COMMENTS: 47
Is House Health Care Bill a Threat to Our Constitution?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was delivered as a statement at a press conference called by the Religious Coaltion for Reproductive Choice at the National Press Club on November 16, 2009. The topic was the anti-choice amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that was attached to the House health-care reform bill.
In the United States, the institutions of government and religion are separate.
This is not just my opinion. It is the law of the land. Our Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Supreme Court has stated more than once that laws must not advance religion or have a religious purpose.
How surprising and appalling, then, to see that a provision designed to curtail women’s right to abortion was slipped into the health-care bill at the behest of a powerful religious group, a provision that reflects the doctrines of that group.
A few days ago, Rep. Bart Stupak, the prime mover of this provision, told the Associated Press, “The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It’s a basic teaching of the religion.”
Therein lies the problem. It is not the job of government to enforce religious teaching. Abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure in this country. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has sought to change that fact, but the bishops have been unable to persuade the American people that their view is correct. Indeed, polls show that the church hierarchy has been unable to persuade even its own members to adopt the church’s narrow view on legal abortion.
The church hierarchy now seeks through legislative action to accomplish something it has failed to get through its own efforts at moral suasion. Is it any wonder that those of us who are not even members of the church are upset and angry about this? We wish to live in the 21st Century, not an echo of medieval Spain. We do not wish to have the doctrines of the Catholic Church – or indeed any faith – imposed on us through law.
I understand the desire of the House leadership to pass a health-care bill. The issue has been on the national agenda in some form or another since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
But health-care reform that attacks the rights of more than half of the population by subjecting some of their basic and most intimate decisions to a large and powerful church’s governing body is not reform at all. It is a huge step backward. As the director of a constitutional rights group – and I
say this sadly -- it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact.
I suppose those of us standing here today may be accused of “anti-Catholicism” for what we have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know that across this country, Catholics of goodwill have joined us in opposing this heavy-handed move by the bishops and their Washington lobbyists. You can feel the anger stirring across the land; a backlash is building. It will not be silenced, and we are here today to give voice to that movement.
I have always taken as one of my guiding lights America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. In a famous 1960 speech he said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act…. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials….”
Those were wise words. We best honor them today not by enshrining them in books and nodding in agreement when we read them. We honor those words by putting them into practice and ensuring that America upholds the separation of church and state
That’s why we are calling on the Senate to not include this amendment in their version of the bill. There is still time to stop this from becoming law.
This lobbying effort by the Roman Catholic Church was as well-orchestrated and ruthless an assault on the rights of the poor as any campaign waged by any other corporation. At a minimum, the church should voluntarily register as a federal lobbyist and disclose the costs of this attack on women’s constitutional rights. This would be consistent with an ethos of transparency, without even raising the specter of undue government interference with religion.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bibsisis on Nov 18, 2009 2:58 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could be wrong, but I think many reps. voted for the Stupak amendment to get a health care reform out of the House so it could proceed to Senate and be upgraded to conform to President Obama's specs. I could be wrong, but I also think Stupak's amendment and the one proposed by Hatch of Utah yesterday are simply attempts to keep this non-issue "out there" for their conservative voter-constitutents. As the president said, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.
Forget about scrapping the bill. It passed,and, in itself, is over, and another bill incorporating public sentiment will be included while preserving some of the good measures in the House bill with final, revised version of the bill coming out of Senate perhaps this wk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stupak amendment no reason to scrap House bill...
Posted by: Spiritgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 18, 2009 9:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denis Kucinich is right... what a disaster
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Nov 19, 2009 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Government Is The Beast on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree, except
Posted by: Word Mix
» I don't want to pay for fat people, other people's kids, or right wing idiots.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Taxes and imposed moral structures
Posted by: NWCrow
» Lets have least common denominator health care and only cover what everybody wants.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Lets have least common denominator health care and only cover what everybody wants.
Posted by: NWCrow
» Those were the days, my friend.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» ELECTIVE SURGERY
Posted by: fbear0143
» Lots of elective procedures are covered by insurance policies
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Constitutionally protected, it isn't, and thats the problem
Posted by: rickiey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 19, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The counter example of auto insurance is not valid. While I personally believe that if the states are going to mandate insurance, they should provide that insurance (like flood insurance), there are huge differences.
Operating a motor vehicle on the publicly funded roads and highways is NOT a constitutional right! There are perfectly legitimate licensing requirements and other regulations. While alternatives to driving a car may completely suck, they do exist.
These are STATE mandates, not Federal. Constitutionally, that turns out to be a huge difference.
You can choose not to drive a car, your license to drive can be suspended or revoked. Citizenship is a birthright of everyone born here. Requiring me to patronize some robber baron simply as a condition of drawing breath, is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is an incredibly dangerous and entirely unconstitutional precedent.
Unless there is a viable public option (such as Medicare) that anyone mandated to be insured can buy into, I am unalterably opposed to this legislation on constitutional grounds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Exactly right
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Stupak is not the only constitutionality issue.
Posted by: lclark
» So other taxpayers should foot the bill for you if you are uninsured and get cancer?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 19, 2009 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only the Congress will have the power to declare war. Clearly the founders meant that this country would not go to war unless the Congress debated the issue and approve of it. This seems a quaint notion to Washington today and it seems it has for at least the last half-century.
Section 8 of the Constitution, in listing the powers of Congress lists, To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. It would seem that the founders intended that there be no standing army and that any army formed to fight a war would exist for at most two years. Other list items in section 8 mention the forming and support of a militia and clearly this is what they intended in place of a standing army. Curiously, the founders did list the the authority to maintain a navy (but not an army.
It is historically curious that much of our focus on the constitution today is directed toward the Bill of Rights. This is curious because most of the founders felt that these amendments were unnecessary because they were redundant. The amendments were added to satisfy political needs of the day and were redundant because the constitution already guaranteed that all rights not specifically enumerated in the body of the constitution remained the rights of the people.
Specifically in contradiction to the Ninth Amendment, today's attitude often seems to be that unless a right is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is not a right of the people. This is just wrong.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Our Poor Constitution - The ninth is effectively a dead letter, PM.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Our Poor Constitution - The ninth is effectively a dead letter, PM.
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 7:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandated spending by individuals is unconstitutional
Posted by: Lucidity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Nov 19, 2009 8:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: MrErik
» You damned Canadians keep spoiling the narrative with facts.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: MT512
» Because you're a damned commie that's why.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: IntlDad
» I'm not sure I would die without my inhalers...
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lucidity on Nov 19, 2009 8:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 19, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there's car insurance, but driving a car is a privilege and involves putting folks around you in danger whilst you motor your prius/hummer/taurus down the road, and it's handled by the States.
So again, from what constitutional power does the Federal Government derive the power to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance? Will it be back doored under the interstate commerce clause?
While I applaud you finally locating your copy of the consitution on this particular issue, the broader imposition is at least as important, especially given that it directly affects more than just premenopausal women.
A final thought...won't BHO and his Congresscritters have their hands full enough with running us into hell with Iraq and Afghanistan, running their two new Federal car companies, paying lip service to folks with fraudulent mortgages, and keeping their banker buddies in $200 cigars and million dollar bonuses at our expense to really, really focus on taking good care of my prostate, let alone your fetus?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Broader constitutional questions: by what authority does the Federal Government...
Posted by: MT512
» Well, that's all and well and good...
Posted by: franklyspanking
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell your senators to support single-payer health care by co-sponsoring S. 703, the American Health Security Act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I sure wish you or AlterNet would have run a differently worded headline
Be Well,
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 19, 2009 11:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House version:
Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).
Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship
Senate Version:
Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.
Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Nov 19, 2009 1:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Catholic Church Does Have A Certain Right
Posted by: richholland
» WRONG! No abortions or morning after, period. Ever. Not in Catholicism.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Adastra on Nov 20, 2009 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pick up a bible, if you have one. Check Gen. 2:7. It only takes a moment and a careful reading will show clearly how utterly hypocritical the anti-choice religious nuts have been. It's a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ, or Yeshuah ha-Meshiach in the original Aramaic.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teinoaole on Nov 23, 2009 1:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That means the Health lobbies (all of them) have four years or more to REALLY rake it in.
Our current so-called "health care system" will be bankrupt long before then.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 23, 2009 5:17 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bibsisis on Nov 18, 2009 2:58 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could be wrong, but I think many reps. voted for the Stupak amendment to get a health care reform out of the House so it could proceed to Senate and be upgraded to conform to President Obama's specs. I could be wrong, but I also think Stupak's amendment and the one proposed by Hatch of Utah yesterday are simply attempts to keep this non-issue "out there" for their conservative voter-constitutents. As the president said, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.
Forget about scrapping the bill. It passed,and, in itself, is over, and another bill incorporating public sentiment will be included while preserving some of the good measures in the House bill with final, revised version of the bill coming out of Senate perhaps this wk.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stupak amendment no reason to scrap House bill...
Posted by: Spiritgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 18, 2009 9:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denis Kucinich is right... what a disaster
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Nov 19, 2009 3:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Government Is The Beast on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree, except
Posted by: Word Mix
» I don't want to pay for fat people, other people's kids, or right wing idiots.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Taxes and imposed moral structures
Posted by: NWCrow
» Lets have least common denominator health care and only cover what everybody wants.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Lets have least common denominator health care and only cover what everybody wants.
