Lots of rumors have been flying around about McCain’s VP pick, Sarah Palin and her family. In trying to understand her worldview, church affiliation has been of great interest. This seems understandable given the scrutiny given to Barack Obama’s pastor and the worldview espoused there.
Some are reporting that the family attends Charismatic or dominionist churches, but it appears that they attend a Bible church in Wasilla. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council said in a press release that the Palins told him the same thing at the Dayton, Ohio announcement of her VP selection. Peter Kirk at Gentle Wisdom gives a nice rundown of sources on this topic.
Here is some footage of Gov. Palin speaking at an Assembly of God church in Wasilla where she apparently attended as a child/teen. The Bible church she attends now would not be of similar views of charismatic gifts as would the Assembly church.
And then just released is this Newsweek feature on the Palin’s religious affilation…
Category: politics
McCain campaign discloses that Palin's daughter is pregnant
To address rumors that Sarah Palin was covering up her daughter’s pregnancy via a story about her most recent birth, the campaign today disclosed that Bristol Palin is expecting and will marry the infant’s father.
Until today, I was not aware of the rumors flying on the liberal blogs, but apparently they were being picked up by some mainstream sources which led to the disclosure.
Here is the Palin’s statement:
Statement from Sarah and Todd Palin
ARLINGTON, VA — Today, Sarah and Todd Palin issued the following statement regarding today’s Reuters story:
“We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.
“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”
###
No real political fall out as yet, and I don’t expect there to be.
Factcheck.org on Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Abortion may be the most troubling issue Barack Obama has faced in his bid to lure Evangelical voters to his campaign. Extremely controversial is Obama’s handling of questions surrounding the federal and IL state versions of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA).
This Newsweek article excerpts Factcheck.org’s examination of the controversy. Here is the thumbnail version:
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.
It appears that Obama did not believe living, possibly pre-viable infants had legal status as persons. It is unclear to me what he believes now. His campaign’s most recent explanation involves an argument that suggests a vote against BAIPA at the state level was necessary to protect Roe v. Wade but a vote in favor at the federal level would have no bearing on RvW. I do not understand this reasoning.
I suppose another way to frame the issue is to ask when is an abortion complete? If the fetus is delivered and is alive but of questionable viability, how do we regard this life? The Obama doctrine appears to be that an infant born alive but of questionable viability is not a legal person – or at least this was his view while an IL Senator. Here is a speech on the 2001 Senate floor:
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum asked Sen. Obama when a baby is entitled to human rights and Obama said such answers are above his pay grade. From a reading of this material, making these determinations was at his pay grade at one time not long ago. Simply saying he favors the federal bill now really does not address what protection he now believes should be afforded these infants.
Did Barack Obama vote to withhold treatment to infants surviving abortion?
This question continues to dog the Obama campaign and now the National Right to Life organization has amassed documentation regarding the claim and the Obama response.
Rather than reproduce it all here, I am going to post the link and comment more a bit later.
Click here to read the NRTL news release.
The Weekly Standard has some reporting on this issue as well.
Jill Stanek, the Illinois nurse who blew the whistle on infants left to die has ongoing coverage of this controversy.
The New York Sun has an article clarifying the issue even more. It seems Obama is now saying that the Illinois bill might have impacted Illinois law but that he would have voted for the federal version since there was no federal abortion law.
Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
However, he is a prime supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act which would become federal law. Does that mean he would support the repeal of the federal Born Alive Act?
PA's Tom Ridge McCain's VP choice?
Jake Tapper at Political Punch makes an plausible observation regarding McCain’s VP choice. Tom Ridge may turn out to reminisce the role of George Bush the First in the McCain campaign. George Bush was a moderate on abortion who was tapped by ardently pro-life Ronald Reagan to be his Vice-president. Could Ridge fill a similar role for McCain?