Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Awful: LAT Op-Ed Claims Obama a 'Bridge Builder' on Abortion
Newsbusters ^ | October 20, 2008 | Dave Pierre

Posted on 10/20/2008 6:32:10 AM PDT by St. Louis Conservative

In an error-ridden op-ed in Friday's Los Angeles Times (10/17/08), Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec makes the outrageous claim that Barack Obama "has held himself out as a bridge builder" on the issue of abortion. Kmiec then advances a fallacious case that a faithful Catholic can vote in clear conscience for Barack Obama.

A "bridge builder" on abortion? Is Kmiec kidding?? Consider:

Obama has forcefully vowed that his very first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). FOCA claims a "fundamental right" to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and no government body at any level would be able to "deny or interfere with" this right. Even the pro-choice NOW readily acknowledges that FOCA would literally "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

Obama has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

As a state senator, Obama opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have protected infants who were born alive and survived their botched abortions. And what’s just as bad: Obama has repeatedly lied about this during his campaign.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; abortion; babykiller; democrats; elections; killbabiesraisetaxes; latimes; murderer; nobama08; obama; raistaxeskillbabies

1 posted on 10/20/2008 6:32:10 AM PDT by St. Louis Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

2 posted on 10/20/2008 6:34:08 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

These people are truly delusional. (LAT)


3 posted on 10/20/2008 6:36:00 AM PDT by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

A bridge builder!?!?!

I guess this is just a nicer, less menacing way of saying that The One represents a “Third Way”...


4 posted on 10/20/2008 6:41:05 AM PDT by frankiep (Every socialist is a disguised dictator - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

Obama, “A “bridge builder” on abortion?”

Kmiec doesn’t get what that bridge is REALLY for.

The above comment is NOT intended to be humorous.


5 posted on 10/20/2008 6:42:00 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, Call 'em what you will, they ALL have Fairies livin' in their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
Those whose culture calls for the first born to be a boy should be flocking to Obama and the rats. They will gladly sacrifice baby girls for votes.
6 posted on 10/20/2008 6:42:43 AM PDT by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

A bridge builder to where ... the dumpster for the murdered babies? Go Sarah! Stop that bridge to nowhere!


7 posted on 10/20/2008 6:45:35 AM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

“FOCA claims a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and no government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this right.”

But what if my two-year-old p*sses me off? Don’t I have the RIGHT to just off him if he’s an ‘inconvenience’ to me on any given day? It’d just be a very late-term abortion, and that’s legal, Right?

How about my elderly father? I’m sick to DEATH of waiting on him hand and foot. How about I just off him, too? I mean, MY right to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ should trump all others!

Jesus wept.


8 posted on 10/20/2008 6:47:04 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
What kind of a "bridge" is it, one that leads to more abortions, taxpayer-funded on demand? He's said the first thing he would do is sign the FOCA, which would abrogate every abortion restriction on the books, including partial birth and BAIP statutes. Sounds like The Obominable One is burning bridges more than building them.

And as for Douglas Kmiec, is he is indeed a Catholic as he claims, he must know that he has placed himself in the gravest state of mortal sin by his false teaching. The Church has made clear that those who spread false doctrine not only endanger their own souls, but by misleading others place the souls of others at risk as well. This aggravates their sin and elevates it to the highest levels. He should immediately avail himself of the sacrament of reconciliation and engage in genuine repentance, or, at the very least, STHU or run the risk of compounding his sin.

9 posted on 10/20/2008 6:48:10 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
It is useful to see those who have left the Catholic Church as professor Kemic has.He has a right to his opinion, as long as people realize he has left the Church as far as his belief system goes. He is welcome to call himself a Catholic as long as he remains clear that he is not.

The “ends justify the means” Catholics are finally beginning to expose themselves for what they are.

10 posted on 10/20/2008 6:55:25 AM PDT by paguch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
What Douglas Kmiec is doing is evil and infuriating, but I think we should ignore him from this point on. Kmiec is obviously motivated to a great degree by a desire for publicity, so let's not give it to him. Good, pro-life people of all (and no) religious stripes should not right letters to the editor or columns about Kmiec. It's time to stop giving this quisling the attention he so desperately craves.
11 posted on 10/20/2008 6:57:24 AM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

“FOCA claims a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and no government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this right.”

AT TAXPAYER (YOUR) EXPENSE.

