I recently spotlighted a hardcore pro-lifer I admire who "doesn't take crap," as I indiscreetly put it.
Senator Coburn made quite a bit of news yesterday for a 49 second speech warning any House Democrats thinking of selling their vote for either an appointed position should they lose their election or a pork deal for their district to think again.
The reason this made so much news is because everyone knows he means it. Here's the speech...
I'm including this CBS News recap mostly for the 1st line, providing added impetus, if you needed it, to contact your congressperson today, even if you've contacted him or her 1, 2, or 3 times this week already. Call, lfax, Twitter, and email....
... It appears to be a very real possibility, however, that not enough House Democrats will support the measure for it to pass. The GOP has hammered the Democrats for the "special deals" negotiated to win over wavering Democrats, and will continue to do so if any more deals are made, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) suggested today....
Coburn said he would block all future Obama administration nominations of members of Congress who switch their votes from "no" to "yes"... in other words, Coburn said, members who "sold their vote for a nomination."
"Be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House," he reportedly said at a news conference with other GOP doctors.
Here was the New York Times' report, demonstrating Coburn's reputation precedes him:
There are senators who use their power to block bills and nominations in the Senate, and then there is Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of OK.
Raising the bar on Republican opposition maneuvers in the Senate, Mr. Coburn on Thursday threatened to put future holds on any Democratic House members who switch their vote in favor of the health care bill, lose their election as a result next November, and then are rewarded with a high-ranking job in the Obama administration.
"If you voted no and you vote yes and you lose your election and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you, it's going to be held," said Mr. Coburn, a physician known somewhat affectionately around the Senate as Dr. No.
Mr. Coburn, appearing at a news conference with 10 fellow Republican lawmakers who are also doctors, promised to scour upcoming spending bills for any special projects that may be given to lawmakers who reluctantly back the health care bill.
"If you think you can cut a deal now and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen and be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House," Mr. Coburn warned those making up their minds across the rotunda.
With a vote in the House approaching, the intensity of the fight was being ratcheted up significantly on Capitol Hill with Republicans pulling out the stops against Democrats, and Democrats warning that the next few days would see a blizzard of Republican threats and misinformation....
The abortion battle in Fitchburg has turned real nasty. Anti-Christian sentiment is heating up:Posted by: Ann Duclos at March 19, 2010 9:35 AM
Hmmm....reminds me of the 30 pieces of silver Judas received for betrayal...
But this time, there is a reminder NOT to do it...Posted by: RSD at March 19, 2010 9:55 AM
Sad. I just completed my analysis of whether the house reconciliation affects the abortion covg mandate of heath care reform...sorry for the long title; i don't know how to do it otherwise.
If you think it is off-track, please comment. If you think it is valuable, as the timeline is tight, please link or share...
http://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/march-19-house-reconciled-health-care-reform-will-have-us-all-paying-surcharge-into-abortion-coverage-fund-federally-mandated-abortion-coverage-access-may-be-reality-soon/Posted by: Row1 at March 19, 2010 10:11 AM
I for one will NOT pay into any government program that funds abortion. I would be a conscientious objecter cause it violates my religion (I am Catholic) which clearly states that I cannot paricipate in any way. Here it is from the Catechism.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81
Those who vote "no" Obamacare-spending will be known as pro-life heroes throughout history, whether it passes or not.
Those who vote yes for this monstrosity should be required to work within the new Obamacare System for life. No "voting and fleeing" allowed. That would be a suitable reward, no?Posted by: Janet at March 19, 2010 11:04 AM
What a joke! An empty threat from Coburn. He wouldn't support the appointment of a progressive no matter how they vote on any issue. More reactionary hot air.Posted by: SOA at March 19, 2010 1:21 PM
"He wouldn't support the appointment of a progressive no matter how they vote on any issue"
This term denotes a movement towards a specific goal....which goal is that SOA?Posted by: RSD at March 19, 2010 1:46 PM
Hope it passes soon.Posted by: Hal at March 19, 2010 8:08 PM
Editorial: National Catholic Reporter backs health bill
Posted by: Hal
at March 19, 2010 8:11 PM
well, that should clear things up.
Hal, that's the National Catholic Distorter, not Reporter. The Catholic position is in the Catechism and it can NEVER be changed. It is immutable doctrine. Did you not read my post above? I'll post part of it again for you here in case you skimmed over it:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:Posted by: truthseeker at March 19, 2010 11:22 PM