Kmiec's Obama Endorsement: What He's Thinking

Excellent interview and very insightful. I wondered why pro-life conservatives would support him and now I have more of an inkling why.

"People have focused on that mistake"

Has Obama admitted this was a mistake?

Mr Kmiec
A "... candidate who wants to end the politics of division" does not sit in church, bring his children to the church, and financially support a preacher who has on numerous occasions voiced the worst stereotypes against our own country. A candidate who lacks the courage to stand up to a racial hatemonger like Wright can hardly be characterized as wanting to bring us together. You have fallen under the sway of the soothing words of a false prophet who will divide this nation against itself as has not been seen in a hundred years.

I am a former student of Prof Kmiec's, and I've come to believe that criminalizing abortion in the first trimester constitutes political tilting at windmills even if Roe were overturned, and that with pills/injections soon to be able to accomplish those early abortions, that it should be legal in the first months. Not that I think it is moral; I'm a lapsed Catholic and atheist, but I remain horrified by abortion.

Doug Kmiec is an honest and honorable man, as almost any present or past student of his would attest. This is my second post about his Obama endorsement.

All that aside, with the exception of Ed Murphy on Contracts, Kmiec's Con Law class was my favorite at Notre Dame. He is one fine teacher.

Yes, we need to change "hearts and minds" on abortion, but rules are for the lawless and they are necessary to stop killing. Our country is full of the lawless in case you haven't noticed.

I remain more interested in what Obama has done (i.e. his voting record) that what he says on the critical life issues.

A person whose votes consistently land on the very far left of the spectrum is not someone who can fairly be described as a consensus builder. And when Obama makes such statements as "sexual intimacy has to be culturally understood as a mature choice about being open to new life" (or words to that effect) in schools and elsewhere, what does that really mean, exactly?

We are talking about human lives and civil rights here. That's an issue Obama is very fond of bringing up (when it suits his political goals). What about the human rights and civil rights of the unborn? I wish someone, perhaps a "conservative" Catholic like Kmiec, would push Obama to seriously address that question, instead of focusing on soothing talk of "openness" and purported concerns about "self responsibility" and "maturity" in sexual decisionmaking.

Deeds not words, Mr. Obama.

Jeff,

I did not read Mr. Kmeic's view as "pro-abortion" at all. You might want to read it again.

Obama spoke for 50 minutes before a congregation (not his church) about these issues. You can watch this video on YouTube. What I got from it was that he encourages people to listen to the views of those who promote abstinence, however people need to also consider the views and realities of the issue of pregnancy, personal choice and sex education in the US.

My view: The fact is many women become accidentally pregnant, especially teenagers, because they either cannot resist those hormonal urges or they don't use birth control. One can encourage teenagers to look at the view that I learned in religion class in high school - a Catholic high school - and try to prevent this from the get-go. Part of my Sexuality & Dating Class emphasized everything from respecting one's own body to thinking of the moral consequences and living with Christian/Catholic values. Rather than simply say, "Don't do it!", which has not been completely effective, it would be wise to look at all sides. And the fact is that millions of women feel that this is a personal decision between them and their God or for whatever reasons.

I know Christian women (when young) who have had abortions and later did have children. Myself, I have never faced this dilemma because I avoided getting pregnant in the first place. I was not perfect, but at least I was responsible and am glad I never had to face this moral/religious dilemma.

Unfortunately, what bothers me is that often people speak about abortion yet in the same breath do not address the overwhelming problems of breathing living children in the US. There are countless abused children, foster children with no homes, undernourished children, runaways, and missing children in the US. The figures are staggering. My sister is a social worker. So, while one may find abortion objectionable and morally wrong, it is an issue that people continue to feel strongly about and still children are forgotten.

There is more vocal outrage about abortion than the problems I listed above. If people cared about children they would be posting about these large numbers of neglected children every day. (Some, but not enough do.) It is easy enough to look at all these figures.

Perhaps we need to take care of the children we have now before we talk about civil rights for unborn children. These are all things to consider in the reality of society today. To choose an absolute position and to not consider Republicans' backing of war (where so many children have been killed) or their thwarting health insurance for all does not compute with an absolute moral position.

I think Mr. Kmeic's position is brave and honest will ultimately be more fruitful.

JM

Kmiec should at least acknowledge that Obama opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, and actually voted to filibuster Samuel Alito, itself an unconstituitonal violation fo the advice and consent clause. All Obama has shown is outright hostility to conservative legal principles.
-
Kmiec seems to have abandoned hope that Barack would nominate justices who would view their role as limited stewards of the Constitution. Kmiec has now adopted a more murky stance that Obama's personal appeal to reduce to number of abortions would have greater affect than a legal change. In doing so, Kmiec has abandoned the goal of restoring order in the courts, not just on the issue of abortion, but on all of the personal privacy rights that liberal judges have imagined and removed from public debate.

JM,

Jeff's comment wasn't that Kmiec's views were pro-abortion. His comment was that Kmiec's view was not Catholic. And he's right. Whatever your position on abortion, one thing is clear - supporting a pro-abortion candidate (which Obama is) is not consistent with Catholicism.

Also, Jeff is right that everything in your post after "My View:" was irrelevant to the points he made.

As Jeff asserted, it is, in fact, dishonest of Mr. Kmeic to claim he is being consistent with Catholicism by backing Mr. Obama.

If you want to support Obama despite (or because of) his position on abortion, that is your right. Just don't claim it's consistent with Catholicism, because it isn't.

Jeff said: Your statement is off topic, but I will only respond to provide you and everyone with clarity. I am not going to engage in an argument with you over all these issues. Every assertion in your long statement, from "My View:" on, are either factually wrong,...

You and Mr. Kmeic support Mr. Obama as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I do not, because in the whole, I believe Mr. Obama, and you (according to your verbose manifestos), and Mr. Kmeic are WRONG.

I don't think my statements are wrong, Jeff, they are my views about the reality of what's happening in the US versus the Catholic view, which I understand. But thanks for your condescending comment about "verbose manifestos." I asserted what I got from Obama's speech on the topic, and THEN went on to add my own view and how I might understand Mr. Kmiec's view regarding his Catholic faith. You are an absolutist, and that is your prerogative, but you appear to lack the appreciation of nuance, no less criticize me for expressing my views.

And in regards to "turning the moral tables," again that is my view when I look at the reality of WHAT IS and what should be our immediate focus. You disagree, fine, but the problems still remain and absolutist views don't help much. I'd also remind you the Pope's change on expressing "Limbo" to Africans because of their view of such a thing, so apparently the Catholic Church is willing to bend a little. This apparently pertains to divorce too and several other issues where the Church has been more lenient. Again, not off-topic, because these are the realities. You want to say someone is WRONG for going against one Catholic issue, again, fine - be a Catholic hardliner. Again, your choice.

Lawrence, I agree with you about late-term abortions. I think abortions should be in the first trimester. The view out there from pro-choice people is that if you give an inch, they'llake a yard, which is why some people voted against your view. I'm just stating the view, but I do agree with you about what you said.

["Verbose manifesto" over and out.]