Today is Part Four of our ongoing series on what you really need to know about pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama and pro-life Sen. John McCain. What follows may seem to be a slight detour from discussions about potential Supreme Court nominees and how Obama's embrace of FOCA and plans for health care will increase the number of abortions.

But, in fact, the following discussion is a key component. Fr. Richard Neuhaus is the influential editor in chief of the influential magazine "First Things." He spoke at NRLC's national convention last month in Virginia. In an article published last month in the National Catholic Register Fr. Neuhaus examined the reasons offered by one pro-lifer to explain his support for Barack Obama. Let me highlight three points Fr. Neuhaus made.

#1. It is not uncommon for those in Obama's camp to argue that abortion is no more pressing or urgent a concern (or intrinsic an evil) than, say, racism. Fr. Neuhaus's response is devastating.

"That two actions are both intrinsically evil tells us nothing about the relative gravity of each action," Neuhaus argues. "Telling a lie is intrinsically evil. So is rape. They are not equally grave."

Likewise, who in American politics today "advocates racism or racist acts"? No one who is pertinent. But Obama "advocates an unlimited right to abortion."

#2. "It is a great disservice to try to obfuscate" obvious distinctions. It is (my words) grossly irresponsible, not to mention untrue, to say that Obama, who is pro-abortion to the hilt, is no more "pro-choice" than Sen. McCain.

Neuhaus reminds us of "Justice Scalia's oft-stated position"--"that the Constitution does not settle the abortion question one way or the other. It therefore falls to the citizens, acting through the means provided by this constitutional democracy, to decide what the law should be."

Thus, "The candidate [McCain] who would return the abortion question to the states so that citizens working through their elected representatives can enact laws protecting the unborn is, in taking that position, pro-life," Neuhaus said. "The candidate who, by supporting Roe v. Wade, would deny to citizens that opportunity is pro-choice."

Then, the clincher: "[T]he overturning or effective nullification of Roe v. Wade is a major step toward achieving legal protection of the unborn and other endangered members of the human family."

#3. As a point of comparison, some Obama supporters point out that in 1980 some pro-lifers supported the candidacy of Jimmy Carter. But, as Neuhaus explains, Carter proved not to be pro-life as President and these pro-lifers now regret their mistake in promoting Carter.

The implication--when it is not stated overtly--is that Obama is a reasonable man who will "listen to all sides." But consider whom he is speaking to and what he is saying and how he has voted.

Last year Obama quipped at a fundraiser, "I was proud to get Planned Parenthood's endorsement, but I have to say that when you look who's got a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood, and you've got another candidate [McCain] with a zero percent rating from Planned Parenthood, then it's not really a nail-biter [in deciding whom to support]."

But it's not just the company Obama keeps. This is not a "what if?" discussion, where you have to guess where he is coming from or where he will land.

For example, Obama's already voted to spend tax dollars to pay for abortions, opposes parental involvement, opposes the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and as an Illinois state Senator was deeply involved in thwarting a bill that would have recognized that an aborted baby who is born-alive has the same legal status as a baby who is spontaneously born prematurely.

Obama is Planned Parenthood's and NARAL's dream candidate. If you remember nothing else about Obama, please remember this.

Last year at a gathering of Planned Parenthood's political action arm, when asked by a member of the audience how he'd "make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade," Obama's immediate answer was not about the Court but was the assurance that his first act as President would be to sign a bill that would overturn every single pro-life measure passed in Congress and the 50 state legislatures since 1973.

In other words, sure, I'll give you more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the High Court, but I will also crush every commonsense limitation of abortion on demand that has managed to survive the best efforts of the Abortion Establishment over the past 35 years.

Now that qualifies as extremism by anyone's definition.

Part Two -- Recovering From a Severe Brain Injury Kevin Monk is a Man on a Mission