New poll/Old poll
The new poll question is up:
Currently there are 615 Catholic hospitals in the U.S., 1 of every 9. They employ 725k workers and serve 5.5 million overnight patients annually.
Do you think the Bishops should follow through with their threat to close these hospitals if the Obama administration or Democrat-controlled Congress tries to force them to commit abortion or distribute the morning after pill?
You can select 2 answers – 1 for the aforementioned (answers 1-3) and 1 for who you think will blink (answers 4&5).
Here were the answers to last week’s question…
Click on the maps below to get a better view of your own brightly colored flag. Not sure whether we got International votes just because they thought it would be fun to vote or if they were actually foreign nationals…
As always, make comments to either this or last week’s poll here, not on the Vizu website.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Yes, unequivocally yes. As my confirmation namesake, St. Dominic Savio said, “Death over sin!”
I think this is going to generate a lot of controversy and outrage, as well as a nasty fight. I work at a Catholic hospital which is one of two in our city. We have 4.
Can the fed. gov’t even force any hospital to perform abortions or distribute certain drugs? For example, a hospital can’t be forced to administer chemotherapy or perform cosmetic surgery. Certain these are as much “rights” as having abortions.
There’s also the question of doctors who won’t perform them and staff who won’t assist. Over 20 years ago I trained in an OR that did occasional abortions. Even then only limited number of staff would do them, and even they resented always being “stuck” with them.
This is the kind of situation we ended up with when Roe V Wade took this matter away from the people’s representatives. Its now threatened to turn into a federal dictatorship with the federal gov’t dictating if,when, and where.
The Democrats should go for it! Every hospital with an ER should have to distribute emergency contraception to rape victims, at least. If they can’t bring themselves to do that, they have no business running a hospital.
I don’t think the Catholics will close all their hospitals over EC for rape victims, but if they do, other non-Catholic hospital companies and municipalities will step in to keep the hospitals open. So it’s a win-win.
“Do you think the Bishops should follow through with their threat to close these hospitals if the Obama administration or Democrat-controlled Congress tries to force them to commit abortion or distribute the morning after pill? ”
Yes, I do.
Mary, great point.
Reality, 10:43am
Keep dreaming. Please answer my question. Should a hospital be forced to perform chemotherapy? Women who want tubal ligations must go elsewhere. I personally have no issue with tubals but I respect the beliefs of the sisters and agree they can run their hospital in accordance with those beliefs.
Clinton tried the same thing with military hospital overseas, ordering them to perform elective abortions. Everyone refused. In fact, it looked like a collective nose thumbing.
Clinton couldn’t do squat.
Weren’t hospitals created to preserve life, not death?
Ok, this is OT, but I would like to run it by everyone.
Down in the AIDS thread, someone said something that led me to this thought-
The “right to abortion” is an extrapolation of the “right to privacy” which is a “penumbra” of several ammendments such as the 3rd ammendment that protects citizens from having their homes used by soldiers and the ever ambiguous “due process” in the 5th and 14th ammendments.
Given the “penubmras” theory, could we not also argue that child abuse and murder are also covered under the same unbrella? If not, why should abortion be covered, but not post-natal killings.
It seems to me that abortion can not hinge on the “right to privacy” unless we also accept that we have the right to kill anyone who happens to be in our home. It must instead be interpreted to be saying that we resolutely state that the pre-born are expressly NOT persons, and that the right to kill via the right to privacy covers only non-persons. However, even if we take that stand, we see that the right to abortion is lacking in standing. Animals are not persons, and unless we accept that Roe allows us to kill animals in our own homes, then we can not accept that it is sound judgement.
I’m just working through all of this right now, but it seems to me that if we apply the logic of Roe to other areas of privacy rights, we see that it is appropriate.
Actually, in reading the text of Roe and Doe, it seems the supreme court agrees with me. The “right to privacy” issue as it related to the 9th ammendment was found to “not create federally enforceable rights” With this caveat, they decided that “due process” covered their collective asses (sorry) and that the though the states had compelling reason to limit abortion, for some reason due process over rid their reasoning.
The court found claimed not to have found a significant historical basis for the Texas law restricting abortion. So it just came up with a bunch of crap, the least of which it deemed protection of fetal life. It then said “but yeah, we can’t really comment on that so errr. let’s just go back to the original “right to privacy thing…”
It’s really a shameful ruling full of circular reasoning, and it does not hold up to even cursory scruitany.
In his dissent, Rhenquist explains that the historical reasoning used to come up with the due process explanation was flawed. He states:
“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[1]”
and
“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter”
And, of course, don’t take my word for it… From Wiki-
In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[25] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”
Similarly, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted that, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[26] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: “[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.”[27]
Argh, at 11:44 I meant to say NOT appropriate.
Yes, if the decision is that clear cut(which I don’t think it will be). Alternately I would hope they would fight in the courts, the hospitals could just resist. What will the Obama administration do, forcefully take over the hospitals. I’m afraid this fight could get ugly.
It is not a matter of should they. They would have NO CHOICE but to close. It has always bugged me that Lutheran hospitals or the hospital Jill workedat named “Christ Hospital” which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ had cosses on the exterior of their buildings and yet participated in tearing unborn children from their mother’s womb. Thank God for the Catholic Church or I would be without a spiritual home on earth.
Lol. Threats like that are nonsense. A lot of those hospitals are controlled by Corporations only nominally related to the religious orders that founded them. Plus religious orders are not as beholden to bishops as parish priests are. Don’t get on the bad side of a nun.
Lauren,
Justice Douglas reasoned that a right of privacy existed in the Bill of Rights, even though it appears nowhere in the text. Douglas based his conclusion not on the text, but on his belief that, and get this nonsense:
“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
this is a perfect example of Judges making their own legislation through clever language and lies. Filthy liberal lies.
I knew that it was set on shaky ground, what I didn’t realize is that the judges themselves acknowledged this and so they started doing mental gymnastics and circular reasoning to help ease their conscience. Erm eh…the founding fathers wanted it this way! Yeah, Blackman, well then how do you explain this?
“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[1]”
-Rhenquist
penumbras:
A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination.
emanations:
Any of several radioactive gases that are isotopes of radon and are products of radioactive decay
Yeah, so when you say “I like potatoes” what you’re really saying is “I have a right to kill my child!”
DUH!
Lauren,
A good book is Mark Levin’s “Men in Black”, theres a chapter called “Death by Privacy” which explains the origin very well, starting with Poe v. Ullman in 1961.
During your reseach you’ll notice all these court cases were setups, not true cases. Planned Parenthood was behind most of them.
I suspect the leftist liberals will push rights to pedophilia by using rights to privacy also.
Concerning the hospitals. Just like when the military medical personnel defied the order to perform abortions civilian medical personnel can do the same. And just like Clinton, Obama couldn’t do squat.
They shouldn’t just close the hospitals, they should bulldoze them. You don’t leave a clean house when the Soviets come marching in; you burn your house to the ground.
Seems to me if the Catholics want to close the hospitals the can. It’s a free country.
I was unaware that the Democrats were talking about forcing hospitals to perform abortion services. News to me.
Catholic Hospitals should NOT be forced to have abortions. Or Assisted Suicides or anything that goes against Morals.
John, there are no Soviets anymore. You really get worked up easily, don’t you?
Actually, Hal, the Soviets and their allies won the last presidential election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvxiG56M-eU
The abortionist movement is completely intellectually dishonest. They will say and do ANYTHING to promote abortion violence. They have, I believe, a psychological compulsion to support violence against unborn children. They will never let anything stand in their way.
The abortionist movement (and mentality) is a monster, fed by the dark side of human nature, that I am afraid we will always have to face.
Here’s a good video of Obama’s predecessors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MS2vZLW9Xk
John, I don’t know what to say. Whatever criticisms you have of Obama’s policies (that pesky 3% increase in taxes proposed for profits over $250,000 is really getting you down) you are apparently smart enough to understand the distinction between Obama’s moderate views and the Soviets. Obama is simply nothing like the tolaratians we all despise so much.
Totalitarians for Obama!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/05/america-transformed-waving-the-hammer-and-sickle/
Hal,
During economic times like this the last thing you want is to raise taxes. You want people to keep their money and spend, spend, spend. That “pesky 3%” can result in job layoffs from small businesses.
Mary, get back to me when you get your degree in economics. Obama has the brightest minds in the world advising his economic policies.
I’ve run small businesses. If I was making 250,000 PROFIT or more, I wouldn’t have to lay anyone off.
Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2008 2:07 PM-“I’ve run small businesses. If I was making 250,000 PROFIT or more, I wouldn’t have to lay anyone off.”
Have you ever sold a small business? Last year I paid taxes on t sale of a business. The profit put me over the 250,000 for just the one year. The more the tax on that the less I have to put into my next business. That was 18 months ago and all that cash is gone, invested in a new business but I still had to pay taxes on that profit.
Hal enjoys wrapping himself in the (Soviet) flag. Too bad he didn’t know that leading anything is above Barry’s pay grade.
Say you sold your business for 300,000 profit. 50,000 of that would have an increased 3% tax under Obama’s proposal. That’s $1,500 of additional tax. Sure, that’s real money, but in terms of the $300,000 profit, I’m not crying for you. (or really me, since I will certainly pay more taxes under Obama)
Now, I’d prefer all taxes be lower. (I also wish we hadn’t wasted several hundred billion in Iraq.) I can’t justify leaving huge deficits to our children to pay off. A little more taxes now from those of us who can afford it (even if it hurts) seems fair (and patriotic)
Hal,
LOL. The brightest minds are advising Obama? That what scares me! The “brightest” minds are not always known for having the most common of sense.
Think about it Hal, doesn’t more money in our pockets mean more to spend? More to spend means more business. Business means people keeping their jobs and spending the money they make on other businesses…on and on. Best of all, more employed people to pay taxes! Its what one would call Economics 101.
Hal,
Wouldn’t you rather keep that money and help the economy by spending it? Also donating it to the charity of your choice, who’s efficiency you can easily check?
Put simply, why the hell do you want to give it to the government???
And also, how’s that Hope & Change going?
Obama showed how he’s going to be the “president of all of us” in his choice of Rahm Emanuel for White House Chief of Staff. Of course Emanuel is a Democratic version of Tom DeLay – a hyper-partisan kneecapper. Great choice for a united America, Barry!
Then he picked his little crony from Chicago, Valerie Jarrett, for White House Senior Advisor. Excellent, more cronism is what we need!
And now, we learn that lobbyists are going to have a good friend in the Obama administration, and many positions in his staff:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/15/lobbyists-in-key-positions-in-team-obama-transition-team/
Obama has committed the one sin that you leftists claim to care about – the sin of HYPOCRISY!!! But since you are also hypocrites, I know that there’s no way you’re going to say anything about it.
When my mortgage is 1,500, I’d miss that extra tax money. I think we spend too much, government and consumer alike.
Jeff,
I’m for sensible spending by both. :)
Hal was kidding about the wisest minds in the world. He of course in that tallent uincludes the former head of fannie that drove it onto the dirt.
“The government yesterday filed civil charges against former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Franklin D. Raines and two other top executives, accusing them of misconduct costing shareholders billions of dollars.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the D.C. mortgage giant’s regulator, announced that it is seeking fines and the return of millions of dollars in bonus money. It filed 101 charges against Mr. Raines, former Chief Financial Officer Timothy Howard and former Controller Leanne Spencer.”
Obama, Hal and the Dems really act like crooks in economics.
Seems Hal is an advocate for ignorance and fraud.
Obama attracks crooks like compost draws fies.
xppc,
Give Raines credit, he knew how to rake in money for himself. Wasn’t he a financial advisor to Obama?
Wasn’t the other honcho of Freddie Mac Jim Johnson on Obama’s VP vetting committee?
This is like having Rahm Emmanuel as advisor on manners and ettiquette.
Raines never advised Obama.
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D939MA9O0&show_article=1&catnum=3
Hal,
That’s questionable.
A Washington Post profile of Raines from July reported that Raines had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
Neither Raines nor Obama bothered to contradict this until after the McCain ad came out.
They shouldn’t just close the hospitals, they should bulldoze them. You don’t leave a clean house when the Soviets come marching in; you burn your house to the ground.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 15, 2008 1:32 PM
Gotta love it, John. Wouldn’t that be a surprise! :)
Catholic-run hospitals need to stand up for Catholic beliefs. Let the pro-aborts do abortions.
. . . . . . .
Lauren,
Every time the “right to privacy” issue comes up… I wonder why induced abortion is legal, but having child pornography “in the privacy of one’s own home is illegal. Which one harms children more??? Can someone answer that??
hal,
I predicted Oprah would be Secretary of State. I guess not.
Oprah is not qualified to be Secretary of State. She’s a fine entertainer, and seems like a good person. Hillary Clinton or Gov. Richardson would be fine. So would Senator Lugar.
Anyone remember press conferences with a previous president elect, where the electee had a placard prominently displayed on the lecturn identifying herself/himself as such and the media reps referring to the electee as madam/mister president elect?
Having survived the drugs, sex and rock and roll phase of my life and subsequently a closed head injury that put me in a coma for 3 days, my memory does not always serve me well.
Add to that the testosterone poisoning to which my brain has been subjected all my life and my mind may not be functioning at it’s optimum level.
Affectionately
lame brained knuckledragging neanderthal (Is neanderthal a yiddish term?)
aka: yor bro ken
can someone show me anything where it is proposed that a Catholic hospital would be forced to perform an abortion? If so, I’d be happy to oppose such regulation.
Who cares if Oprah is qualified? It’s not as if the president-elect is qualified to be anything other than a street thug for ACORN.
equiv•o•cate
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
synonyms see LIE
apol•o•gist : one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
soph•ist•ry
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2 : SOPHISM
soph•ism
1: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid ; especially : such an argument used to deceive
2: SOPHISTRY 1
—————————————————-
Here’s how the game works. The o’bama (pbuh) equivocates. When the equivocation fails (the initial offerring is too specific and can be too easily disproved) and someone points out the obvious, then an aplogist/spokesweasel (ususally not the o’bama (pbuh) issues a statement further obfuscating the initial pronouncememt.
If this does not end the matter, and the issue begins to gain traction with the MSM, then the o’bama (pbuh)/chicago machine goes into action and attacks the messenger.
“This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth,” Burton said. “Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything—ever.”
In the Watergate era Woodward and Bernstein would have recognized this sort of language as a confirmation that they were on to something.
Kind of like Hillary Clinton claiming that all the stories concerning Bills philandering were rumors being circulated by a vast right wing conspiracty.
Then when Hillary was accused of insider trading, Bill would say this was impossible, Hillary was the most moral person he knew. Wow, considering Bill’s demonstrated lack of understanding of the term, ‘moral’, that is hardly a ringing endorsement. Hillary, is not exactly the queen of hearts. Ask Dee Dee Myers how moral she considers Hillary to be.
Why you might ask are the Clintons relevant to the o’bama (pbuh)?
Because the o’bama (pbuh) transition team and administration to be is over represented with former Clintonistas.
These people continue to refine the art and science of deception. Truth is only a convienence if it helps or a nuisance if it hinders.
What was it William Lloyd Garrison said? Oh, yeah, I will not apologize, I will not excuse, I will not equivocate. I will not retreat a single inch and I….Will….Be….Heard!
