New York Times Examines Obama's Support Among Catholics, Possibility Sen. Casey Will Speak At Convention
Main Category: AbortionArticle Date: 08 Aug 2008 - 8:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
5 (1 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
5 (1 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
The New York Times on Thursday examined "concern" among some Democrats that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who supports abortion rights, needs "to do more to regain the allegiance of Roman Catholic voters." In the Democratic primary earlier this year, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) received far more support among Catholics in some states than did Obama, the Times reports.
According to the Times, abortion is "central to the political crosscurrents around Catholics," who "broke decisively for President Bush in 2004, and could be crucial to the outcome in a number of battleground states this year." The Times reports that opposition to abortion rights is a "non-negotiable issue" for many lay Catholics and Catholic officials. Charles Chaput -- the Catholic archbishop of Denver, Colo. -- has said that voting for candidates who support abortion rights or human embryonic stem cell research is a sin that must be confessed before receiving Holy Communion, according to the Times.
According to the Times, Republicans are "gearing up campaigns" to portray Obama as a "radical" on abortion issues, citing his opposition to the federal ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion and his votes against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Broder, New York Times, 8/7). The legislation, which did not pass in 2001 and 2002, would have made it illegal for doctors to allow a fetus to die if it were delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Obama in August 2004 said he voted against the legislation because it did not include an exception to protect the life of a pregnant woman (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/16/07). He also said the bills were poorly written and could have threatened Roe v. Wade, adding that he supported a similar bill passed in the U.S. Senate because it did not have the same constitutional issues as the Illinois bill.
The Times reports that Obama plans to emphasize that there are other issues that Catholics can "base their votes" on. Douglas Kmiec -- a conservative Catholic law professor at Pepperdine University, who was denied Communion earlier this year by a priest because of his support for Obama --said that although the formal teachings of U.S. Catholic bishops emphasize protecting fetuses and embryos, Catholic doctrine allows for voting on other grounds, including the Iraq war, which the church has opposed. Kmiec said, "The proper question for Catholics to ask is not 'Can I vote for [Obama]?' but 'Why shouldn't I vote for the candidate who feels more passionately and speaks more credibly about economic fairness for the average family, who will be a true steward of the environment, and who will treat the immigrant family with respect?'" Kmiec said Obama should invite Catholic Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), who opposes abortion rights and endorsed Obama during the primaries, to speak at the Democratic National Convention to answer to people who believe they cannot vote for someone who supports abortion rights.
William Galston, a former domestic policy adviser to President Clinton and current senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said some Catholics still "speak with vehemence about the exclusion" of Casey's father, former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey (D), from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention. Galston said having Sen. Casey speak this year would "be a dramatic act of historical rectification that would resonate with Catholics." The Obama campaign has not said if Casey would be given a "prime-time" speaking slot, the Times reports. Casey said that he has not received a formal offer to speak at the convention but added, "I think we'll get something worked out" (New York Times, 8/7).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/117696.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/117696.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
One Planet, Therefore, Limited Resources To Life.
posted by Elizabeth F Cole MD on 16 Aug 2008 at 8:34 pmHow many people can this planet sustain?? well, WELL? There is a limit, and dreams now about humans going wherever, as our own planet become unable to sustain us, to the next planet, is far future and very rough terrain. YESSSSS.
Especially, now that we have learned that this planet as we are now using it has limitations for sustainable , especially growing human population, we need to consider, sharing honestly with our governments and our patients, the merits of relinquishing ALL end life-stage saving procedures from beginning to end, including abortion and end of life diseases. There are alternatives with medications and procedures for all to help in limiting suffering, at every age, no matter how to pay, for prolonged future of humans on this planet.
Rampant, especially now dramatically expensive surgical, chemotherapeutic proceedures are offered, we need to preserve human dignity and our right to die peacefully and without pain when any of these that may be urged upon us. Better. that there be no pressures upon any patient regarding personal decisions regarding life forward.
We can see demonstrations of the variety of pressure heads from medical specialties, doctors, researchers, drug and equipment companies, politicians,governments,religions,for money an philosophies, and those with scientific understanding trying to do "good", and any of these may, without any regard for the population pressures on the planet where all of us live. How do we carve something reasonable for all?
It is not only unquestionably impossible for all the people of this world to attempt to preserve all human life here, increase it exponentially, since we all are at present captive on this planet earth, which, due to industies, mainly oil driven, are threatening. If we do, we will continue to see morbid fights among rivals, governments, political policy makers, businesses, chemists, and those of us medically trained and fit, as well as those medical specialists trained in pain relief who have been stripped of the right to let some patients die using their skills and drugs, in comfort, as the natural world intended.
Treatment for even less than unquenchable diseases is often painful, the results of treatment always belching out new needs for rescuing the sufferants,the life saved, but maimed.
This pressure to save life creates suffering within the rescued life that often enough probably did not want the pain and suffering attached to that process driven by the doctor. If only it had been well explained and understood beforehand. That might be a defective difficult to perserve or manage, that might be an any age person who will die because of their disease no matter what, but cooerced to try for longer, at great expense, and with suffering, is urged to go along with it.
I ask for reality. Experiences are real, choices with full information are requisite. There is no reason not to cherish death at whatever stage of life there is not a reasonable alternative to prolongation of that life.
Because this planet is now no longer able to sustain all the wishes for survival...from the germ cell to the morbidly aged, the ill in between these extremes, I suggest we think scientifically about these dilemnas, it is time for the religious based as well as the medical/pharmaceutical rescuers to count the number of bodies that can be sustained here on this planet and let go purposes, idealisms, wealth, and fantacies that will relentlessly kill us all from over populations, attempts to correct,including wars, here on our only home, Planet Earth.
Lets go back to the time when people, family loved, all animals, pets, to be able to get, to be taken eternally to the land of pleasant dreams forever, vs those from the medical/drug/religeous congregation putting out to end the suffering proceedures: by keeping all alive, faith, drugs, the someones who are trying to win prizes about extending life, at any age, Why??? Death is a natural way of preventing prolonged suffering. It could be possible to help prevent that suffering by loving the person who is dying,rather than enouraging painful expensive surgical or medical treatments. They may not in the long end of things prevent anything, they are painful and expensive.
Here's for medical research that will help patients and politicians and all to reap sustainable life on the planet we inhabit. And let go of the idea that all that is considered human life must be preserved as long as possible, at whatever expense in terms of money and suffering.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



