From ABC News this afternoon, refreshing that Tapper used the word "liberal":
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and Domestic Policy Council director Melody Barnes, health care reform czar Nancy-ann DeParle and other WH officials met with a dozen officials from liberal women's and abortion right's groups this afternoon where they had a "frank exchange," in the words of one attendee....
The subject of the meeting was the amendment added to the House Democrats' health care reform bill... by Reps. Bart Stupak, D-MI, and Joe Pitts, R-PA....
Attendees included representatives from NOW, Planned Parenthood... NARAL... EMILY's List, the Feminist Majority, the National Women's Law Center, the Guttmacher Institute, the Black Women's Health Imperative, the National Latina Reproductive Health Institute, the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.
The White House sought to downplay the meeting, with spokesman Reid Cherlin saying in a statement, "As part of our ongoing outreach surrounding health insurance reform, staff met with today with representatives of the women's rights community. Staff will also be meeting in coming days with leaders from communities of faith and other groups involved in the effort."
Us, to be fair? After all, didn't Obama tell ABC's Jake Tapper only the other day he wants to make sure "neither side feels that it's being betrayed"? And as an aside, wow, there must have been a lot of testosterone in that room.
And then there was this in Politico, also this afternoon:
Abortion-rights advocates are calling in the cavalry to help fight off an anti-abortion provision House Democratic leaders swallowed in order to win passage of their health care reform bill.
Laurie Rubiner, vice president of policy for the PP, said... [this] "has completely galvanized the reproductive health community and the women's community."
On Tuesday, PP summoned 80 progressive groups to plot strategy for keeping the anti-abortion amendment... out of a final health care bill.
If that doesn't work, Plan B is to rely on progressives in the House to vote against a bill containing the language. 41 House Democrats threatened to do just that in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)....
But the first battlefield is in the Senate.... It's still not entirely clear whether [Majority Leader Harry] Reid, who has a mixed record on abortion and a tough reelection bid next year, will include the Stupak/Pitts provision or if abortion foes will have to try to amend it in. Either way, there is likely to be a vote on the issue on the Senate floor, forcing socially conservative Democrats to pick sides.
They are already starting to get pressure from a coalition of abortion-rights advocates and their allies in the progressive movement.
The PP meeting included representatives of influential liberal organizations like the SEIU, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for American Progress, according to a list provided to Politico.
NARAL... plans to "patch through" calls from activists in 17 states to their senators' offices next week.... The group's online petition to Reid collected 30k signatures in less than 24 hours, and an e-mail campaign from the group's grass roots to lawmakers is due to start soon, according to an official.
NOW chapter leaders are making appointments with individual senators. In the meantime, 53 activists showed up to picket Senate offices in the Dirksen Building earlier this week, according to NOW President Terry O'Neill.
With so much on the line, the abortion-rights activists recognize that they have to mobilize quickly and forcefully to counteract Pelosi's decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.
Although abortion rights groups worked hard to give Democrats the majorities in the House and the Senate - not to mention the WH itself - they're reluctant to call Pelosi's decision a betrayal.
"That's water under the bridge," said Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL....
Now, they're focused on ensuring that the Senate doesn't adopt the same language, which would make it very difficult to keep the provision out of a House-Senate conference agreement because Senate rules strongly favor retaining language adopted by both chambers....
Kim Gandy, a Harvard University Institute of Politics fellow who is the immediate past president of NOW, said she thinks her side will prevail.
"My sense is [Pelosi] made the only decision she could," Gandy said. "It's not a sacrifice yet, and I don't think it will be."
Still, the abortion-rights groups have a fight on their hands, and Democratic leaders - faced with enough threatened defections to kill the bill in the House if they choose either side - have many strategic decisions left ahead on the abortion issue if they hope to enact a health care reform bill in this Congress.
Senators, including Reid, are in for an earful.
"It was a wake-up call across the country," Keenan said.
For the entire abortion industry - it's only about the money - and it really shows.
And Barack Obama is theirs alone.
Choice - everyone deserves it now - don't they.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 11, 2009 6:25 PM
What is the status of the investigation of waste and fraud in Medicare? We can't pass healthcare reform if that isn't squared away first.
* * * * *
Yep, money makes the word go 'round. If they really wanted to reduce abortions as they say, they'd stop paying women who have elective abortions. Defund Planned Parenthood and then let's talk about health insurance reform using the money "saved".
This is NOT progressive.Posted by: Vannah at November 11, 2009 7:51 PM
You might have written a column on this before, but it might be a good time to address it again.
When did it become socially, culturally, morally or politically acceptable for a President of the U.S. to lie? I mean just stand up there and boldly lie to the American people?
We all knew this scumbag was the most sadistic, pro-child killing President in our nation's history. He voted against the ban on Partial Birth Abortion. He was the only Illinois state senator cruel enough to vote to deny medical care to an infant born alive after a botched abortion.
Words cannot express my contempt for this evil wicked man.
On July 17, 2007, as a presidential candidate, Obama tells the Planned Parenthood mob that his health care plan would fund “reproductive services.” “We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance,” he said. “It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services (abortion)...
Ok, so you're nothing but a big pile of feces, we all know that. You're a child killer, admit it. Tell us you're a champion for women's rights (unless you're a preborn little girl, or a newly born little girl). Stand up! Be a man!
Nope. Just more diarrhea out of your mouth. On Aug. 19 this year, you told faith leaders in a forum on Blog Talk Radio, “You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. And that is that we look out for one another: That I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”
The very next day, you told a meeting of the Democratic National Committee, “There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment. Let's be clear about that. It's just not true.”
Speaking to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, you said, “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”
Ok! So will you support an ammendment that will do just that, prohibit the use of federal tax dollars to fund abortion?
Of course not.
They lie. They deceive. They scheme.
-so they can kill more innocent children.Posted by: Ed at November 11, 2009 8:20 PM
When the president of my professional organization proudly proclaimed our organization had been invited to sit down "at the table" and discuss health care reform, I refused to stand and applaud. I could only look at those who did and shake my head in dismay.
When our president asked for input I simply replied that he should never forget he is sitting at the devil's table. I advised him to remember another Chicago thug, Al Capone, who invited people to sit at his table, then smashed their skulls with a baseball bat.
Our president gave the argument that it was always best to be involved, not on the sidelines. I advised him it was likely he was nothing more than window dressing, that Obama would do whatever it took to grab power. Apparently I wasn't the only one objecting to our organization being part of this. Again, I advised him to always remember he is sitting at the devil's table and when one sups at the devil's table, he better have a very long spoon.
I have since asked him what input he has had as this bill was passed on a Saturday nite against the will of the majority of the American people. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Obama is a sociopath Ed. When I saw the cult like adulation that was a HUGE red flag for me. I have only become more convinced. The American people are slowly waking up, we can only hope it is not too late.Posted by: Mary at November 11, 2009 8:44 PM
Ed is not mincing words this evening.
Said it before, and I'll say it again, Puglosi and crew just see the Stupak amendment as a temporary and disposable tool.Posted by: pharmer at November 11, 2009 8:46 PM
Pelosi wanted that monstrosity of a bill to clear the House and it did.Posted by: Mary at November 11, 2009 8:57 PM
We shouldn't be arguing about whether or not to include abortion in the healthcare bill. We need to work on ending abortion all together. We know that socialism ALWAYS fails, why isn't that the argument?If the liberals get us to argue healthcare they get us off point and they win. We must stand for what's right according to God. We must not be sidetracked.
Focus, Focus, Focus!!!
Hi Jo Scott,
Exactly. Every effort should have been made to end this monstrosity of a "health care reform" bill, not make it a little more palatable with the Stupak Amendment.
PL people have been dancing over our "victory" while the Trojan Horse stands in our midst.Posted by: Mary at November 11, 2009 9:14 PM
Great post Ed. And Congressman Joe Wilson was rebuked so badly for saying what so many of us would have liked to have said to that empty suit: You lie!
And while I agree it was nice that Jake Tapper referred to them as "liberals" I would have been happier if he called them "liberal extremists." After all, conservatives are labeled "extremist" all the time.
Since when did wanting to protect the unborn, believing in fiscal responsibility, strong defense and small government become "extremist"?Posted by: Joanne at November 11, 2009 10:06 PM
"When did it become socially, culturally, morally or politically acceptable for a President of the U.S. to lie? I mean just stand up there and boldly lie to the American people?"
Iran Contra? The right just shrugged. Gotta love this Presidential truth dance:
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."Posted by: Hal at November 11, 2009 10:34 PM
Ironically enough, it may be the Stupak Ammendment that becomes the instrument to kill the Health Bill. One side is saying they have enough votes to kill the bill if the ammendment's not included, the other vows to kill it if it is.
I don't think it's wrong to celebrate an incremental victory, briefly. To borrow a football analogy, teams typically celebrate a victory on Sunday, then deliberately put it out of their mind to prepare for the next game Monday morning.
We have much work to do.
It's clear by the reaction of the pro-death mob they saw this passage as a huge defeat. They have organized and martialed their forces and we must do the same.
Each little victory is significant. Every Planned Parenthood Director that quits and changes sides is huge. Every time politicians see election results or polls that show voters shifting to the right, it strengthens their convictions to vote Pro-life, and we win.
Top chess players are very deliberate, very methodical, taking one piece at a time until their superiority is indefensible. We will win this War when the percentage of the American public that despises abortion comfortably exceeds the child killers. Because then we will elect officials that will pass Pro-life laws and appoint Pro-life justices.
