COMMENTS: 102
How Catholic Bishops Threw the Health Care Debate into Turmoil with Anti-Abortion Maneuver
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
It was a bold power play -- one that caught progressive members of the Democratic caucus off-guard, and one that has sown distrust and dissension among House Democrats.
With a major assist from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, two members of Congress -- both members, as well, of a secretive, right-wing religious group -- made it impossible for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to pass an historic health care reform bill without the attachment of anti-abortion amendment that, if signed into law, could set women's rights back decades.
While few think the amendment's draconian language will find its way into a final bill, its passage last weekend as part of the Affordable Health Care For Americans Act set the stage for a battle that could determine whether health care reform legislation ever makes it to the Senate floor for a vote.
The amendment, spearheaded by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., goes far beyond the standard prohibition on the use of federal dollars for abortion services known as the Hyde Amendment; Stupak's would prohibit the purchase, through the health insurance exchange the bill would create, of even private health insurance plans that cover abortion -- even for women who were not eligible for government-subsidized premiums.
The cumulative effect of the Stupak amendment is it would likely kill abortion coverage in nearly all health insurance plans, whether purchased through the exchanges or not, since the exchanges will come to constitute the bulk of the market for policies purchased by individuals.
It would also affect the coverage offered employees of the federal government -- one of the nation's largest employers -- who already choose from among a range of insurance packages offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.
"This is a very serious development here," said Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL. "Women across the country -- Democratic women in particular -- but women, I would argue, all across the country, as they are learning about this, are really, really upset. And this isn't only the result of the bishops; this is the party, as well, not really standing up for women and allowing a group of conservative Democrats, who they recruited and helped elect, rule the day in the House." (Michelman has an essay on this topic, co-authored with Frances Kissling, on the op-ed page of today's New York Times.)
Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., the co-sponsor of his amendment, are members of The Family, the stealthy religious group exposed by journalist Jeff Sharlet in his book of the same name. In both houses of Congress, members of The Family have been working for months to defeat health care reform. Although the anti-choice views of both men are said to be rooted in their religion, it's hard not to suspect their amendment of being a poison pill intended to kill health care reform entirely. After all, the bill already contained language restricting the use of federal money for abortion.
How Stupak Happened
As members prepared last weekend for the vote on landmark health care reform legislation, House leaders thought they had forged a compromise, after days of negotiation with anti-choice members of Congress, that would assure conservaDems that no public monies would be disbursed through the federally administered health insurance program the bill would create.
Then, at the 11th hour, the compromise fell apart. The Catholic bishops weren't buying in, and that was enough to scuttle the deal. Stupak said he wouldn't vote for the health care bill unless his amendment saw a vote, and Pelosi needed his vote and the votes of members he claimed to represent.
But in order for Stupak to get a vote for his amendment, Pelosi would need Republican votes for the rule that would allow the amendment to move to the floor. That's when the language of the amendment turned ugly, according to Politico.
Members from heavily Catholic districts wouldn't sign on until the bishops gave their blessing on the language, Republicans wouldn't vote for the rule until the National Right to Life Committee signed off. Pelosi assessed her risk, apparently calculating that the Stupak language would be stripped out of the bill that is eventually sent to the president's desk.
Few were more dismayed by the Stupak amendment than Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a key member of the "whip team" that Pelosi put together as a kind, arm-twisting, cajoling, Dem-whispering corps charged with bringing in the votes of any reluctant colleagues.
At first, DeLauro explained, House leaders thought they might have won a compromise weeks ago with a change to the bill's language offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., that made it more explicit how public monies would be separated from private dollars used to purchase health coverage through the exchange.
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Nov 12, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's now living large in the Vatican, hiding behind the Pope's skirts with other pedophiles and misogynists.
That's the Vatican's answer for pregancies, don't engage in coitus, but sodomize little children in order to avoid getting women pregnant.