Hey, Christians, how do you feel about the fruits of your labor being used to kill babies?


12 posted on 10/20/2008 6:59:06 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
"his very first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). "

This is news to me. We need to make this VERY public. What is this "freedom of choice" act- since when does the PRESIDENT make new law? Is it something both houses of congress have passed? I have never heard of such an 'act'

13 posted on 10/20/2008 7:05:52 AM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

The bill was introduced, and co-sponsored by Obama, the day after the SC ruled in favor of the federal partial birth abortion actin 2005.

It hasn’t gone anywhere - yet. So what Obama is saying (based on the presumption that both houses will pass it under Reid/Pelosi)is that this is his top priority as President.


14 posted on 10/20/2008 7:22:26 AM PDT by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch
I think they meant to say he was a "bridge builder to abortion. And that is really a bridge to nowhere.
15 posted on 10/20/2008 7:30:51 AM PDT by sportutegrl (0bi has been looking a little wan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
From: Cogforlife@aol.com [mailto:Cogforlife@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:18 AM
Subject: Bishop: Church teaching does not qualify candidacy of Obama

Breaking News: Catholic Bishop Rene Henry Gracida confirms that a Catholic cannot vote for Obama in good conscience.

An Open Letter to American Bishops regarding 'Catholic moral teaching' and the 2008 election presents "the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church…" concerning "the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama." The "Open Letter to American Bishops", by Randall Terry, has been sent by certified mail to all U.S. Bishops. (See complete Open Letter at www.humbleplea.com.)

Following is the complete response from Bishop Gracida concerning the Open Letter and Faithful Catholic Citizenship. Faithful Catholic Citizenship proves – using the words of John Paul II – that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for Back Obama. Bishop Gracida granted his permission to use his entire quote. Thank God for his courage and clarity.

"Dear Randall,

I have visited the humbleplea.com website and have read the Open Letter [to the U.S. Bishops] and brochure "Faithful Catholic Citizenship."You have done an excellent job of presenting the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and applying it to the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama.

I encourage you to disseminate the two documents as widely as possible. More and more bishops are speaking up in the way you desire.

I hope and pray that their numbers will increase before November 4.

Blessings!

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi"

-------------------

An Open Letter to American Bishops regarding 'Catholic moral teaching' and the 2008 election and Faithful Catholic Citizenship can be read online at www.humbleplea.com.

"We are begging U.S. Catholic Bishops to correct the error put forth by Catholic Attorney Doug Kmiec (and others) that says:

It is time to set the record straight that it violates no aspect of Catholic teaching for a Catholic Voter to endorse, support, or vote for Barack Obama… (Doug Kmiec, Catholic Attorney and Author, Can a Catholic Support Him?; pg 36, emphasis added.)

...U.S. Catholic bishops have confirmed that it is the intent of the voter, and not the candidate's support for abortion, that determines the candidate's acceptability for the Catholic vote. (Pg. 82, Doug Kmiec, Can a Catholic Support Him?)

"This assertion by Doug Kmiec is false. We pray other bishops will correct the error being taught in their name. We are urging the faithful to read the letter themselves, then call their bishop to urge them to publicly correct the erroneous teaching being put out in their names.

"We also encourage Catholics and Evangelicals take up Bishop Gracida's challenge to 'disseminate the two documents as widely as possible.' The faithful should download, print, and distribute this material to every Chrisitan they know."

16 posted on 10/20/2008 8:16:16 AM PDT by pgyanke (You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative
I don't think so.

S.1173
Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.1964
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.


Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.


MAJOR ACTIONS:

    ***NONE***


ALL ACTIONS:
4/19/2007:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

  • SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
    Freedom of Choice Act

  • OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
    A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)


COMMITTEE(S):
RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

    Bill: Relationship:
    H.R.1964 Related bill identified by CRS

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

The actual contents of the bill are as follows:

S 1173 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:

      (1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

      (2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

      (3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

      (4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

      (5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

      (6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

      (7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

      (8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

      (9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

      (10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

      (11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

      (12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

      (13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

      (14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

      (15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

        (A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

        (B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

        (C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:

      (1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

      (2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

      (3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

    (a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

    (b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

      (1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

        (A) to bear a child;

        (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

        (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

      (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

    (c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

    This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

ENDn


17 posted on 10/20/2008 11:13:43 PM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson