women in this country that supported the right decision to make these personal decisions."

That's a long-winded way of saying that the initiative challenges Roe. But the challenge to Roe is justified-- Roe was a deliberate act of legislating from the bench. Previous Court decisions on Roe have frequently justified its continued existence by claiming it as established precedent and therefore the legal equivalent of written-in-stone.

Whatever happens in November, to hold a press conference in Washington, D.C. about a ballot initiative in South Dakota says a great deal about how nervous pro-abortion leaders are about this.

h/t CNSNews.com

Crumbs from the Table. . .

Oh, brother-- the Democrats modify the party plank to include language that they support a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and it's hailed (!!!) as some kind of major breakthrough?

Talk about crumbs falling from the table.

This is just sad.

No Mental Health Risk to Abortion? But Are They Sure?

The New York Times is reporting that a panel of the American Psychological Association says that there is no known mental health risk associated with a single abortion.

However, note a few things in this brief report:

1. The panel admits that a woman may experience grief and loss following an abortion.

2. Panel members note these findings are associated with a single abortion (yet approximately half of all abortions are repeat abortions).

3. Many of the over 150 studies they looked at were seriously flawed. (Yet somehow they were able to determine there was no mental health risk based on the results of these seriously flawed studies.)

It's about time that the truth comes out. Obviously grief and pain are associated with an abortion-- as one would expect--yet there is the added complication of the mother being complicit in the death of her child.

Some women are fine after a time but many, sadly, are not. There are many, many women suffering from post-abortion syndrome and the establishment constantly tells them that there is nothing wrong. They are told that their grief, pain and guilt aren't real and that what they are experiencing isn't part of something bigger and more serious.

The "People's" Candidate?

CNS News is reporting that the Communist paper in the United States put out an editorial that stops just short of endorsing Barack Obama.

Obama Cover-Up on Illinois Born Alive Bill

This press release was put out by National Right to Life today. I can assure you that if Douglas Johnson put his name on it-- and National Right to Life's reputation behind it-- that it has been researched quite thoroughly.

I apologize for not posting this earlier-- we were out for a good portion of the day.

Barack Obama's very conscious and concerted efforts to oppose the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act should raise legitimate questions regarding his suitability as a presidential candidate. How can a voter reconcile the position he takes on an issue such as this with his supposed desire to help the poor and downtrodden in our society? Can a man be trustworthy when he thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to allow newly-born premature infants to die?

Read the press release and the linked papers. While the truth is shocking, ignoring it is foolish.

Father Neuhaus in Response to Douglas Kmiec

Father Richard John Neuhaus is the editor in chief of the journal First Things. Whether you are Catholic or not, First Things is an excellent publication full of some of the most intelligent writing around.

Last month, Fr. Neuhaus wrote an opinion piece for National Catholic Register about pro-life Catholic and former Justice Department official Douglas Kmiec who feels justified in supporting Barack Obama. Mr. Kmiec feels that Obama would be good on a a wide variety of social justice issues and that Obama's vehement support of abortion on demand is minor in comparison.

Fr. Neuhaus is a wise man and had a wonderful response:

Mr. Kmiec has a long history of faithful public service and has been unapologetic in his witness to the sanctity of human life. He has now become a voice for Catholics who wish to back for president a candidate who has a long history of unqualified support for the unlimited abortion license imposed by the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

His effort to justify his position as a faithful Catholic is, I believe, deeply confused.
Mr. Kmiec argues that we can’t rank abortion as greater evil or a more pressing social and legal concern than racism because they are both intrinsic evils. But Mr. Kmiec has misunderstood the meaning of the term intrinsic evil, and the nature of our political moment.

That two actions are both intrinsically evil tells us nothing about the relative gravity of each action. Telling a lie is intrinsically evil. So is rape. They are not equally grave. Except for instances such as perjury or libel, lying is not a crime. . .

Read the entire opinion piece at the Register.

h/t Today's News and Views

The Race Card?

The media has picked up on the "race" issue in the campaign. First of all, I'm not sure any normal, mainstream commentator has made any complaint about Obama's skin color (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Frankly, I don't care what color skin he has-- I do, however, care about Obama's policies. More importantly, I care about the impact those policies will have on human life.

A race issue we should focus on is the fact that Black Americans make up only 13 percent of the total U.S. population yet Black women have over 1/3 of the 1.2 million abortions a year-- this should be a red flag for anyone. Yet Barack Obama has repeatedly and vociferously defended every pro-abortion bill/legislative agenda to come down from the hallowed halls of Planned Parenthood or NARAL.

Black children are dying every day in this country along with children of every other race and ethnic creed. Instead of working to stop this tragic and senseless loss of life, Barack Obama's beliefs and policies would foster it.

If You Don't Like Barack Obama. . . .

Presenting his apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, Peter Kirsanow over at The Corner on NRO does a very funny (and yet sad) take on the race issue that has flared up in this campaign.

As we have seen, if you don't like Barack Obama's policies you. . . may be a racist.

Here is a sampling of Kirsanow's "25 Reasons You May be a Racist":

15. If you think "we are the change we've been waiting for" is a line from a Monty Python skit you...may be a racist.

16. If you prefer that a president have a smidgen of executive experience you...may be a racist.

17. If you're appalled that Obama voted against treating infants born after an abortion attempt the same medically as other infants born alive you...may be a racist.

h/t Sister Toldjah

Bob Novak Ends His Political Column

Citing his situation as "dire," Bob Novak has announced the end of his political column.

It must be dire indeed.

Bob Novak has written through serious illness before (including cancer). To announce his retirement gives rise to speculation that he may not recover from this. I hope that is not the case.

Mr. Novak will be receiving treatment for his brain tumor-- I pray all goes well.