BTW, since the Church has violated its agreement with the IRS to not engage in political activities, they need to start being taxed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lets use their own argument back at them
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Congress likes Sodomizers, but not pregnant women
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» KILL THE BILL AND ALL THE DISTORTIONS WITH IT
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» A tax on property owned by religious institutions.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: The Catholic church is also trying to stop DC from legalizing gay marriage
Posted by: Amy27605
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 12, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
"This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs
3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"
4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes
5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America
"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."
Read the piece, it is well worth it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree... let this fiasco fail and start over... from scratch...
Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE: I agree
Posted by: Word Mix
» Adele Stans an Obamaite Flack
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Thanks. Good Job! Saved me the trouble.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Firefox has an integrated dictionary.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» a real public option and Adele Stan
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Kill the Bill ...Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law?
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xi_people on Nov 12, 2009 2:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not place the blame where it belongs -- with the reactionary, right-wing Obama administration?
Its amazing how people keep giving Obama a pass for things that Bush would have been crucified for.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Well put. Toss out Adele Stan
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Take Steps.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 12, 2009 3:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always framed such that the guest has to agree with him at least a little bit, if he doesn't get that he will badger the guest endlessly until he gets some concession. Any single word in the direction of his argument becomes colossal as he endlessly repeats and repeats it. Hardball
Chris is anti-abortion to the point of forcing all who encounter him to agree with him. It is one of his 'issues'. His anger about it is right under the surface and NO ONE I have seen so far is willing to take him on. He is very dominating. I can see how it has Congress running scared.
Watching his show gives the impression that his view is the clear majority view. I can't wait to see how his carefully constructed fantasy world plays out when it comes up against reality. I think women are tired of this treatment.
What if we took on Viagra as the ultimate evil like they do abortion. I seem to remember Chris Matthews supported war and bombing "the enemy" why does that murder of innocent life seem OK to him and abortion is not?
And as long as we don't have to pay for things we think are morally wrong, I'm not paying for war. Chris is going to find that rather expensive when he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Chris Matthews is not anti-abortion!
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» Btw, I ask them the same question in my local sites
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» RE: Chris Matthews is not anti-abortion!
Posted by: Ocean tides
» I have not been impressed with this guy ever, he seems confused to me
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 12, 2009 4:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: banger on Nov 12, 2009 4:19 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: weightman on Nov 12, 2009 4:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was Progressives who conspired to keep silent any voice of true comprehensive reform.
It was, and is, Progressives who will sell out anybody for any hollow victory wrought from empty rhetoric and lies over an impotent but vocal opposition, for the sake of favor from the White House.
There's only way to repair the damage done by Progressives' willingness to capitulate to special interests:
Kill The Bill.
And stop threatening Democrats who had the vision and guts to stand up for the rights of their constituents over the rights of special interests.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pardon Me!?!
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Pardon Me!?!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: "their last term in the House"
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 12, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But more and more it seems the official stance of the Catholic church is solely focused on the single issue of abortion - capital punishment and war seem to be excusable sins, while abortion is the end-all-be-all sin. I haven't seen the church threaten to withhold communion from governors who allow executions or congress people who vote for continued funding for unjust wars.
If the government can't spend any money on things some people find immoral, why does a HUGE chunk of my taxes go to support warfare? I'm a Christian who actually takes Jesus' nonviolence seriously.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Good point - but what's with the screen name?
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Douglas Johnson on Nov 12, 2009 4:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stan wrote that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment "would prohibit the purchase, through the health insurance exchange the bill would create, of even private health insurance plans that cover abortion -- even for women who were not eligible for government-subsidized premiums. . . "
It is really too bad Ms. Stan apparently did not take time to read the amendment before she sat down at her keyboard.
The real Stupak-Pitts amendment, on page 3, explicitly allows private insurance companies, through the exchange, to sell policies that cover any or all abortions -- both comprehensive policies that cover abortion along with everything else, and/or abortion-only supplemental policies. The amendment clearly says that the new federal premium subsidies (called "affordability credits") cannot be used to purchase plans that cover elective abortions. However, the amendment also explicitly says (on page 2) that any individual can purchase the abortion-covering policies, through the exchanges, so long as federal funds are not used to purchase such plans.
Thus, under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a private company may sell comprehensive policies that do not cover elective abortions, through the exchange, to customers who use federal subsidies to purchase such policies. The same company, or another company, may also sell to the same customers, or to other customers, supplemental policies to cover any or all abortions, but those supplemental policies must be paid for with private (or at least, non-federal) funds.
However, under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, coverage of abortion would be prohibited in the insurance plan run directly by the federal government (the "public option"), except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. That is because the public option is entirely a federal program, which would pay for health services (including elective abortions) directly, and all of the funds that a federal agency spends are federal funds (whether they are collected through "taxes," "premiums," "user fees," or whatever). Federal agencies cannot spend "private" funds. More on the public plan and abortion here.
There is really little excuse for the myth-making engaged in by Ms. Stan. The text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, easily available on the Internet, is perfectly explicit on these matters (it is only four pages long). You can download it in PDF from here.
Moreover, after Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) said on the House floor that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment "puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money," the independent fact-checking outfit PolitiFact immediately researched the matter and rated Lowey's statement flatly "FALSE" on November 9. Read the PolitiFact conclusions here.
National Public Radio, no organ of the right-to-life movement, also prepared an analysis of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that plainly contradicts Stan's imaginative mischaracterizations. It is here.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thanks for that explanation
Posted by: WyrdSister
» WOW! HOW GENEROUS OF YOU!
Posted by: wireup
» PolitiFact Challenged
Posted by: weightman
» Who are you to tell me how to run my life?
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Who are you to tell me how to run my life?
Posted by: bookertdoubledee
» RE: Please go read the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Posted by: xennonette
» RE: Please go read the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Posted by: drone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Douglas Johnson on Nov 12, 2009 4:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Dear Mr. Johnson:
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Dear Mr. Johnson:
Posted by: inprov73
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 12, 2009 4:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This does not only take the decision out of the womans hands but also the men's. Perhaps this pregnancy would be a detrimental to him, Supercede his right to 'Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', an Inalienable right he was granted when issued a birth certificate. Granted not the final decision makers status, since he would not have to carry the child, But worthy of far more input into the decision than some organization which hides their pedophilia behind their robes.
Isn't this also the Prime example of someone getting between you and your Doc? This is an assault on the right to privacy- not only Constitutionally but also as a Medical standard of Ethics. "Do No Harm."- Who's name is on that medical chart? That's your patient first and foremost.
And yet through these decades of debate not one of these SOB's has come forward to help bring awareness to mens responsibilities. In fact some are out to end the use of Birth control entirely.
We manage the breeding of other animals, why the hell are we not allowed to use that same common sense when it comes to our own species?? In fact logic dictates that by reducing the number of breeding males the number of unwanted pregancies are drastically reduced. Pregnancy is filled with various medical procedures and tests. Blood Tests,poss. amniocentesis. so they are essentially forcing me to have these procedures for at least the next several months.Not to mention all the possiblities during delivery. Complications at birth can result in death of the baby and the mothers as well.
In fact it would reduce the number of those who would other wise face the potential for testicular cancer. A personal bonus for the boys. that has been one of their ploys to get woman to stop taking birth control pills- Worried about their health. My Ass, we are nothing more than sperm recepticles in the Lottery of Who'll be the the 'Blessed' Mother of the "Savior" and who will be the whore that bears the AntiChrist.
If they were so distraught over the starving children in the World, you would think they would do everything in their powers to assure such suffering was not so wide spread. No condoms for Africa?
Seems these Sadistic bastards are as cold hearted as they portray their god and 'messiah'.
what is the prime mover to such things as War and Famine- too few resouces for too many. what has scientist linked to the exceration of global warming- populations. Which leads to irradic weather patterns like drought and floods, Hurricanes and tornados, rising water levels....
By imposing their religious ideology of self fulfilling prophecy, they are attempting to break the Seven Seals- By their hand Not Gods. Apparently they feel God is slacking on His Acts of 'Almightiness'.
