Editor's note. Part Two examines the radical threat posed by FOCA. Part Three explains and then asks you to comment on the proposed HHS regulation to respect the  freedom of conscience of medical personnel.

Amidst the sound and fury of an increasingly combative campaign, supporters of pro-abortion Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama are desperately trying to defuse a potential timebomb: Obama's key role in scuttling a bill to protect babies born alive after induced abortions. Were knowledge of Obama's successful efforts to kill the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) to become well-known, it would be a severe blow to him with all segments of the public, but it would put a huge crimp in his all-out campaign to win over Evangelicals and, particularly, Catholics.

Beliefnet.com is run by Steven Waldman, a pivotal player in Obama's outreach to the faith community. Douglas Kmiec is well-known as a professor and one-time pro-life advocate who, for reasons of his own, argues that it is perfectly acceptable for people of faith to vote for a man with a 100% pro-abortion voting record who has promised to make passage of the "Freedom of Choice Act" his first act as president.

FOCA would have a devastating impact, wiping out every pro-life advance made over the past 35 years and opening the door to a widespread expansion of the killing. (See part two, "The Freedom of Choice Act--a Blank Check for Pro-Abortionists.)

Both Waldman and Kmiec realize the potential of Obama's votes on BAIPA to undermine his outreach to the Christian community. Kmiec has written a book--Can a Catholic Support Him?-- from which Waldman quoted generously on his blog http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman  September 16.

To his credit Waldman includes links to NRLC's White Paper, the Obama campaign's latest set of convoluted explanation for Obama's actions as an Illinois state Senator, and the non-partisan Factcheck.org. But for whatever reason Waldman uncritically accepts Kmiec's assertions about BAIPA which are flatly--and demonstratively--wrong.

In posting a response [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/does_obama_support_the_killing_comments.html], NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson began by writing this: "The material quoted by Mr. Waldman from the Kmiec book contains so many misstatements regarding the Born-Alive Infant Protection bills, laced together with non sequiturs, that it is difficult to know where to begin."
And because there are so many errors to be addressed, the post is fairly lengthy. But it is essential reading.

Prof. Kmiec simply mischaracterizes the content of the various BAIPAs, the history of what it means to be a "born alive" human being, the medical treatments required (or not required) when a baby's delivery is deliberately induced early but the child survives anyway, to name just a few.

Then there is the issue of the constitutionality of the Illinois BAIPA. To the latter point, Johnson writes,
"Kmiec also asserts that the Illinois state BAIPA was 'very likely unconstitutional in most of its applications.' Kmiec offers no support for this statement, nor is he likely to produce any persuasive support for it. The federal BAIPA has been in law for six years, and it is virtually identical to the state bill that Obama killed. The federal bill has been cited by federal agencies and by at least one federal court. I am unaware of any party or group that has suggested that it is unconstitutional in any specific application, much less 'unconstitutional in most of its applications.'"

The immortal heavyweight champion Joe Louis once famously said of an opponent, "He can run, but he can't hide." Obama is running like mad from his votes on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

It's up to all of us to make sure he can't hide from it.

Please send your thoughts to daveandrusko@hotmail.com