the choice of the pro-choice pros
By Diogenes (articles ) | February 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Lifesite's Peter Smith reports that Frances Kissling, former director of Catholics for a Free Choice, is endorsing Obama for president. The reason? Dead isn't dead enough. Red-in-tooth-and-claw Hillary is not sufficiently pro-abortion:
[Kissling] agreed that both Clinton and Obama would nominate pro-Roe v. Wade justices, overturn the Mexico City policy, and give back funding to UNFPA, which lost US funds after being exposed for its cooperation in coerced abortions in China. But for Kissling nothing indicates that Obama would be any less of a pro-abortion leader than Clinton.
The main difference between the two candidates, for Kissling, was that Sen. Clinton was not radical enough on the issue of abortion and "had more than once failed the movement." Kissling criticized Clinton for failing to require abortion coverage in her health care reform plan as First Lady in 1994, and for allowing "any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation."
No one doubts that Obama favors abortion on demand at any time for any reason, and is as rabid on the issue as any feminist could wish (über-trolls Kate Michelman and Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt all support him as well). If I were in their place, though, I'd be rooting for Hillary, and from the pro-life perspective I think it's Hillary that inspires the greater dread.
There's an admittedly subjective component to that dread. Hillary stares at all opponents, but especially Christians, as if she's measuring them for the knife. And there's something reptilian about her unblinking intensity that makes her smile even more chilling than her rages.
Yet it's Hillary's record that's really unsettling. Though often forced by political necessity to settle for half-measures, it's clear she's playing for the whole kitty, and for the long term. She's a Lenin in her knowledge of the political apparat and in her attention to detail. Like Lenin, she seldom stoops to persuade where she's in position to compel, a tactic she uses with allies as well as adversaries (and which may explain why so many of the former are pulling for Obama). Like Lenin, she understands the importance not only of filling the judgeships and executive appointments with ideologically reliable lieutenants, but of replacing mid- and low-level functionaries with persons carefully educated in a politics of revenge. That means your children's children will still be living with the consequences of a Clinton victory -- regardless of whom they elect for their own chief executive.
Both of the Democratic candidates would spell disaster for pro-lifers. But one of them, if elected, could be voted out.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($25,629 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Feb. 23, 2008 12:23 PM ET USA
I'm terrified, too. Maybe that's good. It'll wake us up and we'll throw off our apathy. At least my voting age son, unregistered, uncaring, is finally paying attention and - GASP! - asking me questions! He is much more cynical than the fawning fanatics I see fainting before the great Obama. Let us not underestimate the influence of all the "reality" shows. Our youth know it's all image and ether and not "reality" at all.
Posted by: -
Feb. 22, 2008 10:52 AM ET USA
"And there's something reptilian about her unblinking intensity that makes her smile even more chilling than her rages." Sure, Hillary isn't my first choice for President, but aren't you being a bit dramatic here?
Posted by: -
Feb. 20, 2008 10:11 PM ET USA
The odds are in favor of getting one of them or the other. The pro-life movement should focus on a post election strategy: how to deal with a left wing president backed by a Democrat congress.
Posted by: -
Feb. 20, 2008 1:35 PM ET USA
Uncle Di, As usual, you and I are on the same page. I have known of Hillary, since she was in College. Both she and Obama are ironclad leftists, but she surpasses him in fanaticism, ruthlessness, and totalitarian mindset. Bill may be a Nero, but Hillary is a Madame Mao!
Posted by: -
Feb. 20, 2008 12:10 PM ET USA
"But one of them, if elected, could be voted out." That's a pretty chilling thought. The only way it seems would be to suspend the Constitution under some sort of martial law--but remembering that both Democratic candidates are very unpopular with much of our military, veterans, their families and friends. So while the election Mrs. Clinton may cause a crisis--I doubt that we are headed for the end of the Republic.