If God was so offended by woman who seek abortions- why did he let them get pregnant in the first place? Omniscience means you know everything, including what she will decide.
In fact why not just revoke the priviledge and turn the entire process over to the males? Why didn't He stop at 'Adam', if he was such a perfect replica? Asexual reproduction exists.
One more thought- if the antiChrist is not born, then there will be no need to subject humanity and all other living things to the apcoalyspe or Armedgeddon. Christ will not Have to return to 'save' us again. Maybe that was the point of the story- dumbasses!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 12, 2009 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just curious.
*yet another GWB ideological yearning that's found an adoptive home amongst the prAggressives and out in the Bog'o'fear.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Casey Burns on Nov 12, 2009 4:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why we give them a free ride. It seems to me that allowing them to be tax exempt is essentially a public subsidy. Don't we have separation between church and state in this country?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Tired nonsense.
Posted by: franklyspanking
» RE: Correct
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Nov 12, 2009 4:54 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: Sushi on Nov 12, 2009 5:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sushi
"God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat Him. "
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where'd you get that wonderful quote?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Where'd you get that wonderful quote?
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Church = Lobby....revoke their tax exemption
Posted by: ronjula
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Naoma on Nov 12, 2009 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Separation of CHURCH and STATE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: demetria on Nov 12, 2009 6:24 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: zooeyhall on Nov 12, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just can't understand the Right to Lifer loonies and the Catholic Church and a large segment of the Right.
They seem OBSESSED with "making those females keep spitting-out those babies"!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: photon's feather
» Just to be clear...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Just to be clear...
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: You understand them perfectly.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: drone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Nov 12, 2009 6:47 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]
» RE: What I Want to Know
Posted by: drone
» RE: Invitation to Civil Disobedience:
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 12, 2009 7:12 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: Carol666 on Nov 12, 2009 7:12 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: KimD2009 on Nov 12, 2009 7:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What hypocrisy for the Republicans! Where is the vaunted separation of church and state that is a founding principle of our country?
Democrats and independents should be calling foul on this - and not just pro-choice supporters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Self defense
Posted by: bookertdoubledee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Nov 12, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know the Simpsons were Catholic. Was Bart molested by a priest in one episode?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wbeeno on Nov 12, 2009 7:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jess
Ultimate Privacy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Blow-off the spammer! Don't click on that Link!
Posted by: zooeyhall
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Nov 12, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is more hypocritical is their "pro-life" stance. While they say they oppose capitol punishment they have not brought this up when arguing to take women's freedom of choice out of health care.
They seem perfectly willing to allow tens of thousands of Americans die for lack of insurance if they don't get their way on discriminating against women. How is that "pro-life"? It is a very narrow and self-serving stand that does not take other people's accounts into view.
This is NOT a "Catholic" health care bill, it is a bill for all Americans regardless of any religious belief. It is about health, not about religious dogma.
These same people would get very upset if government tried to meddle in church affairs citing separation of church and state, yet they have no problem meddling in the affairs of government and congress that effect everyone including non-Catholics.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 12, 2009 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had the Vatican been infiltrated centuries ago?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why does the Catholic Church preach the wonderful message that we must feed the poor, but the
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 12, 2009 8:27 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: stellabloo on Nov 12, 2009 8:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be because we actually teach real sex education in schools? Haven't you guys actually paid over $1.5 billion on abstinence-only "education", only to have an abortion rate that's higher than Canada's?
Why do your leaders seem incapable of looking to other countries that have a working model of healthcare that meets the needs of all citizens? We have the RC church here too, you know, and with a strong presence in Quebec. Abortion is, politically-speaking, a dead duck in the water, as is same-sex marriage and the death penalty. Or the idea of revamping our healthcare into a more industry-friendly privatized model.
What we would REALLY like to see is an end to this business of bringing our kids home from Afghanistan in a box :.?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GOOD GRIEF
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: GOOD GRIEF
Posted by: samd11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 12, 2009 8:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BLURRING RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on Nov 12, 2009 9:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is overpopulated, so what sense does it make to add to our number millions of unplanned and unwanted babies? We could provide more birth control too, but of course the Bishops oppose that as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frankpatton on Nov 12, 2009 10:43 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: nerin on Nov 12, 2009 1:23 PM
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: drricklippin on Nov 12, 2009 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be REALLY pro-life is to provide at least BASIC health care to all American citizens
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Nov 13, 2009 4:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or do they like the idea of using the Pentagon to kill off the competiton?
Maybe they could raise hell about the 15,000 kids that disappear in the USA each year, to never be seen again...
But maybe that would draw attention to who's helping kidnap, rape and murder those innocent ones.
"Let my ROD and STAFF be a comfort unto thee"
Comfort? Sounds damn painful.
"Gee, Bishop Pedophile, is that a cross in your pocket or you just glad to see me?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHMO1 on Nov 13, 2009 3:31 PM
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: sayward2 on Nov 13, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condemn the killing of all the children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq first. Then start on the unborn. Hypocrites.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronjula on Nov 15, 2009 12:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who among others harbor the illegal latinos once they cross the borber ,and selling them OPs S.S.N.'s.And among this great nation are the most to have four or seven babies to get more U.S. social benefits(stamps,Sec.8 with satellite disk) in front of their doors.
I say but out of politics, your place is kissing the popes behind, and other little boys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 17, 2009 11:17 PM
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: qwerty8848 on Nov 24, 2009 1:41 PM
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: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 5:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluesky2009 on Dec 7, 2009 7:41 PM
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: Lese Majeste on Nov 12, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's now living large in the Vatican, hiding behind the Pope's skirts with other pedophiles and misogynists.
That's the Vatican's answer for pregancies, don't engage in coitus, but sodomize little children in order to avoid getting women pregnant.
BTW, since the Church has violated its agreement with the IRS to not engage in political activities, they need to start being taxed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: lets use their own argument back at them
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Congress likes Sodomizers, but not pregnant women
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» KILL THE BILL AND ALL THE DISTORTIONS WITH IT
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» A tax on property owned by religious institutions.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: The Catholic church is also trying to stop DC from legalizing gay marriage
Posted by: Amy27605
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 12, 2009 1:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
"This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs
3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"
4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes
5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America
"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."
Read the piece, it is well worth it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree... let this fiasco fail and start over... from scratch...
Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE: I agree
Posted by: Word Mix
» Adele Stans an Obamaite Flack
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Thanks. Good Job! Saved me the trouble.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Could you be more explicit?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Thanks.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Firefox has an integrated dictionary.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» a real public option and Adele Stan
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Kill the Bill ...Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law?
Posted by: koolwoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xi_people on Nov 12, 2009 2:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not place the blame where it belongs -- with the reactionary, right-wing Obama administration?
Its amazing how people keep giving Obama a pass for things that Bush would have been crucified for.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Well put. Toss out Adele Stan
Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Take Steps.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Blame the right people
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 12, 2009 3:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always framed such that the guest has to agree with him at least a little bit, if he doesn't get that he will badger the guest endlessly until he gets some concession. Any single word in the direction of his argument becomes colossal as he endlessly repeats and repeats it. Hardball
Chris is anti-abortion to the point of forcing all who encounter him to agree with him. It is one of his 'issues'. His anger about it is right under the surface and NO ONE I have seen so far is willing to take him on. He is very dominating. I can see how it has Congress running scared.
Watching his show gives the impression that his view is the clear majority view. I can't wait to see how his carefully constructed fantasy world plays out when it comes up against reality. I think women are tired of this treatment.
What if we took on Viagra as the ultimate evil like they do abortion. I seem to remember Chris Matthews supported war and bombing "the enemy" why does that murder of innocent life seem OK to him and abortion is not?
And as long as we don't have to pay for things we think are morally wrong, I'm not paying for war. Chris is going to find that rather expensive when he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Chris Matthews is not anti-abortion!
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» Btw, I ask them the same question in my local sites
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» RE: Chris Matthews is not anti-abortion!
Posted by: Ocean tides
» I have not been impressed with this guy ever, he seems confused to me
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 12, 2009 4:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Closing Church Doors
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: banger on Nov 12, 2009 4:19 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: weightman on Nov 12, 2009 4:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was Progressives who conspired to keep silent any voice of true comprehensive reform.
It was, and is, Progressives who will sell out anybody for any hollow victory wrought from empty rhetoric and lies over an impotent but vocal opposition, for the sake of favor from the White House.
There's only way to repair the damage done by Progressives' willingness to capitulate to special interests:
Kill The Bill.
And stop threatening Democrats who had the vision and guts to stand up for the rights of their constituents over the rights of special interests.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pardon Me!?!
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Pardon Me!?!
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: "their last term in the House"
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 12, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But more and more it seems the official stance of the Catholic church is solely focused on the single issue of abortion - capital punishment and war seem to be excusable sins, while abortion is the end-all-be-all sin. I haven't seen the church threaten to withhold communion from governors who allow executions or congress people who vote for continued funding for unjust wars.
If the government can't spend any money on things some people find immoral, why does a HUGE chunk of my taxes go to support warfare? I'm a Christian who actually takes Jesus' nonviolence seriously.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Good point - but what's with the screen name?
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Douglas Johnson on Nov 12, 2009 4:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stan wrote that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment "would prohibit the purchase, through the health insurance exchange the bill would create, of even private health insurance plans that cover abortion -- even for women who were not eligible for government-subsidized premiums. . . "
It is really too bad Ms. Stan apparently did not take time to read the amendment before she sat down at her keyboard.
The real Stupak-Pitts amendment, on page 3, explicitly allows private insurance companies, through the exchange, to sell policies that cover any or all abortions -- both comprehensive policies that cover abortion along with everything else, and/or abortion-only supplemental policies. The amendment clearly says that the new federal premium subsidies (called "affordability credits") cannot be used to purchase plans that cover elective abortions. However, the amendment also explicitly says (on page 2) that any individual can purchase the abortion-covering policies, through the exchanges, so long as federal funds are not used to purchase such plans.
Thus, under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a private company may sell comprehensive policies that do not cover elective abortions, through the exchange, to customers who use federal subsidies to purchase such policies. The same company, or another company, may also sell to the same customers, or to other customers, supplemental policies to cover any or all abortions, but those supplemental policies must be paid for with private (or at least, non-federal) funds.
However, under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, coverage of abortion would be prohibited in the insurance plan run directly by the federal government (the "public option"), except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. That is because the public option is entirely a federal program, which would pay for health services (including elective abortions) directly, and all of the funds that a federal agency spends are federal funds (whether they are collected through "taxes," "premiums," "user fees," or whatever). Federal agencies cannot spend "private" funds. More on the public plan and abortion here.
There is really little excuse for the myth-making engaged in by Ms. Stan. The text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, easily available on the Internet, is perfectly explicit on these matters (it is only four pages long). You can download it in PDF from here.
Moreover, after Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) said on the House floor that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment "puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money," the independent fact-checking outfit PolitiFact immediately researched the matter and rated Lowey's statement flatly "FALSE" on November 9. Read the PolitiFact conclusions here.
National Public Radio, no organ of the right-to-life movement, also prepared an analysis of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that plainly contradicts Stan's imaginative mischaracterizations. It is here.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thanks for that explanation
Posted by: WyrdSister
» WOW! HOW GENEROUS OF YOU!
Posted by: wireup
» PolitiFact Challenged
Posted by: weightman
» Who are you to tell me how to run my life?
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Who are you to tell me how to run my life?
Posted by: bookertdoubledee
» RE: Please go read the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Posted by: xennonette
» RE: Please go read the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Posted by: drone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Douglas Johnson on Nov 12, 2009 4:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Dear Mr. Johnson:
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Dear Mr. Johnson:
Posted by: inprov73
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 12, 2009 4:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This does not only take the decision out of the womans hands but also the men's. Perhaps this pregnancy would be a detrimental to him, Supercede his right to 'Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', an Inalienable right he was granted when issued a birth certificate. Granted not the final decision makers status, since he would not have to carry the child, But worthy of far more input into the decision than some organization which hides their pedophilia behind their robes.
Isn't this also the Prime example of someone getting between you and your Doc? This is an assault on the right to privacy- not only Constitutionally but also as a Medical standard of Ethics. "Do No Harm."- Who's name is on that medical chart? That's your patient first and foremost.
And yet through these decades of debate not one of these SOB's has come forward to help bring awareness to mens responsibilities. In fact some are out to end the use of Birth control entirely.
We manage the breeding of other animals, why the hell are we not allowed to use that same common sense when it comes to our own species?? In fact logic dictates that by reducing the number of breeding males the number of unwanted pregancies are drastically reduced. Pregnancy is filled with various medical procedures and tests. Blood Tests,poss. amniocentesis. so they are essentially forcing me to have these procedures for at least the next several months.Not to mention all the possiblities during delivery. Complications at birth can result in death of the baby and the mothers as well.
In fact it would reduce the number of those who would other wise face the potential for testicular cancer. A personal bonus for the boys. that has been one of their ploys to get woman to stop taking birth control pills- Worried about their health. My Ass, we are nothing more than sperm recepticles in the Lottery of Who'll be the the 'Blessed' Mother of the "Savior" and who will be the whore that bears the AntiChrist.
If they were so distraught over the starving children in the World, you would think they would do everything in their powers to assure such suffering was not so wide spread. No condoms for Africa?
Seems these Sadistic bastards are as cold hearted as they portray their god and 'messiah'.
what is the prime mover to such things as War and Famine- too few resouces for too many. what has scientist linked to the exceration of global warming- populations. Which leads to irradic weather patterns like drought and floods, Hurricanes and tornados, rising water levels....
By imposing their religious ideology of self fulfilling prophecy, they are attempting to break the Seven Seals- By their hand Not Gods. Apparently they feel God is slacking on His Acts of 'Almightiness'.
If God was so offended by woman who seek abortions- why did he let them get pregnant in the first place? Omniscience means you know everything, including what she will decide.
In fact why not just revoke the priviledge and turn the entire process over to the males? Why didn't He stop at 'Adam', if he was such a perfect replica? Asexual reproduction exists.
One more thought- if the antiChrist is not born, then there will be no need to subject humanity and all other living things to the apcoalyspe or Armedgeddon. Christ will not Have to return to 'save' us again. Maybe that was the point of the story- dumbasses!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 12, 2009 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just curious.
*yet another GWB ideological yearning that's found an adoptive home amongst the prAggressives and out in the Bog'o'fear.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Casey Burns on Nov 12, 2009 4:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why we give them a free ride. It seems to me that allowing them to be tax exempt is essentially a public subsidy. Don't we have separation between church and state in this country?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Tired nonsense.
Posted by: franklyspanking
» RE: Correct
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Atheistno1 on Nov 12, 2009 4:54 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: Sushi on Nov 12, 2009 5:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sushi
"God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat Him. "
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where'd you get that wonderful quote?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Where'd you get that wonderful quote?
Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Church = Lobby....revoke their tax exemption
Posted by: ronjula
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Naoma on Nov 12, 2009 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Separation of CHURCH and STATE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: demetria on Nov 12, 2009 6:24 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: zooeyhall on Nov 12, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just can't understand the Right to Lifer loonies and the Catholic Church and a large segment of the Right.
They seem OBSESSED with "making those females keep spitting-out those babies"!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: photon's feather
» Just to be clear...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Just to be clear...
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: You understand them perfectly.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: keep those women pregnant!
Posted by: drone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Nov 12, 2009 6:47 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]
» RE: What I Want to Know
Posted by: drone
» RE: Invitation to Civil Disobedience:
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 12, 2009 7:12 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: Carol666 on Nov 12, 2009 7:12 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: KimD2009 on Nov 12, 2009 7:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What hypocrisy for the Republicans! Where is the vaunted separation of church and state that is a founding principle of our country?
Democrats and independents should be calling foul on this - and not just pro-choice supporters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Self defense
Posted by: bookertdoubledee
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Nov 12, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know the Simpsons were Catholic. Was Bart molested by a priest in one episode?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wbeeno on Nov 12, 2009 7:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jess
Ultimate Privacy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Blow-off the spammer! Don't click on that Link!
Posted by: zooeyhall
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Nov 12, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is more hypocritical is their "pro-life" stance. While they say they oppose capitol punishment they have not brought this up when arguing to take women's freedom of choice out of health care.
They seem perfectly willing to allow tens of thousands of Americans die for lack of insurance if they don't get their way on discriminating against women. How is that "pro-life"? It is a very narrow and self-serving stand that does not take other people's accounts into view.
This is NOT a "Catholic" health care bill, it is a bill for all Americans regardless of any religious belief. It is about health, not about religious dogma.
These same people would get very upset if government tried to meddle in church affairs citing separation of church and state, yet they have no problem meddling in the affairs of government and congress that effect everyone including non-Catholics.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 12, 2009 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had the Vatican been infiltrated centuries ago?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why does the Catholic Church preach the wonderful message that we must feed the poor, but the
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 12, 2009 8:27 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: stellabloo on Nov 12, 2009 8:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be because we actually teach real sex education in schools? Haven't you guys actually paid over $1.5 billion on abstinence-only "education", only to have an abortion rate that's higher than Canada's?
Why do your leaders seem incapable of looking to other countries that have a working model of healthcare that meets the needs of all citizens? We have the RC church here too, you know, and with a strong presence in Quebec. Abortion is, politically-speaking, a dead duck in the water, as is same-sex marriage and the death penalty. Or the idea of revamping our healthcare into a more industry-friendly privatized model.
What we would REALLY like to see is an end to this business of bringing our kids home from Afghanistan in a box :.?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GOOD GRIEF
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: GOOD GRIEF
Posted by: samd11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 12, 2009 8:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BLURRING RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
Posted by: photon's feather
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on Nov 12, 2009 9:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is overpopulated, so what sense does it make to add to our number millions of unplanned and unwanted babies? We could provide more birth control too, but of course the Bishops oppose that as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frankpatton on Nov 12, 2009 10:43 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: nerin on Nov 12, 2009 1:23 PM
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: drricklippin on Nov 12, 2009 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be REALLY pro-life is to provide at least BASIC health care to all American citizens
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Nov 13, 2009 4:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or do they like the idea of using the Pentagon to kill off the competiton?
Maybe they could raise hell about the 15,000 kids that disappear in the USA each year, to never be seen again...
But maybe that would draw attention to who's helping kidnap, rape and murder those innocent ones.
"Let my ROD and STAFF be a comfort unto thee"
Comfort? Sounds damn painful.
"Gee, Bishop Pedophile, is that a cross in your pocket or you just glad to see me?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHMO1 on Nov 13, 2009 3:31 PM
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: sayward2 on Nov 13, 2009 7:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condemn the killing of all the children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq first. Then start on the unborn. Hypocrites.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronjula on Nov 15, 2009 12:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who among others harbor the illegal latinos once they cross the borber ,and selling them OPs S.S.N.'s.And among this great nation are the most to have four or seven babies to get more U.S. social benefits(stamps,Sec.8 with satellite disk) in front of their doors.
I say but out of politics, your place is kissing the popes behind, and other little boys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 17, 2009 11:17 PM
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: qwerty8848 on Nov 24, 2009 1:41 PM
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: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 5:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluesky2009 on Dec 7, 2009 7:41 PM
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]
The FBI Could Be Watching You on Facebook
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?
Was "Jihad Jane" a Real Terrorist Threat? Or a Mentally Unstable Loner?