In Louisianna they have another term for equivocating. The call it ‘crawfishin’. A crawfish is a little lobster like critter that lives in freshwater and swims best in reverse.
yor bro ken
can someone show me anything where it is proposed that a Catholic hospital would be forced to perform an abortion? If so, I’d be happy to oppose such regulation.
Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2008 4:33 PM
——————————————————
Freedom of Choice Act or FOCA.
yor bro ken
Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years.
The o’bama (pbuh) is not beholden to PP and their minions. he is more radical than they are. They are not pushing him, he is pulling them.
yor bro ken
Duties of Secretary of State:
* Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
* Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
* Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
* Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
* Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
* Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
* Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
* Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
* Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
* Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
* Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
* Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
* Administers the Department of State;
* Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.
I say just keep Condeleeza Rice. I don’t want Hilary anywhere NEAR that branch of the Federal Government.
Cause if something happened to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House and then the President of the Senate, She would become President!
absolutely they should close. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them!
There’s also the question of doctors who won’t perform them and staff who won’t assist. Over 20 years ago I trained in an OR that did occasional abortions. Even then only limited number of staff would do them, and even they resented always being “stuck” with them.
Mary: I’ve also heard that doctors get upset if one doctor does not do as many abortions as the other doctors.
I know in Canada finding doctors to do abortions is becoming increasingly difficult. Abortionists are looked down upon within the profession, by the public and my medical staff in general.
I can’t justify leaving huge deficits to our children to pay off. A little more taxes now from those of us who can afford it (even if it hurts) seems fair (and patriotic)
Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2008 2:21 PM
________________________
Exactly which children were you talking about Hal? Dead children have no need for money.
HisMan, isn’t it funny that they consider it morally reprehensible to not raise taxes under the pretense of not “leaving huge deficits to our children”, and yet they don’t think twice about actually killing those very same children prior to birth?
Death before debt, I guess!
there might not be those huge deficits if there weren’t 50 million missing Americans….
John:
No it’s not funny, it’s very, very tragic.
Well, of course, it’s not really funny, HisMan. But this is funny.
According to the left, we had surpluses under Clinton. Then Bush turned those surpluses into deficits overnight, apparently. And yet, for some reason, according to them, it’s going to take decades if not centuries to fix those deficits that Bush created overnight.
Hey, if Bush created them overnight, can’t Obama “fix” them overnight? Isn’t that how it works when you have a president with a “D” after his name?
Has anybody watched all the gay people protesting on TV because they can’t get married? contrast that with the total blackout of the right to life marches in Washington. I can’t stand the bias in the media.
I once lived in a city with a population of 50,000 people, which was also the county seat. There were two hospitals. One was a private enterprise, the other was a Catholic hospital. The Catholic hospital bought out the other hospital. The usual suspects whined and moaned that abortion would no longer be convienient, safe, and legal.
The abortionists in our community already had admitting priveleges at the Catholic hospital before the merger. I do not know if the State required the abortionists to have admitting priveleges at a hospital and/or their insurace companies required it as a condition for malpractice coverage.
I talked personally with the Sister who administrated the Catholic hospital about the incongruency of allowing known abortionists to have admitting privleges at a hospital that was operated by the Catholic church. I do not remember her response. She only asked that we not take the issue public. She did not want to compromise the ‘healing atmosphere’ at the Catholic hospital.
Bottom line, merger happened, abortionists never missed a beat.
I have no doubt that most if not all those 615 Catholic hospitals Jill mentioned in her question will find a way to justify continued operation no matter what happens. Even if they closed the doors rather than violate their conscience, the market would respond to the need created by their absence and some other entity would pick up the slack. Jesus said it, ‘The sick need a physician.’
Now I am starting to recall what motivated me reject organized religion, cease activity in the prolife movement and abandon my involvement in the political system.
yor bro ken
According to the left, we had surpluses under Clinton. Then Bush turned those surpluses into deficits overnight, apparently. And yet, for some reason, according to them, it’s going to take decades if not centuries to fix those deficits that Bush created overnight.
Bush created the deficit over eight years. No one said that January 21, 2001 we had a giant deficit. But we sure will on January 21, 2009..
When my mortgage is 1,500, I’d miss that extra tax money. I think we spend too much, government and consumer alike.
Posted by: Jeff at November 15, 2008 2:31 PM
Speaking of government spending, well.. this is almost so stupid it’s unbelievable. In all of the armories and training spots in Illinois, they took away almost HALF of our light bulbs!! We were spending too much money on electricity, so they took away our light bulbs! I live up by Chicago… some nights, like tonight, I’m the only girl in my HALF of the building which is TERRIFYING but it gets way scarier when I can’t even keep it bright in here! I know that’s not exactly a US government thing (since the guard only gets some money from the US government, and some from the state of Illinois) but… I still think that’s a pretty dumb way of saving money. Especially when they’re offering $20,000 bonuses and $2,000 for enlisting friends.
Only girl? What’s up with that?
Oh please, Josephine. You libs have been accusing GWB of “leaving our children with a huge deficit” for the past seven years. I would bet you that within a year of Obama’s inauguration, you’ll be saying that the deficit is gone and we’re back to surpluses again.
Why didn’t they just switch to energy efficient light bulbs? That’s just stupid.
Josephine, you are one brave woman. I really respect women in the armed forces. Thank you for your service.
