As someone who takes the First Amendment seriously, I would be seriously upset even the speech being stifled had nothing to do with the ongoing campaign to obscure the ultra-abortion-friendly voting record of Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. This egregious abridgment of free speech is only compounded by the Obama campaign's flagrantly dishonest appeal to certain wings of the Evangelical and Catholic communities which is dependent on obscuring his abortion position.

No need to go into a detailed rehearsal of a case now working its way through the courts. Suffice it to say an independent group wishes to run an ad that is absolutely factually accurate with respect to Obama's more-pro-abortion-than-thou public posture.

The group is enmeshed in a complicated battle with the FEC over whether what is said in the ad about Obama is "issue advocacy" (which means it discusses issues of public concern), or "express advocacy" (which means it encourages people to vote for or against a candidate). Until and unless this is resolved as it should be--with the conclusion that the ad is issue advocacy--the ad is on hold.

But what is even worse is that newspapers running interference for Obama, such as the New York Times, use the case to blithely spout untruths. With a reckless regard for the truth that is extravagant even by the Times's standards, the editorial pages smears those who dare to tell the truth about Obama's abortion record by accusing them of smearing Obama!

The Times went bonkers Saturday, bitterly complaining that the ad "trashes the candidate's nuanced position. It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions."

Only in the sheltered confines of the New York Times could anyone look at Obama's record as a state Senator, later U.S. Senator, and conclude there is anything "nuanced" about his full-throated voice on behalf of abortion on demand.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas sent a letter of correction to the Times which you can find at http://nrlcomm.wordpress.com. As the letter makes clear, the "plain language" of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" would, in fact, "make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions." FOCA is co-sponsored by Obama, the signing of which Obama brags would be "The first thing I'd do as president."

We have had occasion to comment a lot recently about Steve Waldman, who runs www.beliefnet.com. An observer with no stake in the abortion issue could easily conclude the site is a whole owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign.

But just yesterday Waldman seems to have had--if not second thoughts--at least reason to pause slightly in his unending chorus to Obama's alleged "moderation" on abortion. Under the headline, "The Disappearance of Obama's Abortion Reduction Plan: One Political Theory," we read some interesting reappraisals. [You can read it for yourself at http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/the-disappearance-of-obamas-ab.html] Waldman points out that "pro-life progressives" had hailed Obama for having "stuck a sentence into the Democratic platform encouraging support for women who wanted to take a baby to term instead of having an abortion." But in the two subsequent ads on abortion nary a word about "abortion reduction." That was the language which Waldman and his fellow progressives had interpreted as a "sign that he [Obama] might be able to win over moderate evangelicals and Catholics with this new 'third way' approach."

Even the campaign's "Plan to Renew America's Promise," Waldman discovered, had "dropped the sentence about helping women carry babies to term." What explains this?

"My uninformed theory," Waldman writes, "on what's happened: there was always a tension for them between two goals: 1) appealing to pro-choice moderate women and 2) appealing to pro-life moderate evangelicals and Catholics. They've now concluded:

"Winning moderate evangelicals is hopeless and, it turns out, centrist Catholics just don't care all that much abortion. Given that, it makes more political sense to reach out to those pro-choice women."

And then Waldman's oh-by-the-way-kicker: "Of course this obviously leaves them open to charges that they didn't believe in abortion reduction all that much in the first place."

Imagine: having grown to the age of reason and still surprised that pro-abortionists who spout "moderation" care nothing about unborn babies and everything about finding people gullible enough to believe them.