Election Day! Support pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage causes!

Today, please do your part in defending the family in each of the following key elections, as I outlined yesterday.

If you are able to vote in the Virginia, New Jersey, New York-23 elections or Maine referendum, please do so.

If you are out of state, please support the pro-family candidate or proposal with financial resources or by volunteering with appropriate signs at the polls!

I'll be hovering around twitter today posting updates on the elections and election returns.

And let's pray for our country and the brave candidates who fight for our freedoms and families.

Politics: On the new US ambassador to the Vatican

Four persepctives on the new US ambassador to the United States (I blogged on his appointment when it was first announced):

Pro-Life: "Pope Tells New Obama Vatican Ambassador to Uphold Pro-Life Position on Abortion"

Catholic News Service: "Pope welcomes new US ambassador, prods on right to life issues"

John Allen: "Pope pushes Obama envoy on abortion, conscience protections"

Mainstream: "Pope meets new US envoy, praises Obama"

Tells ... prods ... pushes ... meets.

Note the spectrum of perspectives.

Picture: Red Mass in DC attended by six Catholic SCOTUS members

Local DC blog Snark Infested provides photos from this years Red Mass (Mass for lawyers), where all six of the Catholic Supreme Court Justices of the United States were in attendance I believe:

Reports from the ground indicate that yes (as picture above) - the most recent Supreme Court confirmation, Sonia Sotomayor, was in attendance (even though I hear she has not attended Mass in years), as was Catholic Vice-President Joe Biden. The homily was preached by Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (update - here is the full text of Cardinal DiNardo's homily).

Notably, no mention of the duty of judges to uphold the natural law teaching on Traditional (i.e., heterosexual) marriage was mentioned, which I think is dissapointing considering our political climate.

Cardinal Rigali, meanwhile, issued a "powerful statement" on Respect Life Sunday.

Did your priest preach on life issues this previous Sunday?

Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan

Here is some common ground on the abortion issue I'm willing to offer: I'm not going to pay for them.

The White House continues to dodge the issue.

The US Bishops have released a statement which says:

“No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is also blogging away: "Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way [of reforming health care]."

For the record, on prudential grounds, I think the health care "reform" bills being pushed through the House and Senate ought to be completely scrapped.

But I am sure Catholics would agree with me on this: we cannot allow our government to foot the bill (with our tax dollars) when anyone in this country wants to have an abortion.

On an important related issue, Jack Smith gives us an update on the Ryan-DeLauro bill:

The Ryan-DeLauro Bill looks to be presented as the President's much vaunted "common ground" approach to reducing abortion - appealing to both pro-life and pro-choice leaders. Problem is, it is sponsored by two pro-choice legislators. By his consistent moves in the last two legislative sessions, Rep. Ryan has given up any claim to being pro-life. As we mentioned above, he is actually working against pro-life Democrats.

This Ryan-DeLauro bill is meant to derail any truly common ground approach to aid women in crisis pregnancies and their families. In its previous incarnations the bill is top heavy with hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood and lite on actual support for women. Its unveiling this week will reveal whether it gives more to Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than before.

That is my fear and should cause concern for all who have supported common ground efforts to reduce abortion. Now more than ever, it is critical for Democrats and Republicans to show support for the Pregnant Women Support Act written by Democrats for Life and strongly supported by the USCCB.

So, to recap: no taxpayer-funded abortion in government health care bills, and no large-scale sneaking of taxpayer-money to the major abortion providers in this country.

If forcing all Americans to pay for abortions they know are morally wrong counts as "common ground" in these people's minds, then they were never actually serious about reducing abortions in the first place.

action: if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

I've recently discussed both the various "common ground" ideas (here, here, here & here) being floated by pro-abortion advocates, as well as Obama's recent pick for Surgeon General, a Catholic who appears to support Obama's pro-abortion stance.

My disagreement with pro-abortion advocates on these "common ground" issues are not simply matters of perspective - there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between our two positions, I believe.

Thus, when WaPo writes an article entitled "Surgeon General Pick's Stance on Abortion May Clash With Church's", it is meaningless for Common Ground to describe it as "Obama's Surgeon General Picks Believes in Common Ground on Abortion Issue."

What the Surgeon General actually believes, is what Obama thinks about the abortion issue, not what the Church teaches about it. And yes, there is a difference. Especially when you have to apply pressure on his administration to not include universal funding of abortion in their new health care proposal (more on that later).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues wanting to have it both ways, resulting in ridiculous statements such as this one from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007 (when he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President).

Can we honestly believe the claim that Planned Parenthood and Pope Benedict will be satisfied with the same solution to the scourge of abortion?!

North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

There are currently fifteen states pursuing personhood legislation, Judy Brown reports.