John- I’m 19. I’m not talking about anyone’s children. I’m talking about ME. MY future. I never blamed the WHOLE deficit on Bush. He had help getting there, lots of it. (I’m sorry, but I happen to think Dick Cheney is evil.) But you can’t deny the deficit happened under the Bush administration. No, that doesn’t mean it’s his fault. The surplus under Clinton doesn’t mean it was BECAUSE of Clinton. (I think it was a lot to do with Clinton, but you can’t ever know.)
I don’t think Obama will fix the problems over night. I don’t even think he’ll fix them in the next… two/three years… maybe he won’t before the next election. I DO think he will get a start on fixing the problems though. I think he’ll work his butt off on it, because his political future depends on how he handles this economic crisis.
Janet- There are two other girls in my unit, but neither of them are here this week. No idea why. There really aren’t very many women women.. probably 100 total that come to this armory as opposed to over 1,000 guys!
Lauren- I appreciate it, but I’m in the National Guard and I’ve never been deployed or done anything..at all. I will feel better getting respected when I’ve done something to deserve it! Last night I went to eat after drill (still in uniform)and a Vietnam vet came up to me and started talking about how proud he was of me. I felt guilty because I’ve never done anything!
As for energy efficient light bulbs, I guess they’re too expensive for us.
Josephine, I have a lot of friends in the Guard and they’ve all been deployed, some more than once. I definitely wouldn’t feel any shame for “only” being in the National Guard, that’s much more than a lot of people can say.
John L: According to the left, we had surpluses under Clinton. Then Bush turned those surpluses into deficits overnight, apparently. And yet, for some reason, according to them, it’s going to take decades if not centuries to fix those deficits that Bush created overnight.
There actually wasn’t a surplus under Clinton. There are “off-budget” items that leave the bottom line in the red for the past few decades. The last true surplus was way back in the 1950’s or maybe the 60’s.
If you’ve got a $200 billion deficit, and can creatively deem $400 billion of expenses as “off-budget” items, then voila – you’ve got a $200 billion surplus.
Just as Clinton’s “surplus” was actually a deficit, so have been Bush Jr’s deficits quite a bit bigger that what the gov’t states.
Somewhat curiously, the gov’t does put the real deal out, usually once a year in the Congressional Budget Report on the finances of the US Gov’t. There, you can read the true cost of gov’t. Or, at least it did until 2007. It comes out in June, and last year it never showed up.
The CBO site is down right now, but I’ll check later.
On Bush Jr. – yeah, he’s had a ton of red ink:
But there will be no “surpluses” in the next few years (or the next few Administrations, IMO).
I think Obama will be a one-term President because of the debt situation and what will be seen as a “bad” economy on a continuing basis, same as McCain would have been had he won.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/05frusg/05frusg.pdf
Might be the link for the 2005 report.
The hospital down the road from my home does not offer open heart surgical procedures. No one seems to care that this vital service isn’t available for miles. Why is it so important to have the morning after pill, which is never a real emergency treatment.
I would prefer that the U.S. Bishops would stick to their guns and close the emergency departments and maternity wards of the hospitals. But given their poor performance regarding the election of Obama, I don’t expect much action at all.
There are only a small number of bishops in the U.S. who have provided any leadership in this most crucial area of religious exercise.
I agree totally with those who say that Catholic hospitals should close down before performing abortions. That’s like saying you can’t run a gun club unless you agree to shoot children.
kb: I think the Catholic clergy is finally starting to see our culture for what it is and how it will impact everyone. What influence they will have remains to be seen.
Before, most of us could get by with the mistaken belief that certain things simply would never touch our lives.
I am certain many parents in the 1950’s and 60’s never worried much about the loosening of divorce laws for example, because these couples were in committed marriages. It wasn’t until they had adult children who were abandoned or who left their marriages usually for frivolous reasons that it became apparent why they should have spoke up.
It is the same with abortion. Many women didn’t care in the 1970’s if a woman had an abortion. “It’s between a woman and her doctor.” Now of course, 43% of women of childbearing age have had at least one abortion. The effect is empty schools, fewer children in kindergarten classes, – it’s becoming more and more noticeable. And the economics are there too – less people to produce goods and fewer consumers. This reality hasn’t hit the US YET but it will if current abortion trends continue. The US is barely at population replacement levels only due to Hispanic birthrates (which are falling) and immigration. But with similar population declines throughout the world immigration as a source of replacement population will dry up.
Unfortunately, IMO, the bishops are too late. What they are saying now should have been said a generation ago. They are now faced with the doubly difficult task of not only strenuously resisting Obama but also evangelizing their flock.
Wowie, Doug, that graph sure is funny. Not only does it use the misleading statistic of how much the national debt increased in actual dollars, rather than what the debt actually was an percentage increases, but it also completely ignores who was in control of Congress, when it is ultimately Congress that has much more control over spending than the president.
And I repeat – you guys have been saying for seven years that Bush got us a huge deficit that it will take generations to escape from. I have absolutely no doubt that after a year of Obama, the deficit will magically be “gone”. All you have to do is twist the numbers in the right way, which Democrats always do.
John: shame on you! Don’t you know Doug lives in a parallel universe?
:: sticking tongue out at Patricia ::
John, you have a point about who’s in control of Congress, but the fact remains that a “conservative” President or Congress isn’t going to necessarily run less red ink.
I no way do I lay all the debt or even that much of it at Bush Jr’s feet. Most of it is beyond his control, and it’s not politically possible to stop most of it now anyway.
That applies to Obama too.
Of Clinton’s 8 years, the Senate was with him for 2 year, and so was the House.
For Bush Jr., the Senate will have been with him for 4 years, and the House for 6.
Yes, I think they should, unless it would be possible to remove all obstetric care from the hospitals. I don’t know much about hospitals. That is probably impossible.
More self-defeating over-hype! As somebody noted, nobody can force anybody to perform any medical procedure. It’s just this kind of exaggeration that makes it possible for people to dismiss our movement as something on the fringe. We lost virtually everything we supported in this election. Maybe I can even remove the “virtually.” It’s time to get real and treat this as a non-partisan issue of humanitarianism, not BIG BAD THEM VS. POOR LITTLE US.
The hospitals can just refuse to comply.
Passive resistance, like Gandhi.
Is Obama going to send in troops?
Mary, get back to me when you get your degree in economics. Obama has the brightest minds in the world advising his economic policies.
Posted by: Hal at November 15, 2008 2:07 PM
Aren’t these the same bright minds that contributed to his campaign, and are receiving our tax $$ in the form of bailouts and who engineered and profitted from the financial practices that got us into this financial crisis?
Uh, yeah! Just go look up their names and where they have been for the past 10 years and the multi millions they made.
Obama is Bush III.
When I consider the true liberals who founded this nation, and then compare the phony liberals who were nothing but dictators that founded the Soviet Union. I can’t help but see that Obama is more the latter than the former.
The true liberals who founded this nation, trusted people with free speech, religious zeal, guns, and their own money.
The true liberals who founded this nation knew the tyranny of the state taking people’s money and passing it around to the nobility.
They also feared the tyranny of ignorant masses who will vote themselves bread and circus. Thanks to failed public education, that is exactly what we have.
Yes, I think they should, unless it would be possible to remove all obstetric care from the hospitals. I don’t know much about hospitals. That is probably impossible.
Posted by: Phoebe at November 16, 2008 2:31 PM
Abortion is not obstetric care.
Now of course, 43% of women of childbearing age have had at least one abortion.
Posted by: Patricia at November 16, 2008 8:28 AM
Actually Patricia less than 15% of women in the US will have had an abortion by the end of reproductive years.
150 million women in the US. 50 million abortions over 35 years. Only half of the abortions in any given year are the first abortion for that woman. Since a woman can only have a first abortion one time, that yields 25 million abortions for 150 million women, which is less than 15% of all women.
I vote for less sex ed, and more math classes.
I no way do I lay all the debt or even that much of it at Bush Jr’s feet. Most of it is beyond his control, and it’s not politically possible to stop most of it now anyway.
That applies to Obama too.
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2008 11:39 AM
I sure lay the blame on W for the ridiculous spending. The Medicare Rx plan that pays drug companies full price for every pill, and the Iraq war!!!!!
However, Obama is not Clinton, nor is Pelosi like Gingrich.
I can picture Clinton and Gingrich having a beer at a bar b que and working stuff out like the good old boys they both are.
Imagine Obama and Pelosi at a party hatching a deal.
Something tells me, these situations will have different results both in the nature and extent.
Has anybody watched all the gay people protesting on TV because they can’t get married? contrast that with the total blackout of the right to life marches in Washington. I can’t stand the bias in the media.
Posted by: Jasper at November 15, 2008 10:15 PM
Good point Jasper. The March for Life should be promoted MONTHS in advance. (STARTING NOW!)
Is anyone going to the march this January???
The hospitals can just refuse to comply.
Passive resistance, like Gandhi.
Is Obama going to send in troops?
Posted by: hippie at November 16, 2008 3:57 PM
Actually that is a very good point. Non violent protest can be extremely effective. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are great examples of this.
Change didnt happen overnight, but it happened. And all by non violent resistance.
I don’t know what you’re “resisting.” No one is proposing making abortions mandatory. Certainly the FOCA wouldn’t do that.
Um hal we’re resisting being forced to provide abortions. If someone told you that they were going to force all lawyers to kill their neighbors, wouldn’t you resist?
no, I don’t think he would lauren! Especially if he were paid for it.
It is estimated here that, as of 2008, about 28% of U.S. women ages 15-64 have had abortions. This figure has risen from 2.8% in 1973 to 11% in 1980, 19% in 1987, 24% in 1994, and 27% in 2001. In 2008, of women ages 40-55, about 40% have had abortions in their lifetimes.
From 1967 to September 2008, approximately 50,200,000 abortions occurred in the United States; of these, about 30,260,000 or 60% were to women with no prior abortions [1,2]. In other words, 30,260,000 different women had one or more abortions from 1967 to the present in the U.S.
Given that there were 101,314,000 women ages 15-64 in the U.S. in 2007, this implies about 25-28% of women ages 15-64 in the U.S. today have had at least one abortion in their lifetime. The uncertainty stems from unaccounted-for factors such as mortality among older women, women who have immigrated into the U.S. in this time period, U.S. women who obtained abortions abroad, and abortions obtained in the U.S. by women from other countries. (This discussion only includes legal abortions; illegal abortions prior to the 1970s were probably in numbers small enough not to significantly affect the final results.)
These statistics are reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
“… roughly one-third of women will have an abortion during their reproductive lifetime…” (2008) [1]
“… of American women … at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.” (2008) [3]
“… of women aged 15-44 … 30% have had an abortion.” (1992 figures) [4]
These figures do not include chemical abortions.
Currently (even without FOCA), no Catholic hospitals are refusing to privilege abortionists. Across the county, they are all refusing to assert their religious freedoms right now by complying with a law which prohibits them from discriminating against physicians on the basis of whether or not they perform abortions at other facilities. With new HHS guidelines, I hope they will see clearly to do this.
Even if FOCA doesn’t pass, they must push for the right not to violate their religious beliefs by cooperating in evil when they privilege abortionists who perform their dirty deeds at local Planned Parenthoods (witness Dr. Richard Grossman at Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango, CO).
The true liberals who founded this nation, trusted people with free speech, religious zeal, guns, and their own money.
Posted by: hippie at November 16, 2008 4:22 PM
And they trusted them to continue their pregnancies, or to cease them.
Um hal we’re resisting being forced to provide abortions. If someone told you that they were going to force all lawyers to kill their neighbors, wouldn’t you resist?
Posted by: lauren at November 16, 2008 6:37 PM
I will also resist any efforts to force Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions. I haven’t heard anything about this except here. I asked for a cite, and all I got was FOCA. I’ve read FOCA, it would not force any hospital to perform an abortion.
Let’s organize opposition to mandatory tattoos too. Oh, wait, no one is proposing that.
Sorry, please replace this with the above. Mods, delete post @ 11:16 if possible. Thx.
hal,
It depends which version of FOCA you read. NARAL etc, will make as vague as they can and slanted – of course they don’t want opposition. Please read this in full… link provided.
This analysis was in my church bulletin today:
According to this statement by the Secretariat for Pro-life Activities,
***** “The Freedom of Choice Act”: Most Radical Abortion Legislation in U.S. History*****
MYTH: FOCA basically codifies Roe v. Wade 1973…
FACT: “FOCA goes far beyond just codifying Roe v.Wade….”
(Excerpt):
http://www.nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=194
5. FOCA will bar laws protecting a right of conscientious objection to abortion.
ROE cited with approval an AMA resolution that no “physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel” shall be required to violate “personally-held moral principles.” 410 U.S., at 143 &n.38. The current version of FOCA removes language found in previous versions of the bill to permit regulations to protect conscience.
. . . . . .
Posted by: Janet at November 16, 2008 11:16 PM
Janet, thanks for posting that. I’m still skeptical that the “current version” of FOCA says that. If it does, I will write to my two pro choice senators and ask them to fix it.
Janet: I am in NO WAY saying I think Catholic hospitals should have to do abortions. I don’t think they should either. However, doctors have to do things they don’t like or don’t think are right sometimes. I worked in a doctor’s office. I’ve seen it happen. Now, a hospital doesn’t have to provide treatment in non-emergency situations. So why close the hospital? I mean, the town I lived in before my family moved to the Chicago suburbs.. there was ONE hospital in the entire county, and it was a Catholic hospital. If it closed, well, that would just be awful.
Now, I talked to my dad about this. What he said he could see a lot of hospitals doing is when a woman tries to schedule an appointment for an abortion… the hospital can basically schedule it to the point where the woman wouldn’t be able to get in until after the baby was due to be born. An abortion isn’t an emergency procedure after all. There is no way the government can regulate scheduling appointments.
I must add that he doesn’t think it will even come to that. But… if it does.
hal @ 11:43,
Janet, thanks for posting that. I’m still skeptical that the “current version” of FOCA says that. If it does, I will write to my two pro choice senators and ask them to fix it.
You are welcome. A little skepticism is always good. This is a current analysis by the NCHLA, so you can be pretty sure this current version of FOCA is correct. If I were you, I would address your concerns to your senators on the assumption that it is – let them know which provisions you do not support. Thank you in advance, if you do make the effort. We all will certainly be hearing much more about this. I’d like to believe FOCA is a bad dream, but since it isn’t we need to make sure our voices are heard by those in Congress. Peace to you and yours.
Josephine,
We don’t know at this point how far the government would go to enforce FOCA. Under FOCA an abortion would become a woman’s “right”, to be unencumbered by any restrictions. I don’t know how much luck a hospital would have with creative scheduling of abortions. Don’t you think the pregnant women might catch on, and the hospital would be forced to accommodate them?
To say doctors sometimes have to do things they don’t like to….we aren’t talking about emptying bedpans…we are talking about doing abortions – killing babies in the womb.
A hospital closing would be awful. FOCA is an awful law that must not pass. It is pro-abortion, plain and simple.
Janet,
Obama supporters are so blind. Sadly, it probably won’t be until their pocket books are affected by his economic policies that they will wake up. It isn’t enough for many people that so many babies are killed every day. Well, we have to pay somehow for all the blood on our hands from allowing the killing of so many unborn babies.
“I am in NO WAY saying I think Catholic hospitals should have to do abortions. I don’t think they should either.”
The guy you voted for think they should.