Posted by: NWCrow
» Those were the days, my friend.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» ELECTIVE SURGERY
Posted by: fbear0143
» Lots of elective procedures are covered by insurance policies
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Constitutionally protected, it isn't, and thats the problem
Posted by: rickiey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 19, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The counter example of auto insurance is not valid. While I personally believe that if the states are going to mandate insurance, they should provide that insurance (like flood insurance), there are huge differences.
Operating a motor vehicle on the publicly funded roads and highways is NOT a constitutional right! There are perfectly legitimate licensing requirements and other regulations. While alternatives to driving a car may completely suck, they do exist.
These are STATE mandates, not Federal. Constitutionally, that turns out to be a huge difference.
You can choose not to drive a car, your license to drive can be suspended or revoked. Citizenship is a birthright of everyone born here. Requiring me to patronize some robber baron simply as a condition of drawing breath, is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is an incredibly dangerous and entirely unconstitutional precedent.
Unless there is a viable public option (such as Medicare) that anyone mandated to be insured can buy into, I am unalterably opposed to this legislation on constitutional grounds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Exactly right
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Stupak is not the only constitutionality issue.
Posted by: lclark
» So other taxpayers should foot the bill for you if you are uninsured and get cancer?
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 19, 2009 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only the Congress will have the power to declare war. Clearly the founders meant that this country would not go to war unless the Congress debated the issue and approve of it. This seems a quaint notion to Washington today and it seems it has for at least the last half-century.
Section 8 of the Constitution, in listing the powers of Congress lists, To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. It would seem that the founders intended that there be no standing army and that any army formed to fight a war would exist for at most two years. Other list items in section 8 mention the forming and support of a militia and clearly this is what they intended in place of a standing army. Curiously, the founders did list the the authority to maintain a navy (but not an army.
It is historically curious that much of our focus on the constitution today is directed toward the Bill of Rights. This is curious because most of the founders felt that these amendments were unnecessary because they were redundant. The amendments were added to satisfy political needs of the day and were redundant because the constitution already guaranteed that all rights not specifically enumerated in the body of the constitution remained the rights of the people.
Specifically in contradiction to the Ninth Amendment, today's attitude often seems to be that unless a right is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is not a right of the people. This is just wrong.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Our Poor Constitution - The ninth is effectively a dead letter, PM.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Our Poor Constitution - The ninth is effectively a dead letter, PM.
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 7:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandated spending by individuals is unconstitutional
Posted by: Lucidity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Nov 19, 2009 8:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: MrErik
» You damned Canadians keep spoiling the narrative with facts.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: MT512
» Because you're a damned commie that's why.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: IntlDad
» I'm not sure I would die without my inhalers...
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lucidity on Nov 19, 2009 8:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 19, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there's car insurance, but driving a car is a privilege and involves putting folks around you in danger whilst you motor your prius/hummer/taurus down the road, and it's handled by the States.
So again, from what constitutional power does the Federal Government derive the power to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance? Will it be back doored under the interstate commerce clause?
While I applaud you finally locating your copy of the consitution on this particular issue, the broader imposition is at least as important, especially given that it directly affects more than just premenopausal women.
A final thought...won't BHO and his Congresscritters have their hands full enough with running us into hell with Iraq and Afghanistan, running their two new Federal car companies, paying lip service to folks with fraudulent mortgages, and keeping their banker buddies in $200 cigars and million dollar bonuses at our expense to really, really focus on taking good care of my prostate, let alone your fetus?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Broader constitutional questions: by what authority does the Federal Government...
Posted by: MT512
» Well, that's all and well and good...
Posted by: franklyspanking
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell your senators to support single-payer health care by co-sponsoring S. 703, the American Health Security Act.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I sure wish you or AlterNet would have run a differently worded headline
Be Well,
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 19, 2009 11:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House version:
Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).
Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship
Senate Version:
Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.
Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Nov 19, 2009 1:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Catholic Church Does Have A Certain Right
Posted by: richholland
» WRONG! No abortions or morning after, period. Ever. Not in Catholicism.
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Adastra on Nov 20, 2009 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pick up a bible, if you have one. Check Gen. 2:7. It only takes a moment and a careful reading will show clearly how utterly hypocritical the anti-choice religious nuts have been. It's a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ, or Yeshuah ha-Meshiach in the original Aramaic.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teinoaole on Nov 23, 2009 1:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That means the Health lobbies (all of them) have four years or more to REALLY rake it in.
Our current so-called "health care system" will be bankrupt long before then.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 23, 2009 5:17 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




