By the time my wife and I got out of the theatre Saturday night, pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama had already finished polishing off pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. And Obama did not merely defeat Clinton, he cleaned her clock.

As it happened, when we got into the car CSPAN radio was broadcasting a speech Sen. Clinton was delivering in Nashville. (Clinton left South Carolina early to campaign in Tennessee.) I heard snippets from Sen. Obama's victory remarks that night and afterwards, but did not take the time until yesterday to listen and watch the entire performance.

I bring this up to remind myself of the importance of something you probably already know. While a humdrum debater, Sen. Obama is a spellbinding orator. People want desperately to like him, and he obliges.

As a legislator, he is still wet behind the ears. Nonetheless Obama has struck a chord in these cynical times: "change." The irony is not lost on Clinton supporters. When it comes to policy, there is not a nickel's worth of difference. That applies to their views on abortion.

The only "change" Obama brings to his embrace of abortion orthodoxy is his ability to speak in the kind of reassuring, non-threatening manner that blunts the impact of the anti-life words he faithfully utters. Hillary Clinton mechanically repeats the meaningless mantra of her equally pro-abortion husband: to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. By contrast, if you don't read/listen carefully, you'd swear Obama must be saying something different. He isn't.

Obama gave Christianity Today an interview that ran online January 28. [www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html]. Here's the Q & A on abortion:

For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion [actually he voted "present" twice while a member of the Illinois senate] and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. What role do you think the President should play in creating national abortion policies?

"I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.

"Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.

"Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say -- the state can legitimately say -- that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves."

Talk about buzzword central. Nobody is really pro-abortion; it's a "wrenching," "difficult" decision with "moral elements"; women do not make the decision "casually"; governments can't "unilaterally" made a decision for pregnant women; and the decision ultimately must be "prayer[fully]" made by the woman consulting with her "doctor" and her "conscience."

But the lofty boilerplate wouldn't be complete without an all-purpose escape clause to explain his voting record: "Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions [for "health"], which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk."

For weeks Obama has denounced the Clintons for "distorting" his record. As we shall see, Sen. Obama doesn't need anyone's help in distorting his record on abortion.

Here's a quick review of Obama's record and how it squares with this incredibly misleading statement. As an Illinois state Senator, he sought and received the imprimatur of local pro-abortion organizations to vote "present" on a parental notification measure. The only "danger" here is that truth will surface.

In his brief stint in the United States Senate, Obama voted against a law that would stop the underhanded practice of taking a minor girl from a state with a parental notification law to one that doesn't to obtain a secret abortion. If, as pro-abortionists are wont to do, you ignore the unborn baby and her mother, the only danger here is to parental rights.

As an Illinois state Senator, he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act after first voting "present." [Hmm, who does that remind you of?] The law was very similar to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2002. The principal danger here is that hearts have been completely hardened.

Obama is also a co-sponsor of the newest edition of the Freedom of Choice Act, of which NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has said, "In the interests of truth in advertising, the bill should be renamed the 'Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act.'" FOCA goes beyond even Roe v. Wade and would nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion. The danger here is that under the guise of "codifying Roe," pro-abortionists could pull off a legislative coup.

And, for bad measure, he is in favor of lethal embryonic stem cell research. All in all not exactly a profile in courage.

Smooth as silk, Sen. Obama speaks a language that rhetorically commits him to a search for common ground. And he has most certainly found common ground of a sort--with the most militant wing of the Abortion Establishment.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.  

Part Two