Areawide Media does not endorse political candidates. The following is the opinion of the editor alone.
Even pro-choice senators such as Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) oppose partial birth abortions.
Lincoln, who gets more campaign money from the abortion rights group Emily's List than from any other source, voted to ban partial birth abortions.
Partial-birth abortion is the procedure developed to protect abortion providers from lawsuits that result from failed abortions. Other late-term abortion procedures had too often resulted in live births in which the abortion survivors suffered birth defects and lifelong disabilities. It became too inconvenient for an abortionist who was required by law to save the life of this stubborn baby he had been paid to kill, after an abortion failed; the abortionists knew full well they were subjecting themselves to future lawsuits by the mothers. And sometimes by the abortion survivors themselves. Partial birth abortion is the only procedure that ensures the fetus will be dead when fully delivered.
Abortion providers say the procedure is a tragic medical necessity used only when either a mother's life or her child's life is in danger. They are lying. Most of the time the procedure is performed on a healthy, viable child carried by a healthy mother. Medical experts say the procedure is never a necessity, and the AMA condemns the practice. And that's why even pro-choice senators like Blanche Lincoln think it's going too far.
I don't need to describe the procedure since most Americans have heard it already. Like something conceived in the scientific laboratories of Nazi Germany, it causes anyone with normal sensibilities to recoil in horror.
But not John Kerry.
The Massachusetts senator who wants to lead this nation has positioned himself at the extreme left on this issue, repeatedly voting against a ban on partial-birth abortions. And he has vowed as president to fight any attempts to provide legal protections for the most innocent and most defenseless members of the human community, the preborn.
This candidate who has the reputation for inconsistent opinions has been remarkably consistent on this issue, with a 100-percent pro-abortion rights voting record. And he has vowed to appoint only judges who publicly support unfettered access to abortions, injecting politics into the judicial branch of the federal government in defiance of the Constitution.
Abortion is not the only reason to be worried about a Kerry presidency. Of immediate concern is the fact that he doesn't seem to understand what is at stake in the War on Terror.
We are engaged in a global war against the rising terror network, the same network that is daily attacking our troops and the brave Iraqi and Afghani soldiers fighting by our side. It is the same network that also continues to carry out attacks on innocent civilians throughout the world.
Kerry sees these attacks as reason to retreat rather than reason to finish the job. The attacks are not proof we are in "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," but proof that this is the same enemy, radical Islam, that attacked us on our shores, an enemy that has set its sights on our destruction, an enemy that must be destroyed before it grows strong enough to succeed.
As other nations pull out of Iraq in the face of beheadings and other brutal acts of intimidation by al Qaida-backed insurgents and other Islamic extremists, the United States must grow firmer in its resolve to press on. The "global test" Kerry says we must pass before taking military action reveals his failure to understand the nature of our enemy.
These are not the only issues of this election. Bush supporters like to point out Kerry's 20-year voting record, among the most liberal in Congress, that includes repeated votes to restrict Second Amendment rights and raise taxes.
But Kerry's position on two issues -- abortion and the War on Terror -- stand out.
With two, perhaps three, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court near retirement and many other seats on federal benches open, the next president will leave his mark on the judiciary. President Bush has said he will not issue an abortion litmus test for nominees, but will select judges who will strictly adhere to the Constitution. Kerry, as I have pointed out, has already announced the one qualification he will require of his appointees -- unwavering support for abortion.
And while Americans are frustrated at the many setbacks and mounting casualties in the War on Terror, I think most also understand that this is the nature of war, and they realize this is an enemy that must be defeated. Kerry does not seem to grasp this.
The candidate who flinches too easily at the sight of war casualties does not flinch at all at the sight of a child killed by partial-birth abortion.
While the president has vowed to stay the course in the War on Terror, Sen. Kerry has vowed to stay the course in another war -- the War on the Unborn.
The latter is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."