Kmiec Explains It All

YouTube Preview Image

Douglas Kmiec, ambassador to Malta and spiritual descendant of Richard Rich, has an interview with the Times of Malta here.

 

“Prof. Kmiec’s views on abortion have certainly not changed since he was appointed an ambassador by the Obama administration.

“I believe life begins at conception, in the womb, and is to be protected there as it is to be protected at every moment throughout the progression of life,” he emphasises.

He was disappointed when the US Supreme Court legalised abortion in 1973 and for some 30 plus years, as an advocate in the judicial system, including when he worked for Mr Reagan in the White House, he wrote briefs and made arguments seeking to reverse the law on that question.

“Of course it hasn’t happened; year after year, millions die in those awful procedures.”

He recalls how he told Mr Obama during the campaign: “How can you allow someone to terminate another person’s life? What moral authority do you have for that?”

Mr Obama replied: “Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently.” And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

“If I am elected President,” he told Prof. Kmiec, “I am President of all these people.”

Prof. Kmiec says Mr Obama told him that he views abortion as “a moral tragedy” and that there were two ways of addressing it. There is the law in which people who involved themselves in this procedure would be subject to a penalty. The Supreme Court has put that off limits.

The other way is to do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion.

Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced – and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions – “this seems to me a good interim step”.

“I prayed on this,” he explains, pointing out that Pope John Paul II had said that Catholics must be clear on their stand on abortion but also that people in political life could sometimes do less than they would like to do as long as there were moves towards the protection of life.

“Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like,” he says.”

I will do Kmiec the courtesy of assuming that he is being mendacious in the interview and that he really isn’t stupid enough to believe the bilge Obama was dishing to him.

Thomas Peters has a must read article here on the interview.

“This is delusional. Mr. Obama has “taken steps towards the protection of life … not as fast as some would like” in Dr. Kmiec’s view? In fact, Mr. Obama has taken steps in the opposite direction. And fast.

Consider: Mr. Obama has chosen to fund oversees abortions at US taxpayer expense. He has destroyed President Bush’s faith advisory board and populated it with pro-abortion representatives. He has appointed not a single pro-life Catholic or political figure to any position of responsibility in his administration. He continues to lie about the existence of abortion provision in his multiple health care provisions (a fact verified by multiple mainstream news media organizations). He has not lifted a single finger when Democrats in Congress have thwarted repeated attempts by Republicans to exclude the expansion of abortion funding and coverage from these health care plans. He has not put a single conscience clause provision into writing. His Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to pass legislation that will drastically expand the federal funding which Planned Parenthood and other abortion mega-providers will receive annually. He has ended the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. And these concrete examples are only those which come immediately to mind.

I was at the debate on life issues between Dr. Kmiec and Dr. Robert George at the National Press Club here in Washington DC earlier this summer. At one point, Dr. George asked Dr. Kmiec to name a single pro-life initiative that Dr. Kmiec knew Mr. Obama has proposed or supported. Dr. Kmiec could not. Several months down the road, there is still nothing one can point to. There is even more one can point to as evidence that Mr. Obama is not pro-life or pro-marriage. He has never made any secret of his pro-abortion stance. It is pitiful to defend someone who sees no point in defending himself on these and other issues.

This interview is also pitiful, as are the continued attempts by pro-Obama Catholics who try to argue that Mr. Obama – despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – is a pro-life politician, or is a good example of a “catechism come to life.” But Dr. Kmiec and his friends have learned that the best way to lie, is to repeat the lie.

And so, here we are, with more lies, or at least delusion.

Either way, I hope that sane individuals who have witnessed Kmiec’s meltdown are taking note.”

16 Responses to Kmiec Explains It All

  • “If I am elected President,” he told Prof. Kmiec, “I am President of all these people.”

    All these people – except the unborn. Of course, the unborn don’t vote Democrat.

  • Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Doug has never stood outside a PP clinic on abortion days.

    “Mr Obama has taken some steps towards this, perhaps not as fast as some would like,” he says.”

    What alternate reality is he living in…. or….

    as my favorite SC legislator says….

    HE LIES.

