NARAL Pro-Choice Endorses Barack Obama

All of the Major News networks carried the story as if it was some kind of surprise. NARAL Pro-Choice America formally endorsed Barack Obama for the President.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - All of the Major News networks carried the story as if it was some kind of surprise, "NARAL Pro-Choice America" formally endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States.

Apparently the "surprise" they referred to is that the organization did not endorse Senator Hilary Clinton, with whom they have had a long term relationship of support.

The President of EMILY's List, Ellen Malcolm, clarified that this was the reason so many were "surprised". EMILY's list presents itself as an organization which seeks to assist women candidates in being elected to public office. In truth, they only help women who endorse the taking of innocent life in the womb as a "right".

The President said: "I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Senator Clinton -- who held up the nomination of an FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe v. Wade -- to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process....It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them."

On the web site of NARAL Pro-Choice we read these enthusiastic words:"NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC is excited to announce that it endorses Sen. Barack Obama for president in 2008. Sen. Obama has a fully pro-choice record, and we are confident that as president he will be a champion for women's reproductive rights.
As the senator himself said, "It's not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women."

The NARAL endorsement for Senator Obama was to be expected.

This well funded, powerful organization knows that Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee and has a very good chance at being the next President. They have, as I have, closely followed his record on this seminal issue. They know, as I do, that he favors legal abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy as a "choice" to be made by the mother, in consultation with others.

On July 17, 2007 he made his position very clear in an address to Planned Parenthood with these words:

"I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women's equality....we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation--laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I've stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito.... There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

The Senator from Illinois is a supporter of keeping abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Shockingly, he even opposed the ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

I had sincerely hoped that he was having his eyes opened to the truth concerning the rights of children in the womb. After all, he speaks the language of social justice. This is the foundational social justice issue of our age. Without the right to life there are no other rights.

Though I strongly disagreed with Doug Kmiec's endorsement of Obama, I was pleased that he was joining with others who know the truth concerning the right to life in the candidate's circle of influence. Perhaps people like Pro-life Senator Bob Casey and Pro-life former Congressman Tim Roemer can help to persuade Senator Obama that, if he is truly concerned about the cry of the poor, he must hear it as it comes from the children in the first home of the whole human race.

This latest endorsement is one more example of what is truly at stake in this election.

"NARAL Pro-Choice America" is one of the oldest and largest organizations in "the WRONG choice" movement. This organization has been deluding the American public into thinking that this is about the freedom of choice when it is about the taking of innocent human life.

In all my years engaged in this fundamental human rights struggle for the right to life I have met many who have come to see the truth of the horror of legal abortion for what it actually is; another entire class of persons is being treated as property to be disposed of by someone with more power, while the Government protects the oppressor and calls the killing a "right".

Perhaps, that will eventually happen with Senator Obama.

One of those whose eyes were opened on this subject was Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He was a founder of NARAL. In his own words, he was "personally responsible for 75,000 abortions..." I have known Bernie for years. I knew him back when he was a "pro-life atheist", before being baptized into the catholic Church.

He was a useful ally in the Pro-life cause back then because his claim enabled me to insist on the truth that being "Pro-Life" is not, in the first instance, a "religious" position. Rather, it is a human rights position.It was the development of ultrasound that, above all else, opened his eyes to the truth.

Bernie's 1984 documentary "The Silent Scream" and second documentary "Eclipse of Reason", uncover the evil of the killing from right within the first home of the whole human race, the womb. His books "Aborting America" and "The Hand of God" should be required reading for anyone who cares about this fundamental human rights issue.If Doug Kmiec is reading this article, I hope you give the candidate a copy.

It was Bernie's honesty about the use of propaganda by the movement which he helped to fashion which came back to my mind today with the news of NARAL Pro-Choice's endorsement of Senator Obama. Bernie is the first to admit that it was when that movement began to use the language of "choice" that they began to make great headway in their effort to "legalize" the taking of innocent human life in the womb through all nine months of pregnancy.

