Parts one, two, and three really will work best if read together. I hope you will take the time to do so and then pass them on to family, friends, and colleagues.

Part One explains how strong pro-life Senator John McCain was on the abortion issue at the "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency" and how evasive pro-abortion Senator Barack Obama was at the same gathering.

Part Two looks at the Democrats' latest bogus posture on abortion which we took a preliminary look at last week. (See http://nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug08/nv081308.html)

Part Three demonstrates conclusively how Obama not only has consistently misrepresented his votes as an Illinois state Senator on the "Born-Alive Infants Protection bill," but then upped the ante by accusing National Right of lying.

As we noted in Part One, Sen. Obama cited the party's proposed platform language on abortion as a factor that mitigates, if you will, his support for Roe v. Wade. Obama says he had inserted into the Democratic platform language about "How do we reduce the number of abortions?"  Veteran pro-lifers quickly saw through the ruse. "The Democratic platform persists in its unapologetic promotion of abortion, which kills unborn children and harms all those involved," said Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Affirming the good of childbirth and adoption does not justify -- or in any way soften -- the party's official support for an intrinsic evil."

So why even make a feint in that direction? Because the Democratic Party's unequivocal support for any and all abortions paid for by taxpayers has cost it untold millions of Catholics and so-called "moderate Evangelicals." If the party can persuade these voters that the party is softening on abortion, maybe they can be convinced to vote for someone as militantly pro-abortion as Sen. Obama.

Put another way, people who don't follow this as closely as we do can be fooled into thinking the Democrats are "compromising." This is not true. In fact, I believe the party's position is worse than ever.

By way of summary, note, for example, in exchange for the grudging concession--35 years in the making--the new language removed one [rhetorical] limitation on the right to unlimited abortion. In addition, the Democrats resistance to any limitation is made even more absolute as is its continuing hostility to any acknowledgement that the national party is out of step with millions of grassroots Democrats.

• The old rhetorical formulation--that abortion is to be "safe, legal, and rare"--has been shorn of the part about being "rare." If we are supposed to give Obama credit for what he added, is it not only fair to talk about what was excised?  Steve Waldman, one of the architects of the plan to make the Democratic Party seem to be more hospitable to pro-lifers, noted in a recent post that the old language "casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not."
   
• Both the old and the new platform said taxpayers ought to pay for abortions. But whereas the 2004 platform stood "firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right [to choose]," the proposed 2008 language ratchets up the rhetoric firepower: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade" and "we oppose any and all efforts to waken or undermine that right."
   
• Waldman writes that "There is no 'conscience clause' acknowledging and respecting the diversity of opinion within the party on abortion. Pro-life Democrats had hoped for that."  Substantively, this carries no weight, but symbolically it would have at least half-heartedly acknowledged that there are many Democrats who do not agree with their national party's embrace of abortion on demand.

Waldman concludes, "All in all, I'd say that this platform does NOT do what was necessary to win substantial numbers of Catholics or moderate evangelicals." So, is all lost? Hardly.

"However, in combination with a strong personal statement from Obama about the moral necessity of reducing abortion, the party could make real headway," he adds. "All eyes now turn to Obama's performance at Saddleback Church later this week."

But, as noted in Part One, Obama not only made "little headway," he stumbled badly. If he fared as poorly as most everyone agreed he did last Saturday, watch for Obama to offer more gauzy, meaningless language about abortion being a "difficult" and "complex" moral issue.

Please send your thoughts to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Three -- Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying"