URGENT! Please read.

We are only days away from the upcoming election. It is imperative for all Americans to understand what is at stake on Tuesday, November 4. To those who caution me and others against being single-issue voters, I would like to say this: You are right, there are many issues at stake, and we should educate ourselves on these issues as much as possible when we choose a candidate. There are times, however, when certain issues become of primary concern because of the emergence of grave threats to the dignity of the human life. Obama has in effect made this a single-issue election because of his extreme pro-choice stance. Human life in its most innocent and vulnerable stage is greatly endangered. If Obama were moderate, it might be possible for a Catholic, or a pro-life person of any religion, to rationalize a vote for Obama. In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops have stated, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference and inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidates’ unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (paragraphs 34 and 35). Given Obama’s stance on abortion, it is difficult to find a “grave moral reason” to support him. What “grave moral reason” can a Catholic voter in good conscience present in support of Obama? What issue “trumps” the issue of the most basic human right, the right to be born? Is it the economy? To be honest, while both candidates have different viewpoints, I think that either one could come up with some ways to pull us out of this economic crisis. Is it the war in Iraq? True, McCain has committed to keeping troops there for an undetermined length of time, but Obama, while pulling out sooner, still plans to keep “residual forces” in Iraq. In addition, Obama has expressed support on multiple occasions for the risky move of crossing the Pakistan border in search of Afghani insurgents, with or without the authorization of the Pakistani government. Is healthcare the concern? Let’s not put the cart before the horse. How about allowing people to be born in the first place? I would say that the fact that millions of Americans are being murdered in their mother’s womb is a pretty serious health crisis. Let us not fail to acknowledge that there is a genocide taking place right here in the U.S., every day, in the wombs of women who are deceived into thinking that killing their children will lead to liberation.

Please humor me for a moment and imagine a hypothetical election. It is 2008, and we can choose between 2 candidates whom for now we will call “A” and “B.” Let’s suppose that both candidates have relatively the same stance on abortion, yet they diverge on other issues and tend to follow their respective party’s typical stances. Now say that one of the candidates (candidate “B”) is openly racist and has even supported legislation to protect the rights of the KKK over the years (I choose racism as an issue because it is mentioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops along with abortion as an “intrinsic evil” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). If elected, candidate “B” plans to sign off on laws that will virtually wipe away all the gains the Civil Rights Movement has made over the past few decades and use taxpayer’s dollars to support KKK activities. Candidate “A,” on the other hand, has openly condemned racism and would overturn any discriminatory legislation that still exists. Consider now that you are preparing to vote, and you have decided that “B’s” racist stance compels you to reject him/her and vote for “A.” Would you expect to be criticized for focusing only on the racism issue? It would be very strange if someone were to say to you, “Listen, you can’t just look at one issue. Yeah, ‘B’s’ racist, but you have to look at the big picture. Besides, what difference is “A” really going to make?” Such a person may even argue that despite “B’s” history of endorsement of racist legislation, his or her economic policies would lead to more integration and greater financial stability for families of all races. This would in turn result in an increase in understanding between races and a decrease in tensions caused by economic strain that often bring out the worst in us. Would these argument justify voting for a racist candidate? I think not. Now just replace “A” with McCain, “B” with “Obama,” “racism” with “abortion,” and “KKK” with “Planned Parenthood.” Does this give you a different perspective on this year’s election?

This past week in our Faith and Politics class, we examined several very powerful arguments expressed in Robert George’s Public Discourse article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and George Weigel’s op-ed Newsweek piece “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama.” Both men have an impressive history of experience in matters of faith, politics, and ethics. Both Weigel and George write about Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” his unwavering support of Roe v. Wade, and his commitment to FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Robert George quotes Obama as saying, “the first thing I would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ” Weigel does a good job of summing up this act as well as describing significant policies that Obama opposes, so I would like to quote Weigel here:

“According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.” Thus, FOCA really is not about choice at all. It is about eliminating the freedom of pro-life taxpayers and healthcare professionals to choose not to cooperate with murder. It is about continuing to deny helpless babies their right to be born.

In response to those who argue that Obama’s policies on other issues would lead to a decrease in abortion by improving socioeconomic status, Weigel offers the following statistics: “Sweden, with a much thicker social safety net than the United States, has precisely the same rate (25 percent) of abortions per pregnancy as America,” and “according to a survey conducted by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, a mere 23 percent of abortions in the United States are performed primarily because of alleged financial need.”

If Obama’s endorsement of FOCA is not enough to cause concern, Robert George describes the various legislative acts supported by Obama that would allow for the creation and destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. Besides the fact that this is extremely unethical, it is completely unnecessary due to the fact that there are a number of successful alternative ways to acquire non-embryonic stem cells. It is incomprehensible why Obama would support such acts. George also notes that Obama has shown a record of opposition to pro-life bills, even those proposed by his own Democratic Party.

George goes on to remind us that we have 5 to 6 Supreme Court justices who are likely to retire within the next four to eight years. While we will have to deal with a President for 8 years at the most, we will have to contend with the Supreme Court justices he appoints until they have reached an age or a health condition at which they are no longer able to effectively perform their duties. The impact of an appointment of a Supreme Court justice will extend far beyond the termination of a presidency. George points out that Obama has “made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama.” McCain, on the other hand, has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would likely appoint judges who feel the same way.

There are some who argue that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would make little difference in decreasing the number of abortions. I would like to echo George’s argument, however, and affirm that turning the issue over to the states would allow for greater dialogue on the issue and more pro-life legislative gains than a national blanket-statement from federal Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench. Furthermore, McCain recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue to the states is not the only thing that must be done. He explicitly states on his website (under the section “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life”) that a reversal of Roe v. Wade must be accompanied by continued support of “faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to mothers in need” as well as greater encouragement of adoption.

To see a video confirming what has been presented in this blog, please visit this link: http://americaschoicenow.com/

On November 4th, 2008, may we choose life, and may we continue to embrace God’s indescribable gift of life every day of our lives.

I leave you with this verse: “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Deuteronomy 30:19