At a recent rally and during a radio interview, Palin accused Obama of supporting infanticide.

"As a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn't even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion," Palin said during a Johnstown, Pennsylvania, rally. "These infants, often babies with special needs, are simply left to die."

"Without any clear context," Time magazine reported, "Palin's statements seemed to suggest that Obama supported a form of infanticide."

Palin, who opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, said that "A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn."

During an appearance on the ultra-conservative Laura Ingraham Show, Palin said Obama had voted against providing medical care to babies who were alive after attempted abortions. "It's very appalling," Palin said. "If more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we have already seen."

Emily Douglas, an editor for RH Reality Check, a daily online publication covering global reproductive and sexual health news and information, told me by e-mail that, "Recently, the McCain-Palin campaign has tamped down on attacks on Obama's alleged connection to [former] radical Bill Ayers -- only to ramp up attacks that Obama's position on abortion is 'radical'."

"Clearly, McCain and Palin are still trying to portray Obama as an extremist, when in fact his pro-prevention policies on abortion have attracted numerous self-described 'pro-life'" voters, and in an election in which voters rank the candidate's ability to deal with the economy far above his position on abortion," she noted.

Will the issue that thus far has not been formally discussed be raised at Wednesday night's final presidential debate? The Family Research Council's (FRC) Tony Perkins certainly hopes so.

In an FRC Action Alert issued two days before the debate, Perkins, who heads the Washington-based conservative Christian lobby group, urged supporters to petition Schieffer, the moderator of the third presidential debate, to ask the candidates if they "agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision allowing the government to ban abortions that kill a partially born baby?" and if they've "ever supported or opposed any law designed to protect the lives of babies that have survived an attempted abortion?"

Perkins did not suggest that the candidates be asked whether they favor overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in most cases.

Schieffer asks and the candidates respond

MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

OBAMA: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote

Anti-abortion strike in battleground states

A host of anti-abortion organizations have unleashed a series of radio and television ads in swing states attacking Obama on the issue. BornAliveTruth.org, an anti-abortion non-profit headed by Jill Stanek, has rolled out television advertisements explicitly accusing Obama of "supporting infanticide".

The BornAliveTruth ad is narrated by Gianna Jesson, who is identified as an "abortion survivor". In the ad, Jesson states that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here." The ad focuses on Obama's opposition to the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act".

Emily Douglas said that the ad which "suggests that Obama failed to support the highest standard of care for newborns, is a mistruth. Existing law in Illinois already protected infants, and the 'Born Alive' bills were bundled with other pieces of legislation that would have interfered with the state abortion law and increased physician liability."

Earlier this month, Douglas reported that the National Right to Life Committee was preparing a radio ad charging that because he voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Obama is "responsible for killing a bill to provide care and protection for babies who are born alive after abortions' and that 'he later misrepresented the bill's content".

Anti-abortion initiatives on ballots in South Dakota, Colorado, and California

In South Dakota, anti-abortion activists are going over ground that was plowed two years ago when voters easily defeated an initiative aimed at outlawing all abortions. However, this time around abortion opponents appeared to soften the language in the initiative, "include[ing] language purporting to make exceptions for incest, rape or the life and health of the mother," a New York Times editorial pointed out.

"But no one should be fooled," the paper said. "The exceptions were drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy. The measure is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings, and that's just the point. The underlying agenda is to provide a vehicle for challenging Roe v. Wade..."

Amendment 48 in Colorado is a controversial ballot measure that would make the term "person" "include any human being from the moment of fertilization", with all the constitutional rights that confers.

The initiative would in "effect bestow on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born," the New York Times editorial noted.

Interestingly, the Colorado measure is receiving little support from longtime abortion opponents, including the Catholic Church, and Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described "pro-life" Democrat.

In California, the battle over abortion rights is centered on Proposition 4, an initiative that would force teenage girls to notify their parents if they were pregnant and wanted an abortion. This is the third time that a parental notification initiative has appeared on the state's ballot, having twice been defeated.

"Far from protecting vulnerable teens, Proposition 4 would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents, even in cases where the father or stepfather is responsible for the pregnancy," the New York Times editorial pointed out. Recent polling has the anti-abortion side slightly ahead.

"The ballot initiatives in Colorado and South Dakota that would act as near-total abortion bans reveal the extremism of the anti-choice movement," Douglas pointed out. "The Colorado ballot initiative is opposed even by its pro-life governor, while South Dakota's ban would outlaw abortion with exceptions only for rape, incest, and the woman's health -- after an attempt in 2006 to outlaw abortion with no exceptions."

"Voters can see that it's the anti-choice movement, not Barack Obama, who is extreme on abortion," she added.