The article even dares to broach the reason for the precipitous drop. In my mind, that can hardly be a question. Barack Obama has the most radical pro-abortion position in Presidential election history and the word is getting out.
How radical is it? Well for one thing, He opposed a ban on the killing of fetuses born alive during abortion in Illinois. Yes, you read that right. (This was started by the experience of a traumatized abortion nurse who was not even allowed to hold a surviving child, but instructed to put ‘it’ in the trash.) From Broder’s article, this was his rationale:
Mr. Obama has said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.
It was “poorly drafted”. How slippery can you get? He “would have voted”; how convenient! Have you noticed this is a pattern for him? It’s a clever way of appearing to be on both sides of an issue.
The other issue is “partial birth abortion”. This is a procedure wherein a baby is partially delivered with only the head in the womb. The base of the skull is then punctured, the hole is widened, and the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull, while the child is still living. Even if you are “pro-choice”, you can certainly see that this is beyond words. (Maybe we can have a discussion later about cutting up or burning alive babies over the course of hours inside the womb, but that’s another matter.)
Even some of the most liberal like Hilary Clinton couldn’t bring themselves to vote against banning that. You’d have to be pretty completely sold out to the powerful abortion lobby to stand up in public and support such a grisly procedure. [The ‘powerful’, government-supported, billion-dollar plus abortion business is the largest unregulated industry in our country and their political, lobbying and legal insinuation everywhere is truly mind-boggling. The only possible reason I can see for opposing this ban is feeling beholden to their influence.]
So what is Barry’s position on this? When the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial abortion, Obama called a special press conference to attack the court for their terrible decision. He was one of the very few. In fact, this was a rare occasion when he lost his smooth veneer and showed considerable emotion over the audacity of the Court in making such a decision. This is radical; this is unprecedented in a Presidential candidate.
How can ANY Catholic, Church-going or not, (or any thinking, feeling human being for that matter) identify with this? We wouldn’t do this to our dogs or kittens! [It is against the law to do so, unlike our children.]
As for believing Catholics, I think Denver’s Archbishop summed it up well:
Archbishop Chaput wrote that Catholics could support a politician who supported abortion only if they had a “compelling proportionate reason” to justify it. “What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue?” the archbishop wrote. “It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
Catholics have always highly valued and fought for “social justice” issues, while seeing the drawbacks of both socialism and untrammeled capitalism, and rightly so. Perhaps, there is a way you, as a Catholic, could twist your self into voting for some ‘pro-choice’ candidates and be able to justify this, approximating the standard outlined by the Bishop. However, can any person, even non-believers, see how a believer could, with any self-integrity, vote for a man who has gone as far as Obama?
Lately, Barack tried what amounted to a feint in the direction of pro-life Democrats. He said he would be able to oppose late-term abortions if the woman was only doing it for reasons of “feeling blue”. However, a later, very vague retraction later showed us this was merely a feint. This was that old, by now familiar, both-sides-of-an-issue ploy that leaves us all scratching our heads. It doesn’t really matter. How can anything he says now about anything matter at all? All we know about this particular issue is, he didn’t NEED to come out with a press conference supporting Partial Birth Abortion, and HE DID. That speaks volumes.
So, for all you Catholics out there who see Barry beckoning towards you enticingly, his refined fingers rolling towards himself, pinkie through index, his smiling face wreathed with seraphic light dreamily mouthing his inviting words, please notice that dripping from those stylish fingers is innocent blood.