Barack Obama rocks XXVII: So where do our Submergent brothers get their facts on Obama?

(Tim) One of my relatives posted a couple days ago arguing that the best way to oppose the slaughter of babies in America today is to keep abortion legal. To that end, she called us all to vote for Senator Barack Obama for president of these United States, making her case with a litany of facts that showed everything anyone had ever believed about abortion or Obama's position on abortion was woefully wrong. Start with her newly-discovered fact that Obama isn't pro-abortion at all, but pro-life.

It will help you understand my post below if you take a couple minutes to skim the original post she wrote. This dear sister is a graduate of Columbia International University and the Torchbearers, and she really likes Brian McLaren. So now, on to the facts.

* * *

Much of what Mrs. Fischer has written I'll leave alone. But some of the stuff is repeated so often by Submergent types that I thought it worth correcting publicly.

In her plea for votes for Senator Obama, Mrs. Fischer cited Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. CACG is a political action group working to get Roman Catholics to cast their votes for the Democratic Party, and thus for Senator Barack Obama. Real Roman Catholics are scandalized by such missionaries for Obama cloaking themselves in the name "Catholic." For instance, here's Archbishop Charles Chaput warning against CACG, recently:

...activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

And this from Francis Cardinal George...

Archbishop of Chicago:

September 2, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In the midst of a lengthy political campaign, matters of public policy that are also moral issues sometimes are misrepresented or are presented in a partial or manipulative fashion. While everyone could be expected to know the Church’s position on the immorality of abortion and the role of law in protecting unborn children, it seems some profess not to know it and others, even in the Church, dispute it. Since this teaching has recently been falsely presented, the following clarification may be helpful.

The Catholic Church, from its first days, condemned the aborting of unborn children as gravely sinful. Not only Scripture’s teaching about God’s protection of life in the womb (consider the prophets and the psalms and the Gospel stories about John the Baptist and Jesus himself in Mary’s womb) but also the first century catechism (the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) said: “You shall not slay the child by abortions. You shall not kill what is generated.” The teaching of the Church was clear in a Roman Empire that permitted abortion. This same teaching has been constantly reiterated in every place and time up to Vatican II, which condemned abortion as a “heinous crime.” This is true today and will be so tomorrow. Any other comments, by politicians, professors, pundits or the occasional priest, are erroneous and cannot be proposed in good faith.

This teaching has consequences for those charged with caring for the common good, those who hold public office. The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.

This explains why the abortion issue will not disappear and why it is central to the Church’s teaching on a just social order....

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago

Trust Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to speak for Roman Catholics about the same way you'd trust elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints to speak for Trinitarian Christians (which is not at all, given that the Mormons deny the Trinity). What CACG says and writes should be read in the context of its mission to reach out to Roman Catholics and other religious people in behalf of the party that has always advocated the slaughter of babies. Thus these planks from the current Democratic Party Platform:

Reproductive Health Care: We oppose the current Administration’s consistent attempts to undermine a woman’s ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care... We will never put ideology above women’s health.

Choice: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Mrs. Fischer's second citation comes from the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Insitute was founded by Planned Parenthood and, although no longer tied to Planned Parenthood formally, Guttmacher is at its very core committed to maintaining the legality of the slaughter of babies. For instance, this from the Guttmacher Institute's 2007 Annual Report explaining their commitments and mission:

The legalization of abortion in 1973 was an immense stride forward in self-determination for American women.... Guttmacher recognized that a lack of reliable data on abortion would only work to the advantage of a growing antiabortion movement.

So again, trust the Guttmacher Institute to make recommendations about the best ways to decrease the number of abortions about the same way you'd trust Indiana University's Kinsey Institute to make recommendations about the best ways to decrease sexual immorality. There are some things I would (and have) quoted the Guttmacher Institute's research to support, but the best method to effectively oppose or decrease the slaughter of babies is not one of them.

Incidentally, here are a couple articles, one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and another from Stephen Mosher, debunking the Guttmacher Institute's bad stats on worldwide abortion reporting and trends. Then too, I spoke with the Guttmacher Institute this afternoon as I wrote this piece, asking whether they included RU486 and other "morning after" pills in their worldwide abortion counts published in the 2007 Lancet article.

Not surprisingly, the lady in New York City informed me that they do not consider babies killed by RU486 or other morning after pills as "abortions," but rather the simple use of "contraception."

Of course, each of these chemical cocktails works precisely NOT by preventing conception, but by preventing the successful conceptus from continuing to live. The ovum is fertilized, but then chemicals are used to prevent this living child from attaching himself to the wall of his mother's uterus for his nurture and care.

Thus he dies.

So we see that some past abortions in Western European and other developed countries, but also a growing number of present and future abortions will no longer be counted as abortions at all. Instead, they'll be dismissed as the simple use of "contraception."

