I just returned from giving a Commonweal Lecture at the University of Wyoming to discover that George Weigel reads dotCommonweal. Good for him!So . . . the Newsweek column. Doug Kmiec, Nick Cafardi and I will be responding in Newsweek in a more substantive fashion. Here, a few quick comments just for the dotCommonweal crowd.1. "Obamapologetics"? George, George. You can do better than that. It's awkward. And obvious. No one likes a good neologism better than I do. But this is simply beyond the Palin.2. Political Dedication Is No Excuse for Bad Proofreading. In paragraph five, Weigel writes:"Her argument, in sum: the constitutional and legal arguments that have raged since Roe vs. Wade are over, and Catholics have lost; there are many other "intrinsic evils" that Catholics are morally bound to oppose, and Republicans tend to ignore those evils; liberalized social-welfare policies will drive down the absolute numbers of abortions and Senator Obama is an unabashed liberal on these matters. Therefore, a vote for Obama is the 'real' pro-life vote."The argument he's just summarized is Nick Cafardi's argument, not my argument (although it's a powerful one). Weigel must have meant "His argument," not "Her argument. " In fact, he doesn't actually mention any of my arguments at all. Maybe he meant to suggest that my spirit was somehow poured out over all the arguments --but I would guess that this pneumatology would be a little too close to feminist theology for his taste.It must have been a typo.3. But Seriously Folks . . . And abortion is a serious issue. As a lawyer and a moralist, I've been thinking about it, both in political season and out of it, for twenty years now. If you want to know what I think, as opposed to what others say I think, here is an article I published in Origins a few years ago.Its M. Cathleen Kaveny, How Views of Law Influence the Pro-Life Movement, Origins 34:35 at 560ff (February 17, 2005).