One of them, North Dakota, has passed a "Personhood of Children Act" 51-41 in the house. It will go to their senate in the next 2-3 weeks.

More from local press:

"[This news] means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder. Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed."

Ed Morrissey says "don’t count your chickens until the eggs hatch, pun intended."

I can't say I have too much hope this will survive, but stranger things have happened. I pray that it does.

[Picture: Flickr user Lynn]

It begins: ESCR Bans & The Mexico City policy first to go in Obama administration

Get used to photo-ops like this one:

Barack Obama with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.

CNA reports:

"President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is preparing the first actions of his presidency, planning to lift embryonic stem cell research funding restrictions and rules which prevent international organizations that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion."

Okay, Kmiec et al., explain to me how proliferating the human-destroying procedure of embryonic stem cell research + providing funding to pro-abortion international groups ... builds up a culture of life.

Listed: Bishops who have spoken out for life

Inside Catholic is attempting to compile a list of bishops who have "spoken out on the primacy of life issues in the coming election." Rocco Palmo recently counted "over 50," but IC has found over 60, and is asking folks to help them search diocesan websites/newspapers for more.

It wouldn't surprise me if, before November 4th, we discover the majority have spoken out about life.

Commentary: Pope Benedict and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

As we approach the "Ides of April", when Pope Benedict will begin his five day visit of the United States, we can expect political commentators to closely scrutinize what the pope has to say in an attempt to determine which candidate or party the pope supports. This is a fool's quest, in many ways, because Pope Benedict has more important things to talk about than - yes, even politics.

At the same time, it is a healthy opportunity to evaluate the candidates and their positions from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, and the particular pastoral priorities of the pope.

Robert Reilly, writing for Inside Catholic, starts us off:

Senator McCain not only needs Catholics who will vote for him, but who will each find ten other Catholics who will do the same. That is not going to happen unless he galvanizes the Catholic electorate. He has an opportunity to do this when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States during April 15 to 20.

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. [more.]

Reilly provides several more helpful and important talking points, including that McCain should appear in and be interviewed by Catholic media outlets (I, for one, would be happy to do so).

I think Reilly is absolutely correct. The pope's visit is an invitation to all high-profile political leaders to (re)commit themselves to the common values of human dignity and sanctity to which Pope Benedict witnesses.

On the democratic side, Michael Sean Winters, writing for America, hopes Hillary will make a similar move:

... the combination of Benedict's visit and anti-immigrant hostility in economically depressed areas of the Rust Belt gives Clinton a chance to move past her greatest liability: her previous support for NAFTA, support that received new credence from the release of her White House schedules which show she was involved in lobbying for the trade bill.

Note the disparity here: Clinton's best hope for political capital from the papal visit is ... NAFTA-related.

And even this might be too much to hope for, in discussing her role as a "change" candidate for instance:

I doubt Clinton will embrace such a proposal. The polls in Pennsylvania show her with a solid lead and why rock the boat? In the time-honored playbook of American politics, look for Clinton to go increasingly negative on Obama in the weeks ahead, trying to shift the fundamentals of the race. Still, until America realizes that it needs vibrant economic growth throughout the hemisphere, that NAFTA was not only bad policy that needs to be reversed, but that good policy needs to be put in its place, then and only then will we be approaching comprehensive immigration reform.

If "comprehensive immigration reform" is the best she has to offer as common ground with the pope's priorities, it's going to be a uneventul visit for her, at best. Too little, too late, in my opinion.

As for Obama, earlier this week he picked-up the endorsement of the former dean of the Catholic University of America's law school, Douglas Kmiec. Alisa Harris, writing for the Huffington Post:

But as Kmiec has noted before, Catholics do hold views that make them uncomfortable in either party. They’re pro-life, anti-death penalty, often anti-Iraq war, and concerned about global warming.

Will other Catholics follow Kmiec’s lead? So far, they’ve been voting for Hillary Clinton over Obama, but the New York Times says they’re a fickle group: “No other large group has switched sides so often, or been so consistently aligned with the winners.”

Kmiec's own position:

Kmiec noted that as a Republican and as a Catholic, he supports preserving traditional marriage and believes that "life begins at conception" -- and he acknowledged that Obama may differ with him on those issues. However, he said he is convinced that Obama "is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and … will respect and accommodate them." (UPI)

Unfortunately, Obama has actually demonstrated a complete unwillingness to understand opposing points of view on life issues, let alone respecting or accomodating them.

Deacon Fournier has written the definitive refutation of Kmiec's argument at Catholic Online:

On many important public policy issues I agree with my friend Professor Doug Kmiec. I also admire him and believe that he is sincerely pro-life. However, I respectfully and strongly disagree with his decision to support Senator Barack Obama.