Mrs. Fischer's third and final citation is the organization known as Matthew 25 Network. Like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the Matthew 25 Network is a political action group working to get religious people to vote Democratic. They endorse Barack Obama for president. The principal focus of Matthew 25, though, isn't Roman Catholics, but Protestants. Roman Catholics are unlikely to name their site for a chapter in the Bible, right?

For a summary of Matthew 25's message, watch this ad they produced to sell Obama. (It's the top one on this page.) The ad begins and ends with a man they identify as a "pastor" who I would not recommend any soul look to for spiritual truth or guidance because of his unwillingness to submit to Scripture. (See here and here and here for examples.) He claims to be a Christian pastor, but he can't bring himself to say what the Bible says about sodomy, nor any number of other things.

Yet, he's the backbone of Matthew 25's ad, reassuring Christians that they can be "pro-life" and vote for Obama because he cares for families--"your family" no less.

So again, trust Matthew 25 Network and its spokesman, Brian McLaren, to tell us how best to bring family values back to America and to oppose abortion about as much as you'd trust Vice President Dick Cheney to tell us how best to avoid military conflicts around the world--or maybe how best to guarantee that President Bush had room enough to come to his own decisions without undue pressure from his advisers. (I thought it was time for some humor.)

Truth is, Barack Obama is rabidly pro-abortion. Here's an excellent article by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, detailing Obama's extremism and showing the error of almost every point Mrs. Fischer argued promoting him. George starts and ends his article with these refreshingly honest statements taking Senator Obama's words and votes seriously, as if they mean what they say and are to be believed:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition...

[Then, George's two concluding paragraphs:]

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

No one with a serious commitment to end this slaughter--estimated conservatively, now, to total over 950,000,000 babies worldwide (see endnote on abortion stats)--would vote for Senator Barack Obama. But Senator Obama doesn't stop with abortion. Here's another article by Princeton prof, Robert P. George, titled, "Obama and Infanticide."

A few weeks ago, a woman of our congregation asked me whether I planned to vote for Senator Obama. She's known me for over a year, now, and it was an honest question.

Am I a Barack Hussein Obama supporter?

No, I am not.

Why not?

As my dear friend, Doug Wilson, says concerning an entirely different subject, "It's all about the children."

Recently, Mary Lee and I had a little boy and his mother living with us for a year and a half. The boy was the fruit of our church standing outside of Planned Parenthood's killing place every Thursday morning, year after year, calling out to the young mothers intent on murdering their babies that we care about them, we'll pay for them to have medical care, we'll provide groceries and diapers and strollers and housing and love and everything they need to keep and love their child.

The mothers accompanying their daughters into the House of Baby Slaughter are tough as flint and hate the women of our church who carry on this ministry. But these dear women do their work faithfully, despite being punched and kicked and spit on and cursed for their kindness and compassion. Occasionally, a little boy or girl lives because of their Christian love.

This little boy was one such child. After sitting inside the abortuary for a while waiting for the contract killer, his mother came back out and asked if it was true--that she'd be helped to carry her little one to term?

Our women answered "yes," and kept their word. Now, that young boy is in our church and growing in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Of course, these pro-life women and their husbands are also at the forefront of all kinds of service to the poor and needy, the despised and ugly, the weak, orphans, and widows.

A couple of our church members who picket do so out of repentance. Years ago, they murdered their unborn child and now work to spare others what they and their child suffered. This is godliness in which we all rejoice, also. All of us are sinners saved only by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The suggestion Obama supporters make--that pro-life people are a bunch of loveless legalists who use politics to assuage their consciences over a chronic lack of charity, kindness, and mercy--is slander. Start with Mother Theresa: I knew her and once worked with her to oppose abortion. She was no loveless legalist using partisan politics to salve her guilty conscience.

I've known hundreds of other pro-life men and women over the years and they were the most kind, faithful, humble, meek, selfless, forgiving, and godly souls I've ever known.  Each day each one of them remembers Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 25:40).

Taking a slightly different approach to Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, here's a letter from another relative, Isaiah Taylor, to Barack Hussein Obama. Thank you, Isaiah.

* * *

(Endnote concerning abortion statistics)

Concerning abortion stats, one can find various estimates. Wikipedia follows the Guttmacher Institute's estimate of 46,000,000 per year,  but keep two things in mind. First, half of that number is their best guess for countries where abortions are illegal. These countries' stats are estimates, only. Second, remember that the developed world's stats don't include the growing number of abortions due to RU486 and other morning after pills. The true number of unborn children murdered each year is much larger than the Guttmacher Institute estimate.


Thanks for your continuing writing on this critical issue. I'm a long-time lurker, but I believe this is my first comment.

Your count of total abortions to date includes three (3) too many zeros. ("to total over 950,000,000,000 babies worldwide" should be 950,000,000.)

[Since this isn't really a comment worth interacting with, feel free to delete it after making the correction.]

Dear David,

You're right--thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it.

Warmly in Christ,