Medical science confirms what people have known all along, the child in the womb is a human person. Very few advocates of legal abortion actually dispute that issue any longer. Oh, some still nip away at the edge of the horror by attempting to argue that the dependency of the child in the womb on another makes her less than "human", but they really know better. That argument undercuts their entire foundation for arguing for any obligation to care for the weak and the vulnerable outside of the womb. They are also dependent. In fact, we are all dependent on each other.

All they have left to hide behind is their language, the very language which Bernie and others unleashed in the rhetorical war that propelled the evil that has produced the regime of legalized abortion on demand; the language of "choice".

There is nothing as powerful as the language of choice. Especially in a Western culture which has discarded any sense of an objective moral code by which our choices must be measured and adopted in its place a libertine standard for the exercise of personal liberty.

However, even if the concept of 'ordered liberty' in the West has been replaced by license, and even if the notion that freedom equals a right to do what one pleases has seemingly prevailed, there is still a conscience in men and women, as well as in Nations.

There is also an undeniable recognition that some choices are always wrong, like killing innocent human persons.

The failures of efforts to argue for the Pro-life position by using "conservative", "neo-conservative" or "libertarian" political language are all around.Just listen to the discussion in this current Presidential campaign. Many are arguing that the true "conservative' (or "neo-conservative" or "libertarian") person would want to maximize "personal freedom" and keep the government out of our "personal" lives by leaving the choice to kill the child in the womb to the mother and her Doctor.

Notice also the use of the rhetoric of the "pro-choice" movement by contemporary "liberals" and contemporary "libertarians". The 2008 Presidential election is telling those who are Pro-life to wake up. No-one wants to call themselves "Pro-Abortion". In fact, using the language isn't helping our effort. They will simply insist that they are in favor of letting the woman decide and not the State.

Like all great human rights struggles, the struggle to protect this entire class of persons, children in the first home of the womb, our first neighbors, must transcend ideology. It must also be grounded in the language of the Natural Law and argued as a matter of fundamental human rights.

We all know in "our heart" it is wrong to take innocent human life. How do we know that? The Natural Law reveals fundamental human rights. Just as we all now admit that slavery was, and still is, wrong.

Natural Law reasoning as a basis for our Social Justice claims concerning the Right to Life will take time to reassert in Western Jurisprudence and in contemporary political discourse. However, asserting a true ethics of choice, one which questions whether some choices are right or wrong, has the possibility of having an immediate effect.

We must insist that some choices are always and everywhere wrong. One of those wrong choices is the taking of innocent human life. It should be illegal.

So today, Senator Barack Obama won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The President of this "Wrong Choice" organization was effusive in her praise of the candidate:"Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama."

All public policy must be at the service of the human person, the family, and the poor. It should also be ordered toward the common good.

If any candidate is going to make an honest claim of concern for the poor they must recognize the poor in all of their manifestations, including those whose voices are muffled by the walls of their mother's womb, weakened by their infirmities or muted by their age.

In the undertow of the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, this new class of persons in America became "chattel". Chattel is an old legal term that refers to personal property. In effect, a new form of slavery was introduced into the American experience. This new slavery is now protected by the institutions of government.

This evil is hidden with a language which is rooted in a counterfeit notion of freedom and privacy. This evil is also perpetuated by any candidate who hides behind the language of "choice" when human life is at stake. It is the contemporary equivalent of a candidate stating that they personally oppose slavery but will protect the choice to own a slave.

Treating people as products to be used rather than persons to be protected by law has eroded the foundation of authentic freedom. By denying the pre-eminent right to life, and denying to an entire class of people the freedoms both to be born and to have a future, the entire structure of human rights has been put at risk.

The recognition of the right to life as fundamental and unalienable must be the very first question we ask in evaluating any Presidential candidate in 2008, no matter what their political label and no matter what other positions they hold.

Calling the taking of innocent human life in the womb a "right" is simply wrong.No candidate who does so deserves support.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online