- I know God is not a republican. (I don't think he's a democrat either.)
- I know I may lose some readers over this post.
- I also know it's my blog and I can post whatever I want.
- I know we will ALL answer to God someday for how we vote on Tuesday.
- I know John McCain is not the perfect candidate. He's the best of the worst but, at this point, I'll take that.
- I know that life begins at conception
- I know I don't want to hear any garbage about a woman's right to choose. Aren't you glad YOUR mom chose life? (No I don't believe government needs to legislate this but that's another post.)
Barack Obama is an impressive speaker who presents himself as a “bridge builder” that will unite Americans of all political persuasions. Obama also speaks openly about his faith and his respect for pro-life and pro-family voters in a way not seen in many recent Democratic candidates for President. Because of these things, many Christians have been considering voting for Obama.
What Christians and other people of faith need to understand is that in spite of Obama’s rhetoric about being a “uniter” who will work for common ground, Obama’s policies could not possibly be more opposed to the views of social conservatives. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to state that an Obama presidency could undo every single gain that has been made in recent years by pro-life and pro-family Americans. Furthermore, an Obama presidency could usher in a new era of difficulty—or, dare we say, even a persecution—for Christians in the United States the likes of which we have never seen.
All Christian voters need to take their political responsibility seriously and give weighty consideration to these reasons not to vote for Obama. And when you’re done reading, please pass this along to others so that Americans will be informed about the very real potential threats to Christians should Obama become our next President.
1. If Obama becomes President, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be reversed for years to come
A vote for Obama is not just for Barack Obama himself, but the people whom he would place in positions of authority, most importantly, his appointments to the Supreme Court. At the time of the election five of the Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years of age, and Justice John Paul Stevens is a ripe old 88! Therefore, it is highly likely that the next President will appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court.
The Court is currently sharply divided and most believe that Bush’s appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts provide four of the five votes necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. One or two more conservative justices would certainly result in reversing Roe v. Wade, which for the first time since 1973 would allow states to protect the unborn by law. On the other hand, if Obama is elected then his judicial appointments will likely provide a cushion to the current pro-abortion majority, possibly ensuring that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land for decades to come.
During this election South Dakotans will vote on a law to restrict abortion except for cases of rape, incest and maternal health. Pro-life leaders believe that this has a strong chance of passing and would be likely to come before the Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012, setting up the next major test case to Roe v. Wade. Thus, the next President is likely to determine whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls. No other issue can compare with the gravity of the nearly 50 million precious unborn lives that have been lost—as well as the countless women and men who have been emotionally scarred—thanks to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Christians have a duty to seize the opportunity before us in 2008 and say no more to legalized abortion and the candidates who support it.
2. Obama’s first act as president would erase every existing common sense restriction on abortion.
Obama openly declared that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” The pro-abortion rights National Organization for Women claims that this act “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies" at all levels of government. With one stroke of the pen, Obama and the Democratic Congress would wipe out all of the common sense restrictions that have been placed on abortion over past decades, including the following: 
· All 50 states’ requirements for state abortion reporting
· 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement
· 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
· 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
· 27 states' conscience protection laws for institutions
· 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortion
· 33 states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
· 28 states' laws requiring a waiting period before an abortion, and
· 16 states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
3. Obama steadfastly opposed a “Born Alive Infants Protection law” in Illinois.
While Obama was a state senator in the Illinois legislature, he defeated a bill nearly identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed by a vote of 98-0 in the U.S. Senate in 2001. Documents prove that Obama led his fellow Democrats on the legislative committee to kill the bill over concerns it would endanger legal abortion.
These laws were introduced in response to multiple accounts of botched abortions resulting in infants being born alive and left to die. For example, Jill Stanek worked as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago and went public with the hospital’s practice of inducing premature labor for women seeking late-term abortions. Sometimes the babies were born breathing and alive, and were then left on the counter to perish. Stanek testified that one time she held a precious baby for 45 minutes until he died.
It is astonishing that Obama was so committed to protecting abortion that he could vote against this act in the face of evidence that it was going on in his own state. Obama now claims that he would have supported the federal law, but his actual voting record puts him in a more pro-abortion position than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer—and that’s hard to do!
4. Obama and the Democrats want taxpayers to fund abortions.
The 2008 Democratic Platform states that the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay” (emphasis added). In other words, if a woman can’t afford an abortion, Democrats plan to force taxpayers to pick up the tab. Obama voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion and believes that Medicaid should cover abortions. Obama would also continue giving hundreds of millions of federal funds each year to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions, as evidenced by his votes against cutting off funding for the agency as a Senator.
5. Obama would reverse the "Mexico City Policy."
This policy, which had been started by Ronald Reagan, discontinued by Bill Clinton, and restored by George W. Bush, prevents international funding from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions. Under the Bush administration the United States government has been a thorn in the side of the powerful pro-abortion forces at the United Nations. If Obama is elected, the U.S. will switch sides and begin throwing its huge influence behind those trying to define legal abortion as an “international human right” and impose it on the rest of the world.