In the application of issues in accordance with the hierarchy of values, I choose to hear the cry of the ones whom Blessed Teresa of Calacutta called the "poorest of the poor", the children living in the wombs of their mothers. After all, they have no voice but ours....

.... I am whole life, pro-life. I absolutely oppose the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb. Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is out neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life. Senator Obama is wrong in his support of legalized abortion. It is also intrinsically evil to “manufacture” human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts. Senator McCain is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.

Note in that last sentence, a question that McCain also to has to answer, and has not yet done so satisfactorily.

And that, not-so-briefly, is where the candidates stand in respect to the pope, 19 days before the Ides of April.

AmP Exclusive: Sen. Browback on John McCain's support of stem cell research + an overview of his true position

This week I attended a book launch hosted by InsideCatholic in Washington DC that included a Q&A with author Deal Hudson and Senator Sam Browback.

I posed a queston for both men which went like this (according to my memory, their responses are also according to my memory):

Recently, in a conference call with Catholic representatives, John McCain restated his support embryonic stem cell research, but also said that he was open to further dialogue on the topic. Do we know if this dialogue is in fact taking place, and is there any chance McCain will change his position before the general election?

A paraphrase of Hudson's response:

I believe McCain is hoping that scientific progress [on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells] renders the question academic [in other words, irrelevant in terms of policy]. One of the things about McCain is that once he takes a position he's very persistent about keeping it.

A paraphrase of Senator Brownback's response:

I can personally assure you that dialogue is ongoing with McCain about this issue [i.e., he is one of the persons doing it], but it is true that right now McCain supports the research.

The video of my question and the two responses it received will be aired on C-SPAN in the next 2-3 weeks. When it is aired, I will provide a link to it and update this post with the exact quotes.

More research on John McCain and federal funding of embronic stem cell research:

It is important to note that, from my research, McCain supports the use of fetal stem cell lines that would otherwise be discarded but opposes the creation of new fetal stem cell lines.

Pew Forum on the issues:

McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.

McCain's all-important statement on the question at the May 3, 2007 GOP primary debate:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

CNN provides video of his expanded response, in which he again states that he hopes new scientific breakthroughs make this question "academic." He also mentions his 24-year pro-life voting record.

John McCain's position from an article published on his official campaign website last year:

"John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of 'fetal farming,' making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law. As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines."

To recap:

• From what I've found, John McCain opposes federal funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but supports the use of embryonic stem cell lines already in use.

Readers should not take this post to necessarily mean that I support McCain's position on this issue, nor that I support John McCain for president, but these remain the facts, as I've discovered them.

I've often heard the claim made by some that "McCain supports embryonic stem cell research." That claim, however, ignores the distinction between killing further unborn human life through the creation of new stem cell lines, and using stem cell lines derived from embryos already destroyed.

Both forms of research are objectionable, but the former kind is far more objectionable because it entails the willful killing of human embryos, which one can never do nor support.

The use of already-derived embryonic stem cell lines, on the other hand, is closer to the moral category of using vaccines derived from research done on embryos, which can (I would argue) be legitimately done in some circumstances, but in general should be avoided, if possible, as a witness to the dignity of human life.

Barack Obama and the Catholic vote, and Catholic positions

A recap of revent events.

Deal Hudson at the Insight Blog notes "the determination of the Obama effort to attract Catholic voters", citing a recent Politico.com column, on the Obama campaign's response to a previous article entitled "Obama Slow to Gain Among Catholics." Hudson's own take published here.

Also, Michelle Malkin points out that Obama has been "explain[ing] how his Christian faith approves of same-sex unions and abortion." On the first issue, Terry Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service:

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." [Hear audio from WTAP-TV] St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

This coming as the homosexual lobby gravitates towards Obama, Bloomberg reports:

Now some gay voters, who have been among Clinton's most stalwart supporters and helped her defeat Barack Obama in Democratic presidential primaries earlier this month, may be drifting toward the Illinois senator, according to political activists and campaign officials.

And on the topic of abortion, Cybercast quotes Obama saying:

“I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view,” Obama said about abortion. “Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

Obama, for his own part, is identifying himself often as a praying Christian:

"I am a devout Christian," he told voters in this key state.

"I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."

Meanwhile, on the always-enlightening Obama Messiah blog, videos like this one:


If Obama manages to beat Clinton in Texas tomorrow, and further distances himself from her in the other Tuesday contests and in the coming weeks, we can expect more where this came from.

Over the past couple evenings I've refined an op-ed piece on the topic of Clinton and Obama that I've submitted to a few places. If none of them choose to run it, I'll publish it here. So either way, you'll see it!