Editor's note. Please be sure to read Part Three, which is an overview of an important new study commissioned by the Knights of Columbus. You can reach me at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Give CBS's Bob Schieffer credit: he actually asked a question about abortion. Give pro-life Sen. John McCain extra credit for not only explaining why Roe v. Wade was a bad decision but also insisting that the door be opened for a discussion of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama's ever-shifting explanation for why he led the charge to kill an Illinois law to extend care and legal protection to babies who survive abortions.

Give Sen. Obama extra, extra demerits for grossly misleading the audience both about Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (nobody was more influential in killing BAIPA than then-state Senator Barack Obama) and his position on partial-birth abortion (Obama's against a ban on this grotesque abortion "technique").

I have attached as Part Two an analysis of Obama's untruthfulness about abortion, written by the NRLC's Legislative Department. No one knows the twists and turns of Obama's narrative better. Let me just highlight two of the many important points they made.

As a post-debate analysis written by the Associated Press documents, Obama is still having success spinning the media about BAIPA. When all else fails for Obama, he knows the media will uncritically accept his failsafe excuse that the law was not needed because "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment."

But as noted in Part Two, "This claim is highly misleading." The law that Obama is alluding to "on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was 'a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.' But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such 'sustained survival' – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of 'viability')." And it is crucial to remember that "When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law."

And need it be added, how much incentive is there for the abortionist--the man whose job it is to kill the child--to reach the conclusion that there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb"? So what if the child has achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and has showed defined signs of life? As Obama himself put it, "[I]t's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion [dead babies] and not live births."

Second, when Obama was dueling with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the title of most-pro-abortion ever, "Obama's supporters presented detailed accounts lauding his leadership in opposing legislation to ban partial-birth abortion, afford legal protection to born-alive babies, and require parental notification for abortion," as the NRLC critique explains. When cornered, Obama says (as he did last night), "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception."

However, to quote from the NRLC critique, "Here, Obama packed two distortions into a single sentence. First, Obama is using the phrase 'late term' to refer to the third trimester of pregnancy. It has long been established that the great majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months; these are babies developed enough to be born alive (hence the term 'partial birth'), but are not 'late term' in the sense that the phrase is used by pro-abortion advocates.

"Secondly, the Supreme Court has defined the term 'health' to include, in the abortion context, 'all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient.'"

What can be said overall about last night? Sen. Obama does have the lead in the public opinion polls, so you knew in advance he'd be cautious to a fault. He, of course, has a second reason to measure every syllable: the more that is known about the Democrats' presidential nominee, the more nervous people get. And that most assuredly applies to his militant pro-abortion record.

It is worth remembering--very much worth remembering--that (a) the gap in the polls already shows signs of narrowing; and (b) "The Washington Post/ABC poll found 45% of voters still don't think [Obama's] qualified to be president, about the same number who doubted his qualifications in March," as Karl Rove explained in a piece that ran this morning.

By contrast, Sen. McCain, who has plenty of practice successfully coming from behind, was clearly on top of his game in the debate. He was on the offensive from the get-go.

Just as it is imperative for Sen. Obama to keep a lid on the truth for another 2 and 1/2 weeks, it is imperative that Sen. McCain convince the public to look very closely at a man about whom we know frighteningly little.

It's our job to help educate the public. Please take a moment to download the presidential comparison piece and distribute it widely. Just go to http://nrlc.org/Election2008/comparison0909084c.pdf

Part Two -- Obama Distorts His Abortion Record In Third Debate
Part Three -- Important KOC Study Finds "Broad Consensus" that "Abortion Should be Significantly Restricted"