6. Obama wants to begin new federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Even though recent scientific advances have rendered this type of research unnecessary, Obama still wants to use taxpayer dollars to do research on stem cells that require the destruction of human embryos. John McCain previously supported federal funding embryonic stem cell research, but his website gives reason to believe that he no longer holds that position. It is also worth recalling that while adult stem cells have resulted in numerous cures, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a single cure.
7. Obama’s judicial appointees could require same-sex “marriage.”
Decisions by the state Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and California are requiring the states to recognize same-sex “marriages” for both residents and non-residents who come to the state seeking a marriage license. Not only does this give legal blessing to what Christianity has always deemed as disordered and immoral, but it has important ramifications for the rest of society too. Same-sex "marriage" by law affects business laws, threatens the tax-exempt status of churches, and shapes what is taught in schools. For instance, in California, a state “tolerance” initiative now requires schools to promote a positive view of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in the classroom. Educational organizations are legally barred from receiving any state funding unless they conform to the state’s policy against the traditional family, and public schools could even be required to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose. Given Obama’s stated liberal views and radical pro-gay agenda, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Obama will appoint judges on the Supreme Court with similar judicial philosophies to those on the State Supreme Court in California, thus resulting in similar rulings at the federal level for the entire United States.
8. Obama wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“DOMA” was passed by President Clinton and said that states could not be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states as they ordinarily would be required to do under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. If this is overturned, then states no longer have the strength of federal law behind them if they choose to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, and could end up being required by courts to accept same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states. Obama’s website states that he “believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
9. Obama’s support for "gay rights" threatens churches and Christian organizations.
The battle over “gay rights” holds numerous threats for Christian churches and organizations. For example, in Massachusetts, the state’s largest provider of adoption services, Catholic Charities, lost its state licensing because it would not provide adoption services to homosexual couples. The same thing also recently happened to Catholic Charities in the United Kingdom. It should be noted that Obama’s website states that his support for same-sex unions specifically mentions giving gay couples "equal legal rights ... including adoption rights.”
In countries like Canada and Sweden, Christian pastors have been taken to court for “hate speech” crimes for preaching from the Scripture about the immorality of homosexual acts. Even in the United States, the Boy Scouts had to go to the Supreme Court to defend their organization’s ability to prevent homosexuals from being troop leaders. The Scouts had lost their case at the state level and only won at Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Note that the Court was within a single vote of requiring a private organization to accept leaders whose views were clearly at odds with the organization’s core Christian values. With one or two more liberal justices on the Court, the Boy Scouts and other traditional organizations could find themselves on the losing side of such cases.
10. Obama could force Christian pharmacists out of business.
Obama’s website speaks of ending “insurance discrimination against contraception.” Should Obama get elected, there will be little concern given to Christians who have qualms with contraceptives, the “morning-after pill” (Plan B), and the like. Some states have already passed laws requiring pharmacists to provide so-called “emergency contraception.” In Obama’s native Illinois, the Governor issued an executive order that resulted in Christian pharmacists losing their jobs for declining to dispense the morning-after pill on conscientious grounds. Christians can expect such battles to grow nationally if Obama follows through and signs legislation requiring insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cover and provide drugs that act as abortifacients.
Some might dismiss these ten reasons as “fear-mongering” from the religious right. But should Obama get elected—and especially if he is joined by a Democratic-controlled Congress—these potential impacts are entirely reasonable to predict. In fact, most of them are simply goals that Barack Obama and the Democrats have publicly stated for all to hear. The examples cited above show that these dangers are real and are already taking place in our own country. Christians and others concerned with traditional values need to be made aware of the very real threats to their religious liberties they could face should Obama get elected.
Clearly, John McCain and Sarah Palin are worlds apart from Barack Obama and Joe Biden. McCain chose for his running mate Sarah Palin, who not only speaks about being pro-life, but has lived it out by choosing to give birth to her son with Down’s Syndrome, whom she describes as “perfect.” A McCain-Palin administration would not only be strongly pro-life and pro-family, it would provide a living testimony and constant reminder of the beauty of embracing life.
Consider John McCain’s words below and contrast them with Obama’s positions above, and the choice for people of faith in 2008 is clear:
“I will look for accomplished men and women, with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment, to strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Sam Alito, my friend the late William Rehnquist, jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. I have been pro-life, my entire public career. I am pro-life, because I know what it is like, to live without human rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value. And I know that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever they are denied, in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East, and in our own country, when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn. That is a personal testament, which you need not take on faith. You need only to examine my public record, to know that I won't change my position.”
- John McCain's Remarks in Speech to National Pro-Life Convention, July 22, 2008.
 Obama’s speech to Planned Parenthood can be watched at http://www.imoneinamillion.com/
 See http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070430foca.html
 “Focusing On FOCA: 'Freedom Of Choice Act' Would Harm Women And Remove Freedoms” by Tom McClusky. http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections
 “NRL Update: Monday, August 18, 2008 Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying" by Douglas Johnson at http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
 Obama’s campaign has stated that he does not support the “Hyde Amendment,” which prohibits Medicaid funding from covering abortions.
 See the "LGBT" section of Barack Obama’s website: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
 See the "LGBT" section of Barack Obama’s website: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf