Live from Philly:The Politics of Abortion

So does that make it two Catholics on one radio program who will wrongfully and scandalously assert that Catholics in this election can actually support the pro-abortion candidate? I know that is your position, Mr. Winters, and it is very sad. Hopefully you will recognize the teaching authority of the bishops before it is too late and recognize that no Catholic can find any justifiable way of voting for Obama in this election. There are no proportionate reasons, they just don't exist. Catholics will incur blood-guilt by voting for Obama and continuing this genocide.

Just to correct the record, Amy Sullivan's not a Catholic. She was raised an evangelical, if I remember correctly, and is now a Presbyterian or memebr of another mainline Protestant denomination.

The scandal is that the Bishops are supporting a very corrupt Republican campaign machine. They act as though abortion were actually up for debate, other than the self generated posturing of the Right to Life movement. There are no real proposals and no real issues to be decided in this election regarding abortion, chiefly because the pro-life side has not offered any options to current law besides its tortuous drive to restrict it at the state level by a thousand cuts. When the Republicans had clear majorities, they could have easily limited abortion at the federal level by recognizing all fetuses as individuals after the 23rd week of gestation. Congress could do so under its power to enforce the 14th Amendment. The fact that it did not speaks volumes for its real agenda, which is keeping the Right to Life movement radicalized and voting Republican. I refuse to perpetuate this sham and it is a scandal that the Bishops continue to.

Bill, thank you for the correction. Mr. Binder, you could not be more wrong about the abortion issue and how it is directly affected by this election. On one hand, it's not only what Sen. McCain would do as president to secure justice for the unborn, it's what Obama would do to egregiously exacerbate the injustice by his signing into law of the Freedom of Choice Act. Obama's abortion views and record is the most radical of any presidential candidate in history, and as such Catholics have a moral obligation to oppose him. Far from being scandalous, the bishops are fulfilling the duty of their office by speaking out clearly and truthfully about the necessity of Catholics to oppose Obama's candidacy. Secondly, McCain will have a positive impact on justice for the unborn by nominating the Supreme Court justices who could finally get us over the hump and get the tyrannical decision of Roe v. Wade overturned. We likely have almost enough votes on the Court now, and with two to three pro-Roe justices retiring, we can almost assuredly get the votes with McCain appointments, and will be almost certain to not get them with Obama appointments. So your attempt to minimize the effect of this election on the abortion issue falls terribly short. You are wrong, and Catholics simply cannot vote for Obama in good conscience. Voting for him with abortion hanging in the balance as it does will place blood guilt on your hands. The voiceless unborn need us to speak for them, and by nominating a pro-life president at this crucial juncture would speak for them loud and clear. But voting for the pro-abortion Obama will merely ensure that their cries will never be heard. Vote for Obama, and you will have a serious answer to give on Judgment Day.

Mr. Hallman, You appear to be sufferring from a Golden Age mentality regarding the regulation of abortion. When Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was fined - the fetus was not recognized as a separate life. It was entirely approrpiate to end state sponsored interference between women and their doctors. Had there been any recognition of legal rights for the fetus as an individual, privacy would not have applied. The unborn never had justice. Roe did not change that. As to overturning Roe, one cannot ignore the impact on civil rights law of such an action, including the civil rights of the Church. Neither candidate has this issue as a priority. If you are serious about this issue being number one, you should find a candidate who does and give that person money. You need to look for a candidate who will deal forthrightly with the issue of how to extend rights to the unborn (for the first time). It is not an easy issue, no matter how much you wish that it were so. Barack Obama is at least willing to protect late term fetuses, provided there is a reasonable health exception (not the exception of Doe v. Bolton, but one that is more reasonable). These things should be crafted legislatively, not by attempting to overturn the entire basis for federal supremacy in civil rights law. As to the Freedom of Choice Act, I doubt it will go to Obama's desk and I will certainly work to make sure it does not. That is an issue where the Church should get involved by contacting legislators rather than interfering in electoral politics. The implication in your first entry is that it is a scandal for Catholics to disagree with the bishops. I disagree. It is sinful for them not to do so when they are wrong. Had our Lord and the Prophets held to your view of dissent, there would not be a Church.