I guess that is what the American government will have to decide? Is it worth losing so many hospitals, can the health care system afford to, over the issue of abortion.
Of course if these hospitals are closed they should be stripped of every single piece of equipment – maybe given to the Third World so that they are not bought out and started up as abortuaries.
And I see this whole scenario as analogous to what is happening in the UK over the issue of same-sex adoption. Catholic adoption agencies are closing down since they are no longer allowed to place children exclusively in families that consist of a mother and a father. The state has legislated that they MUST place them in all “families” including same-sex couples. One by one, the Catholic agencies are closing. You might say, so be it. However, these agencies provide the bulk of adoption services in the UK and this will create a crisis situation.
“I am in NO WAY saying I think Catholic hospitals should have to do abortions. I don’t think they should either.”
The guy you voted for think they should.
Posted by: Jasper at November 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Do you have ANY evidence of that Jasper, or you just like trashing Obama.
In late April 2007, Obama along with Senator Hillary Clinton and others, immediately re-introduced the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law
Among the more than 550 federal and state laws that FOCA would nullify are:
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
Informed consent laws
Waiting periods
Parental consent and notification laws
Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
“Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
Bans on partial-birth abortion
Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities
Just saw this, our “friend” SomG, sent a death threat to Operation Rescue:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/death-treat-issued-to-operation-rescue-in-wake-of-obama-victory/
“To say doctors sometimes have to do things they don’t like to….we aren’t talking about emptying bedpans…we are talking about doing abortions – killing babies in the womb. ”
I think you need to find a new hospital if they DOCTOR’S empty bedpans wherever you’re going. I’m talking about things that they are MORALLY against.
Josephine,
I think you need to find a new hospital if they DOCTOR’S empty bedpans wherever you’re going. I’m talking about things that they are MORALLY against.
I was being facetious.
What kinds of things, not related to to the issues currently under discussion, would these be?
Jasper, you got a link I could follow? I’d like to see what language in particular that people think would result in Catholic hospitals being forced to perform abortions.
Janet, first of all.. I read back to what I wrote and it seemed very rude. I didn’t mean to sound like that, and I totally apologize.
Now, the things I’m talking about.. well, I’ll use examples from the office I worked in. A dermatologist, for instance, was giving a girl antibiotics for her acne… however, the acne started when she was really young (before I worked there, so I don’t really remember how long she had it) and basically she became immune to all the antibiotics… eventually, after he had to keep giving her stronger and stronger antibiotics and she kept becoming immune, he finally ended up giving her Septra DS, twice a day. Now, I’m not sure how familiar you are… but that is a very strong anti-biotic. Basically, if something were to happen to this girl.. where she did develop an infection.. it could be VERY difficult to fight the infection in this girl because her body kept becoming immune to strong anti biotics. However, as a doctor, he had to try and treat her the best he could… and Septra was the only thing left he could try.
Did he have a HUGE problem giving her that drug knowing that it could cause SERIOUS problems later? Yes. But, as a doctor, he had to treat her. He’d be lying if he said there was nothing else he could give her.
Josephine,
No problem, you weren’t rude. :)
Not being in the medical field, I Can’t really speak to the issue of the specific antibiotics you mentioned. I don’t know how much of a parallel there is between that and abortion, really.
Well, let’s see… Amoxicillan is the drug the girl used before she switched to Septra DS. Amexoicilan is the antibiotic that doctors give patients with strep throat, or.. if they get bit by a dog.. most regular infections in the body. She became immune to amoxicillan. So, for regular infections she would’ve had to take a much stronger antibiotic than amoxicillan.. something like Septra DS. Now, do you see where the problem would be down in the line if something as simple as strep throat affects this girl? She could be immune to all the anti-biotics they use to treat strep.
Now, I know it’s not comparable to abortion, really. It’s just an example of something the doctor didn’t feel like was morally ethical, because it could end up really putting the girl in danger.. but he had to do it to treat her “to the best of his ability.”
Josephine,
I wasn’t going to get into it, but since you persist, if I were a doctor who felt that strongly against prescribing a very strong antibiotic, I wouldn’t have no matter how much a patient wants it. I’d tell them to go elsewhere. Maybe that’s why I’m not a doctor. :)
Hippie: I sure lay the blame on W for the ridiculous spending. The Medicare Rx plan that pays drug companies full price for every pill, and the Iraq war!!!!!
However, Obama is not Clinton, nor is Pelosi like Gingrich.
I can picture Clinton and Gingrich having a beer at a bar b que and working stuff out like the good old boys they both are.
Imagine Obama and Pelosi at a party hatching a deal.
Something tells me, these situations will have different results both in the nature and extent.
Interesting comments, Hippie. Time will tell.
Actually Patricia less than 15% of women in the US will have had an abortion by the end of reproductive years.
150 million women in the US. 50 million abortions over 35 years. Only half of the abortions in any given year are the first abortion for that woman. Since a woman can only have a first abortion one time, that yields 25 million abortions for 150 million women, which is less than 15% of all women.
I vote for less sex ed, and more math classes.
Hippie, if anything I think you’re overestimating the number of women in their reproductive years in that time period.
From what I’ve seen, in the past it was about 40% of women that ended up having abortions, and the forecast is for roughly 33% in the future.