How can this be accomplished? I have a few suggestions:
1. Prayer. Consider what Elizabeth McClung accomplished through prayer and subsequently reaching out in love to Abby Johnson. Could God use someone similarly to reach 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices? Senators? BO? Absolutely! However, I must admit that when I pray for BO, I see a self-serving politician totally denying the personhood and right to life of preborn and newly born babies. He seems to be in desperate need of a strong rebuke, a la Bishop Tobin's remarks toward Kennedy, not a bouquet of flowers.
2. As Father Pavone said, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion." I would like to see the graphic imagery depicting the reality of abortion everywhere. How did Abby Johnson get converted? She saw the brutally evil reality of abortion. When did public opinion turn against the Viet Nam War? When America saw the picture of a little girl crying and running down the street, her precious little back burning with napalm. We need these images everywhere, in front of the Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, abortion clinics, universities...
3. 40 Days for Life and similarly executed abortion clinic prayer and sidewalk counseling sieges. This is where the rubber meets the road, the battle in the trenches. Many killing centers have been shut down because of these sieges. God bless all you sidewalk warriors! Included here would be the supportive resources of CPC's
4. We need to keep battling this terrible injustice, this ongoing genocide a priority in our minds and hearts. We need to frequent Pro-life sites like this and others so that our convictions and resolve stay sharp and our efforts focused.
"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." Pr 27:17
I am indebted to many, many posters on this site, too many to name, who have helped me focus my energies in this great conflict. I haven't really done anything yet, except maybe to encourage some of you.
So let's press on! We're gaining momentum, public opinion is shifting in our favor! I believe total victory is within our reach within the next few years!
LET'S DO THIS THING!
Obama was shocked and outraged when Tiller get killed but he says we shouldn't jump to conclusions about a jihadist shouting Allahu Akbar and shooting over fourty people. We have a Commander and Chief doesn't support our men and women in the armed services. We are in deep doo-doo when this empty suit gets put into a situation where he has to react with a gut reaction cause he has no guts, just inaction feigned by contemplation of situations above his pay-grade. Ugh. It turned my stomach this pro-abort partial birth and post birth baby killing supporter spoke of God judging the Fort Hood Killer and no religion condoning murder while he represents the biggest supporters of the most heinous holocaust in human history. Ugh, don't blame me when this guy folds as soon as he has to make a gut decision, I voted McCain.Posted by: truthseeker at November 12, 2009 12:19 AM
I'm with you EdPosted by: truthseeker at November 12, 2009 12:23 AM
Let's get 'em truthseeker.Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 12:40 AM
Let's not become too assured of anything here. The pro-aborts have more money, and they're going to go all-out now.
What we have is the TRUTH and the power of prayer. Let us continue to stay on our knees before the Lord, for the victory will only come from Him.
Our victories so far are encouraging, but I'd hate to see us get smug or cocky and forget who we're really dealing with here.
We do not wrestle against flesh and blood.Posted by: Jennifer at November 12, 2009 7:05 AM
Hi Jennifer 7:05am
We have no cause to celebrate or become complacent. There's still a Trojan Horse in our midst and we have no idea what it has in store for us.
Posted by: Ed at November 11, 2009 8:20 PM
"When did it become socially, culturally, morally or politically acceptable for a President of the U.S. to lie? I mean just stand up there and boldly lie to the American people?"
B.O. disembles, prevaricates, disimulates, obfuscates, decieves and manipulates so masterfully it almost artwork.
B.O.'s craftiness is a like technically excellent porngraphy.
The script, the performances, the lighting, the cinematography, the audio, the special effects, the sets, the canned laughter and canned applause, the titles and the sound track are the best money can buy.
I almost forgot the single most important component of the production, TOTUS (teleprompter of the united states).
Never mind the subject matter, just focus on the performance. It will send chills up and down your legs and the flies in the room will circle the set in captivated enchantment (and some may even come too close to the 'reptitilian' and suffer the consequence).
You might even experience a completely spontaneous 'O'basm! or the very least, temporary incontinence.
Be sure to wear your adult sized 'Depends' with the Presidential Seal emblazoned on the diaper to avoid those embarassing tell tale stains on your outer garments.
When is I used the word 'you' or 'your' I was using it a general sense anc certainly not specific to you.
I have no doubts about your ability to see through all the bovine scatulation about B.O. that passes as intelligent commentary.
I was referring to the obsequious, servile, psychophants and boot lickers who want so badly to carry B.O.'s water. (Think bedpan or chamber pot.)
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at November 12, 2009 9:29 AM
Abortion is not covered under any health insurance policies now, why do they (THOSE THAT PROFIT FINANCIALLY FROM ABORTION) feel America's health care should include an option like abortion with America paying the bill? Should America's Healthcare Policy include breast implants and face lifts, how about tanning spas, and pedicures too, or hair plugs for men or Sex changes....Posted by: Caroline RN at November 12, 2009 9:45 AM
" Gotta love this Presidential truth dance"
So, Hal..you're saying it's OK for a sitting president to LIE to the American people??
(*let's not deflect the issue whether it's a Rep or Dem doing the lying shall we?)Posted by: RSD at November 12, 2009 9:58 AM
Obama "dissembles, prevaricates, disimulates,obfuscates, deceives and manipulates".
He's a "wicked,evil man", and a "child-killer".
He's also" sadistic ".
What a laugh ! You folks don't know what you're talking about. Obama isn't a "child-killer."
He's never forced a woman to have an abortion
and wouldn't be able to stop it even if he issued a federal decree making abortion illegal, and wants very much to decrease their numbers, and to provide more for poor pregant women so they would be less likely to seek and obtain them, unlike hypocritical anti-choice presidents who claim to want to make abortion illegal yet eliminate funding for the poor, only increasing the amount of abortions.
He's not against making "partial birth abrtion illegal because no such thing exists. It's just a nasty-sounding term invented by the anti-choice
industry to advocate denying women the right to control their own bodies.
Obama did NOT vote to deny infants born live help to survive. This is a blatant lie !
And to say that abortion is only about "making money " is another blatant lie. The pro-choice movement is about saving women's lives and preventing the government from interfering with what women do with their bodies.
"He's not against making "partial birth abrtion illegal because no such thing exists. It's just a nasty-sounding term invented by the anti-choice industry to advocate denying women the right to control their own bodies."
If I begin to refer to "rape" as "the puppies, rainbows, and sunshine act", does that make rape a morally upright act?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2009 10:46 AM
"Obama did NOT vote to deny infants born live help to survive. This is a blatant lie !"
Ohhhh....I don't think so...he Voted 4 times (on record) while he was an IL Senator on this issue.
Hey don't believe me, if you want...Ask the founder of this Blog, she can give you complete documentation on Obama's voting record...and those are documented FACTS!
You kool-aid drinkers won't know fact from fiction when it comes to your so-called saviour/rock-star.
I'm looking for someone more articulate than I am to submit what is reality to the Bishops. Yes, they helped with the Stupak amendment, and that is a small (tiny) victory. Does anyone agree with me that the bill, with or without abortion funding, is still a very, very bad bill for America? We cannot allow the Bishops to rest and persuade conscientious Catholics and Christians to believe that it is. This bill needs to be killed for other reasons. Help if you can. Jesus Help Us. Mary, Dear Mother, Pray For Us.Posted by: Peggy at November 12, 2009 11:57 AM
Peggy, no, because government-funded healthcare has existed for a long time, and expanding it is not a sin. I don't think any religious leader would campaign nowadays against Medicare or Medicaid coverage and I sure as hell don't want them to try to take down this piece of legislation just to satisfy a conservative agenda. Their role is to make sure nothing heinous or anti-human-rights like abortion is funded. Whether you consider the bill 'bad for America' is not the issue, the ability to let people/Christians decide what extent they want public funding going towards healthcare is; and if they get involved in something like that I have a right to ask them to pay taxes- nowhere in Christian teaching is government funding immoral...this is strictly a political issue.Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2009 12:11 PM
Great post Ken, as always.Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 1:22 PM
Rather than a military metaphor of the Calvary I think this might be more appropriate
Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
Hi Peggy @ 11:57AM. Some of the bishops have spoken out on the issue of subsidiarity. I wish they'd speak more loudly because it's an issue that affects everyone, not just the vulnerable or unborn.
PIP- Anyone, including the bishops, have a constitutional right to speak out against any aspect of the bill they choose.Posted by: Fed Up at November 12, 2009 2:47 PM
You are right Fed Up but if they claim to represent the Church's view, then I declare shinangans. Sorry, it is not in the Church's job description to dip their hands that far into the cookie jar. You'd think they have learned their lessons, but maybe not.Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2009 3:11 PM
"He's not against making "partial birth abrtion illegal because no such thing exists. It's just a nasty-sounding term invented by the anti-choice industry to advocate denying women the right to control their own bodies.
Obama did NOT vote to deny infants born live help to survive. This is a blatant lie !"
"And to say that abortion is only about "making money " is another blatant lie. The pro-choice movement is about saving women's lives and preventing the government from interfering with what women do with their bodies. "
Posted by: Robert Berger at November 12, 2009 10:43 AM
You must be Joking. You're not funny.
For the facts on partial birth abortion and Obama's sad vote, click on "Obama" on the right side of the screen.
Also, check out the "Jivin' J." 11/12/09 post, specifically, the article by Kathleen Parker.
"Kathleen Parker's most recent column is about forced abortion in China: "
To help you understand my feelings, what if all the bishops pushed hard against immigration reform? (Which some of them had). But at the legal level. What if some of them got involved with lobbying against it when you thought opposing immigration reform would be 'bad for America'?Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2009 3:20 PM
PiP- What lesson should they have learned? Religious leaders of many denominations speak out for and against policy all the time. Should all of them lose tax exempt status? Or only those who speak out with views opposing the president? Should the pastors who urged their congregations to vote for Obama lose their tax exempt status?
The 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects the "free exercise" of religion & speech and the "right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where did the bishops run afoul? Even if you put abortion funding aside, changes in the bill affect Catholic hospitals and other Catholic health care settings. Why should the bishops be mute?
I could be wrong, but I suspect you would have welcomed their meeting with legislators if it had been to express support for the bill. I think the problem isn't that they met with representatives, but that they met to express opposition.Posted by: Fed Up at November 12, 2009 3:36 PM
They can speak out as individuals, but not representatives of the Church. In the past, Church meddling with politics has been disastrous. There are some Catholic leaders that want health care reform and some that don't. I don't want constituents to be confused and think that there is only one 'right' way to look at the issue.Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2009 3:42 PM
They can speak out as individuals, but not representatives of the Church.
So I take it you believe that the Episcopal Church is wrong to lobby for gay rights? That they should lose their tax exempt status?
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/clergy-to-lobby-on-hill-for-gay-rights/Posted by: Fed Up at November 12, 2009 3:53 PM
Concerning all this "meddling" by the church in state affairs. How about these past examples?
The Quakers formed the first anti-slavery society (their opposition to slavery was based on their relgious beliefs) in the U.S. and they remained an active force against slavery until it was finally abolished. Clergy of all faiths spoke in opposition to slavery from the pulpit.
The Civil Rights movement was led from the pulpit by ordained minister Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He called for the Montgomery Bus Boycott from his pulpit. Churches were hotbeds of civil rights activities and clergy of all faiths preached in support of civil rights, as well as marched in support. This was a very religiously oriented movement and often invoked public prayer and hymns.
Clergy were not silent over Vietnam. Ever hear of the Berrigan Brothers? They were Catholic priests who led protests. The Pope questioned our involvement. Clergy of all faiths spoke against our involvement. In my home city a Catholic priest was quite a notorious social activist for civil rights and in opposition to the Vietnam War.
The only time I recall religion/state being an issue is when the Catholics hierarchy was singled out deliberately for attack by those supporting abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson admits the Catholic Church was picked as a common enemy against which supporters of abortion and their media allies could rally. The church was picked because the hierarchy made such a great target. Kind of obvious what motivated this sudden "concern" over church involvement in "state" issues.
Ever hear of "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights"? Interesting that they haven't invoked any howling over seperation of church and state. Anyone have an issue with Bill Clinton and NY Gov. Mario Cuomo campaigning in the pulpit of black churches? How about the church that took up a collection for the presidential candidacy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson? That was on national TV.
A double standard here perhaps? Just where are the seperation of church and state police when this goes on?
Let's face it, religious people and institutions in this country have long involved themselves in important social and "state" issues and it has only becomes on issue when the cause is not deemed politically correct or it steps on someone's toes.
Concerning the tax situation, it would seem the IRS would be busy enough with Congressman Charlie Rangel and many of Obama's appointees to take on the extra burden of the Catholic Church.Posted by: Mary at November 12, 2009 5:19 PM
“Let's not become too assured of anything here. The pro-aborts have more money, and they're going to go all-out now.”
They’re a bunch of losers Jennifer, the devil included. We’re gonna kick their bootay.
“We have no cause to celebrate or become complacent. There's still a Trojan Horse in our midst and we have no idea what it has in store for us.”
Did my post sound complacent Mary? Is Obama the Trojan Horse?
If we the Church wake up and take our position in the Earth, and run to the battle with humble hearts and our faces set to execute God’s plan, we will win.
Berger buddy, did you get educated on the facts yet? A sadist by definition is one who is extremely cruel. I can’t think of a more cruel act than to try to kill a little child in the womb, botch the procedure so that instead of the child being violently tortured for less than a minute, the agony is prolonged outside the womb. And then this is where your hero BO voted to deny the suffering child health care.
Come on back when you get your story straight Robert.
But government funding of health care has nothing to do with fundamental Christian morality, like the hot button issues. That's why I support outspoken opposition to things like abortion and capital punishment. Nowhere did Jesus say "and when the government offers you health care, oppose it with every fiber of your being." It is simply a political issue, one that anyone has an individual right to support or oppose regardless of faith.
But yes, I do find it discomforting that their clergy is lobbying senators for gay rights. Instead they should work on people that are already self-professed episopalians; so I wouldn't have a problem talking just to episcopalian senators just like Catholic clergy have the right to remind Catholic senators that they have to act the same they profess to be.
Please cool your jets. I meant PL people as a whole should not be complacent because the Stupak Amendment passed. The Trojan Horse is in reference to the Trojans who thought they had been victorious and became joyful and complacent, while all the while the forces of their destruction just awaited an opportunity.
No Obama is not a Trojan Horse Ed, I meant the forces that are united in the PA cause and what they might do with this legislation.
Whether or not these issues have anything to do with Christian morality is in the persepective.
For example, support of capital punishement can be justified from a religous perspective, it can also be opposed from a religious perspective. My support for capital punishment has nothing to do with religious belief. Opposition to it may have nothing to do with religious belief. People of deep faith supported civil rights, those of no faith did as well.
The point is these are "state" issues. Civil rights and slavery were not religious issues, they were moral and ethical issues that people of all faiths, and no faith, spoke out for or against. People used the Bible to "justify" support of slavery and oppostion to civil rights.
My point is that for generations religious people and institutions played a major role in the moral and ethical issues of their day. And aren't we thankful they did?Posted by: Mary at November 12, 2009 5:43 PM
Mary, Thank you for your excellent commentary which comes from the perspective of a non-religious person.
* * * *
"They can speak out as individuals, but not representatives of the Church. In the past, Church meddling with politics has been disastrous. There are some Catholic leaders that want health care reform and some that don't. I don't want constituents to be confused and think that there is only one 'right' way to look at the issue."
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2009 3:42 PM
(Forgive me if I repeat what others have already said.) Something that struck me while reading your comments is that you seem to think that once a man dons his priestly garb, he is no longer allowed an opinion unless he's talking about something inconsequential or to his congregation. There are many people who are religious to the very core of their being who don't see life through a secular OR a religious lens (depending on the situation). The clergyman, as others have said, has a right to free speech as a citizen of the USA, just because he is is citizen. You wouldn't ask an atheist to take off his atheist glasses to address a group about abortion or any social or political or economic issue, would you? When the USCCB issues a statement, that is different because it is coming from the whole group, but still, they are a group of citizens first, clergy second, in terms of the right to free speech. If constituents are confused into thinking there is only one "right way to look at" an issue, then perhaps they haven't thought it through as much as they should. When does free discussion become too much free discussion? Maybe there's a fear of authority that makes one not want to hear all sides of an issue.
Regarding healthcare reform, the USCCB also has a right to speak as a group. Of course the bishops want to support healthcare reform. They issued a statement (last Monday, I believe) on what their general requirements would be. There's no bill yet so of course they've yet to comment. There will be specific issues to consider, such as how to pay for it, which can't be ignored (although the Dems seem to be pretty good at it - sorry I couldn't help myself). These are considerations that all Americans will have to deal with and if the bishops are able to synthesize them into a concise document, it will benefit all. These are intelligent, thoughtful men.Posted by: Janet at November 12, 2009 5:59 PM
I see Mary, I just didn't understand.
I believe that there is a fire burning in the PL movement that will not be quenched.
Perhaps Jill could offer some perspective but I've never seen so many fervent, passionate PL'rs committed to the cause.
By the Grace of God, if we stay the course, we're going to win this War!Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 6:11 PM
"What we have is the TRUTH and the power of prayer. Let us continue to stay on our knees before the Lord, for the victory will only come from Him."
Right on Jennifer!Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 6:38 PM
Hi Janet 5:59PM
Thank you for your kind words.Posted by: Mary at November 12, 2009 8:49 PM
Hi Ed 6:11PM
Not a problem. Sometimes things don't come across as we intend over the internet.Posted by: Mary at November 12, 2009 8:51 PM
You are welcome. :)
Thanks for understanding Mary:)
I've got to watch myself because sometimes I think I get too wound up in this cause and I'm concerned I might come across too strong.
We all just want the killing of innocents to stop.
I'm hoping I get a chance to write a little post about God's love and forgiveness for post-abortive Moms this weekend. They are so precious and courageous in His sight.
Love is the key.Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 9:22 PM
But government funding of health care has nothing to do with fundamental Christian morality, like the hot button issues.
Hi PiP. There are some provisions in the bill that are of concern that are unrelated to funding or abortion per se. They may not seem like "hot button issues," but why must they be? Catholic hospitals and clinics are affected by the legislation. So are Catholic health care workers. And don't forget, Catholic health care settings have long been part of the safety net for the uninsured and uninsurable. Isn't it possible that years of caring for the people the bill purports to be helping gives them some expertise to bring to the discussion?Posted by: Fed Up at November 12, 2009 9:33 PM
This anti-choice politico's name should be
"BART STUPID". He's nothing but a self-righteous hypocrite, like all the anti-choicers in
If you think partial birth abortions don't exist, you may reconsider after reading Parker's article and Obama's voting record and testimony:
***Kathleen Parker's most recent column is about forced abortion in China:
(Excerpt from another thread)
Late-term abortions are problematic, but the Chinese are nothing if not efficient. On one Web site for Chinese obstetricians and gynecologists, doctors recently traded tips in a dispassionate discussion titled: "What if the infant is still alive after induced labor?" ChinaAid provided a translation of a thread regarding an eight-month-old fetus that survived the procedure.
"Xuexia" wrote: "Actually, you should have punctured the fetus' skull." Another poster, "Damohuyang," wrote that most late-term infants died during induced labor, some lived and "would be left in trash cans. Some of them could still live for one to two days."
***For Obama's record and testimony:
Roberto Burger (and an order of curly fries),
Your audacity, to put it kindly, is stunning, stupefying, and stupendously 'stupid'.
You probably believe Nidal Hassan was just a soldier suffering from post traumatic stress disorder BEFORE he has ever experienced the stress of combat. (Like he, a psychiatrist and a major, would ever get close to anything resembling actual combat unless he was foolish enough to invite one of fellow terrorists into his life.)
You know kind of like B.O. being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize less than two weeks after his inauguration and being awarded the prize after 10 months of 'waging peace', with the only tangible results being the demorcRAT party at war with itself over 'ABORTION'.
Roberta, are you so infatuatated, so twitterpated, with all things B.O. that you have completely taken leave of the sense with which you were born that you cannot reason out that two plus two does NOT equal five, no matter how much you might want it to and no matter how much B.O. insists that it does.
You are insisting to us that what is plainly preserved in the audio and transcripts from the Illinois legislature does NOT say what it says nor read what it reads.
You are like the man who has been caught by his wife, naked, in bed, in the very act, with another woman and insists that his wife believe him and not her own 'lyin eyes'.
Now, that "'IS'" the 'audacity of hope'!
And you assert that people who believe in GOD are delusional.
What do you children say when they read your rants?
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at November 13, 2009 6:58 PM
Posted by: Hal at November 11, 2009 10:34 PM
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
Even if Reagan's motives were self serving, (like he was going to profit personally from the transactions) when confronted with the evidence he admitted in the final analysis 'arms were traded for hostages'.
What was the results of Reagans actions:
Our fellow american citizens who had been held hostage by the Jew hating mass murderers and serial killers in Iran were set free.
Ask the former hostages how they feel about what Reagan did or did not do to obtain their freedom.
As I recall, and my recollection is probably less than accurate, the financial proceeds from the sale of the arms to the Iraniains funded the communist resistance in Nicaragua after the demoCRATS made it illegal to do so.
Daniel Ortega is again the president of Nicaragua but the communists are NOT in power.
I happen to know Nicaraguans who fought against the communists. I have no doubt what their feeling are toward Reagan and the actions he authorized, which in the end, empowered them to liberate their own country, which they had already demonstrated the will to do, whether or not the United States assisted them.
Now contrast the Reagan lie with the Clinton lie (I told the american people I did not have sex with that woman.......Monica Lewinsky but the semen stained blue dress and Miss Lewinsky say other wise.)
How did Clinton's lie benefit America?
It only benefitted him temporarily in delaying settling a lawsuit in which he had already committed purjury.
Were any hostages freed, any countries liberated?
Ronald Reagan was human therefore he was flawed.
But his words and his actions were not selfish. Americas best interests and the cause of freedom seem to be what motivated Reagan firs and foremost.
Give me some examples of Clinton or B.O. putting americas interests and the cause of freedom first.
They both lie as easily and as effortlessly as they breathe. It has become so natural to them, that even they don't know when they are speaking the truth or telling the lie. To them there is no difference.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac
at November 13, 2009 8:09 PM
If you talk to any gynecologist or obstetrician, he or she will tell you that there is no medical term called partial birth abortion.
This nasty-sounding term was invented by the anti-abortion movement, which has absolutely no right to invent medical terminology, which is the province of the medical profession.
And no, I don't condone the insane rampage of Nidal Hasan in any way,and he should be kept in prison for the rest of his life.
But executing him would not be a good idea because this would only make him a martyr to Muslim fanatics.
And I'm fully aware of the barbaric family planning policies of the Chinese government, and I don't approve of them.
I'm pro-choice, which means I don't approve of forced abortions either. But unfortunately, the Chinese government has been forced to do something to control population, or eventually it could lead to catastrophic famines and other disasters.
The forced abortions are awful, but the alternative, allowing population to grow unchecked there, would be far worse.
The world cannot afford to allow population to grow without some kind of control. The world has only limited resources. To say that the whole world population would fit into a tiny area shows a lack of understanding of world problems.
This may be so, but you should remember that there are vast areas of the world which are totally uninhabitable.
Denying global warming also ignores the fact that the world DOES have serious ecological and
environmental problems, whether global warming is true or not. There are serious problems with pollution all over the globe, and all kinds of
problems which make it foolhardy to allow world population to grow unchecked.
Bringing large numbers of poor,unwanted children
into the world increases poverty, unemployment and crime greatly.
So if we don't do a heck of a lot more to try to alleviate poverty and provide for poor preganant women and their children once they are born,
we are asking for disaster. You anti-abortion people are just so many ostriches with your necks
buried in the ground.
Do you cringe every time a new baby is born in the world?
* * * *
"If you talk to any gynecologist or obstetrician, he or she will tell you that there is no medical term called partial birth abortion. "
Call it whatever you want. It happens. Right?Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 10:26 AM
"And I'm fully aware of the barbaric family planning policies of the Chinese government, and I don't approve of them."
Why not? The ultimate goal (reducing the world population) is a good thing.Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 10:31 AM
"If you talk to any gynecologist or obstetrician, he or she will tell you that there is no medical term called partial birth abortion."
Is that "any" meaning "any one" or, "any" meaning "all"?
Certainly not all ob/gyn's would agree. Only the ones with a pro-abortion agenda would.Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 10:36 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You might be oh-so cultured, and look so dashing as you head out to see the opera...but you're a monster inside, Mr. Berger, and everyone here knows it.
First, you say this:
And I'm fully aware of the barbaric family planning policies of the Chinese government, and I don't approve of them.
AND IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, GO ON TO DEFEND THE VERY BEHAVIOR YOU SUPPOSEDLY OPPOSE!:
But unfortunately, the Chinese government has been forced to do something to control population, or eventually it could lead to catastrophic famines and other disasters.
The forced abortions are awful, but the alternative, allowing population to grow unchecked there, would be far worse.
I shouldn't be surprised though. I'm sure you're not the only member of high society that feels "the dregs" are expendable.Posted by: xalisae at November 15, 2009 11:10 AM
We've had 36 years of unfettered abortion in this country. Why pray tell do we still have poverty, welfare dependency, child abuse, crime, and environmental problems?
Ya think maybe, just maybe, its because abortion doesn't solve these problems?
Just a wild guess on my part.Posted by: Mary at November 15, 2009 1:15 PM
CORPORAL WORKS OF MERCY
To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.
Do you think Jesus would have given us The Corporal Works of Mercy if these social problems were not going to be around forever? It's not like Jesus said, "please do these things until 2057, or until the least fortunate among us are gone, whichever come first . Oh, and use whatever means at your disposal"? No, Mr. Berger, he didn't. We have to live by the Ten Commandments as well.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
4. Honor your father and your mother
5. You shall not kill
6. You shall not commit adultery
7. You shall not steal
8. You shall not bear false witness
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods
Posted by: Janet
at November 15, 2009 2:55 PM
No, I don't cringe when babies are born
as long as they have parents who have the means to provide for them.
But when children are brought into the world in abject poverty,it's far worse than being aborted.
I never impled that legalized abortion would eliminate povertyand all those awful things you mention. However, if abortion had not been made legal, things would probably be far worse today.
Abortion would still have been very common,just as it was before Roe v Wade,and far more women would have died from botched illegal abortions or self-inflicted ones,and there would also probably be far more poor unwanted children in the world
than there are today.
And if republican presidents and other politicians had not so consistantly voted to eliminate programs to help the poor, things might have been somewhat better.
And remember,as I've said before, there are more abortions today in countries which don't officially permit it than in countries where it's legal, such as Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere.
If the Bush administration hadn't had such stupid and perverse policies toward helping poor foreign countries, and not denied them food and contraceptives because of opposition to them allowing abortion, there would have been far fewer illegal abortions there, and the lives of many desperately poor women could have been saved, and poverty aleviated.
This is the culture of life? You've got to be kidding.
Under Obama, conditions could possibly improve in the poor countries and many abortions prevented. The same in America.
Making abortion illegal only makes a bad situation far worse.
Your arguments have many "ifs" - opinions - but not a lot of facts.
"No, I don't cringe when babies are born as long as they have parents who have the means to provide for them. "
Ok, sometimes you cringe. How pro-life is that, to use your own words? Poor babies...
Which country was denied food and contraceptives by President Bush because they provided abortions? If what you say is true, then legal abortion is hurting those poor women increasing their suffering, not alleviating it.
"I never impled that legalized abortion would eliminate povertyand all those awful things you mention. However, if abortion had not been made legal, things would probably be far worse today."
"Far worse"? How, exactly? Do you have a study to cite?
"And remember,as I've said before, there are more abortions today in countries which don't officially permit it than in countries where it's legal, such as Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere."
Robert, It's also been said before that we can't trust that another country's reporting methods are the same as ours. This is basically a meaningless assertion.
* * * *
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. "
We Christians believe that ideally, we live by God's will, not our own. God is the author of life.Posted by: Janet at November 15, 2009 6:01 PM