  • Thanks for this post, my blood pressure was feeling a little low. Nothing like a little Kmiec to fix hypotension.

  • What interests me is this:

    “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Obama, like some pro-choice advocates, is taking a position that is even worse than the traditional position.

    After all, if one believes that the unborn child is not really a child, but a valueless clump of cells, then it follows that abortion is no crime or sin. As one pro-life writer I like has often put it: if abortion isn’t murder, no justification is necessary – if it is murder, no justification is sufficient.

    Here Obama, like a lot of “religious” pro-choice, acknowledges that it is a life – but that it deserves no protection under the law. He acknowledges, at least here, the premise of the pro-life position but denies the only moral conclusion one can draw from it.

    This inconsistency demonstrates a far greater callousness and moral cowardice than the pro-choicer who maintains that abortion ought to be legal because the thing being aborted isn’t human and has no value.

    As for being the president of all those other people, well, that argument didn’t work out so well for slave owners, did it? He’s president of racists too – where is their voice in administration of government?

  • Obama, like some pro-choice advocates, is taking a position that is even worse than the traditional position.

    After all, if one believes that the unborn child is not really a child, but a valueless clump of cells, then it follows that abortion is no crime or sin. As one pro-life writer I like has often put it: if abortion isn’t murder, no justification is necessary; if it is murder, no justification is sufficient.

    Here Obama, like a lot of religious; pro-choice, acknowledges that it is a life; but that it deserves no protection under the law. He acknowledges, at least here, the premise of the pro-life position but denies the only moral conclusion one can draw from it.

    The Great Obama did, in fact, acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, but that any person of “good will” can have an abortion and still be considered doing the “right” thing. As he said previously:

    I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

    There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

    People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

    And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

  • It moves one to pity and sorrow to see such a lack of character in a person who claims to be a member of the Church but has succumbed to culture and become one with it. The vignette from A Man For All Seasons is a perfect accompaniment to the pathos of Doug Kmiec.

  • At the very least, Kmeic got Wales, errrr…Malta; but what did all the supposedly Pro-Life Vox Novans get for their support of The Great One?

  • It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.

    If this is a justification for abortion, then it is also a justification for gunning down anyone who is homeless, uninsured, or without food.

  • “It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”
    This statement isn’t true. Surveys have shown that these issues account for <20% of abortions. ( Data courtesy of Gutemacher Institute aka Planned Parenthood )

  • “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table.”

    Off the top of my head, I can think of two women I am actively acquainted with who have had abortions. Both had insurance, both lived in agreeable digs (one lived in a succession of ducky apartments and the other owned her home), and both could well afford groceries. The motive for one of these abortions was never specified; the other aborted a child with a genetic defect of modest significance.

  • Secretary of Health, Sebelius, of course, the recipient of donations per Tiller, I don’t know how much and to what extent. Obama of course, placates (Lapdog is a better word but doesn’t sound too kind) Planned Parenthood, Obama said something like “I wouldn’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby”, I mean, you can’t see your nose despite your face (however that expression goes). I know somewhere, there may be a liberal that is enamored with the talk or more likely, don’t know what the talk is, enamored with the individual. It is understandable that some figure comes along who can look like the new JFK or something to some people.

  • If our President really believes in what he says and is against abortion, why hasn’t he used his position to tell NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc he wants them to use their resources to help the women to have the child and help them with their resources afterwards toward adoption or helping to raise the child if necessary instead of the the killing. Why does he not spend dollars on taking care of these unwanted children versus aborting them.

  • “…what did Vox Novans get for their support of the Great One?”

    Income redistribution.

  • Things have been great since the Glorious One took office. The US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo is closed, the “need for abortion” has been eliminated, the deficit is under control, unemployment is down, we have many nice icons of Dear Leader with a presidential seal halo, and an unicorn in every driveway.

    It’s all good…

  • Perhaps they can develop a test to determine if the pre-born child is a Republican or a Democrat and then only murder the ones that won’t vote for them.

    Then we can treat murder through pregnancy abortion like all other moral issues — it is just another political choice subject to the whims of the mob.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .