Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage
Amy Welborn wraps up her very enlightening pre-election coverage of the priority of the abortion issue for Catholics (and the various straw-man arguments in opposition thereto built up by the Obama Catholics) by providing a couple of links comprehensively debunking the "Catholic case" for Obama.
The first link is to a piece by Ryan T. Anderson & Sherif Girgis titled "The Pro-Life Case Against Barack Obama . . . and Doug Kmiec":
Doug Kmiec is at it again. His most recent Obama propaganda piece is titled ''Why Archbishop Chaput's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' As far as we can tell, Kmiec, a legal scholar who identifies as pro-life, has never written an article titled ''Why Senator Obama's Abortion Stance Is Wrong.'' We await such an article. In the meantime, Kmiec has offered a pro-Obama reply to Archbishop Chaput's wise counsel that Catholics vote with a view to securing the equal protection of the law for all people, born or unborn. Kmiec's answers to the Archbishop can be divided without remainder into three categories: the irrelevant, the false, and the fallacious. Exposing their failure shows that the pro-life case against Obama is decisive.Definitely read the whole thing. It conclusively shows, at least in my mind, Prof. Kmiec to be a liar, a hack, and a dissident from Church teaching, at least where the issue of abortion is concerned.
Professor Kmiec's response to Archbishop Chaput is a textbook study in shoddy reasoning. He has placed red herrings, baseless factual claims, and glaring non sequiturs in the service of a conclusion whose logic would be laughable if it did not threaten countless innocent lives: that the most pro-abortion politician in American history would be a blessing for the unborn. Barack Obama offers the unborn no hope to believe in but much change to deplore. Doug Kmiec offers Barack Obama cover for his assaults on the sanctity of human life.
The second link Amy provides is to a series of pieces by John Breen at Mirror of Justice:
A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 1) –The Purported Inability to Overturn Roe as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
... Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec say that they “have no objection” to efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they clearly see this as a futile exercise. They assure us that “[t]he legal path has not worked to date, and it may never work.” They fail to acknowledge, however, how their support for Senator Obama will turn this prediction into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec were honest in their assessment of Senator Obama, they would acknowledge that his pro-choice credentials go far beyond not being “the perfect pro-life candidate.” He is thoroughly committed to an expansive reading of the abortion license and as president will certainly make appointments to the Supreme Court that will continue to frustrate efforts to overturn Roe and its progeny.
It took fifty-eight years to overturn the doctrine of “separate but equal” established by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. So we should not be discouraged that thirty-five years out, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land...
A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 2) – Not “The Perfect Pro-Life Candidate”
Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec acknowledge that Obama isn’t “the perfect pro-life candidate.” In this they display a rare talent for understatement. Still, they insist that he is genuinely “pro-life” in a meaningful and “real world” way in that he wants to reduce the frequency of abortion. On what basis are we to believe that Senator Obama is truly committed to this goal? It certainly cannot be gleaned from his record in public life...
A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 3) –The Empty Hope of Transcending the Culture Wars
As noted in my prior post, there are many parallels between the fight to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall and the other lawyers who battled racial segregation, pro-lifers came to the fight over abortion expecting a tough slough – a bare knuckled brawl in which opponents of abortion have often been confronted with knives: the sharp points and blades of obfuscation and deceit. Still, plenty of pro-life legal advocates have the stomach for such a fight even if others don’t.Read them all.
Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec seem not to appreciate this fight for what it is. Indeed, they seem uncomfortable with the language of struggle. Their language is reminiscent of the political rhetoric that characterizes Obama as a transformational figure. They say he is “erasing” the “old battle lines” of the culture wars.
In fact, however, it is either appallingly naïve or simply disingenuous to suggest that the culture wars are a thing of the past or that they can be overcome by a single political figure. Indeed, Obama’s record shows that he isn’t someone who transcends the culture wars...
Near the beginning of their essay Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec fault Weigel for criticizing “the emergence of serious pro-life Catholics supporting Obama.” In the end, however, their unwillingness to face up to their candidate’s radical support for abortion rights seriously calls into question the accuracy of this statement as a self-description.