The False Claims
The pair of writers then focuses on the “false” claims of Kmeic’s essay. They call to attention that Kmiec insists that his disagreement with the Denver archbishop, “is not over the essence of Church instruction which gives primacy to the promotion of human life, but rather, the preferred means of implementing it,” a line that Public Discourse calls “patently false.”
“A fundamental principle of Catholic social teaching--and any sound political philosophy--is that all members of the human family possess inherent and equal dignity, and deserve the protection of the law. This applies regardless of sex, race, or creed, but also regardless of age, size, stage of development, or level of dependency. Chaput affirms this principle. Kmiec equivocates--at best. Obama denies it.”
Anderson and Girgis go on to show Obama’s record in denying protection to the unborn and his opposition to legislation “to protect children who are born alive after failed abortions.”
In defense of Kmiec, the writers points out that he touts Obama’s support for pregnant women. However, Anderson and Girgis note that, “As a matter of rhetoric, this might be true; as a matter of record, it too is demonstrably false.” Obama “did not endorse the Pregnant Women Support Act, a bill sponsored by Democrats for Life aimed simply at making it easier for women to choose alternatives to abortion. Obama has even opposed this bill's extension of health insurance to unborn children and its provision that women considering abortion be informed of possible health risks and the gestational age of their child.”
Kmiec’s contention that Obama would save more lives under his policies, than McCain would under his was also examined by the Public Discourse duo. They claim that the evidence proves this is false, especially when embryonic stem cell research is taken into consideration.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
First, write Anderson and Girgis, “President Obama would likely sign into law a bill he co-sponsored as senator that would sanction the mass production by cloning of embryonic human beings for research and effectively require their subsequent destruction. This bill alone--which McCain opposes--would multiply the killing of tiny human beings on an industrial scale.”
Kmiec conveniently skips this point and only focuses on the “significant impact” Obama’s welfare programs will have on the “reduction of abortion.”
However, research is not in the Obama-camp’s favor. “As political scientist Michael J. New has demonstrated, such programs have been shown to have next to no effect at all. But pro-life legislation--limited after Roe to modest measures like informed-consent and parental notification laws and public-funding restrictions--have dramatically reduced abortion rates. Obama would eliminate all of these laws.”