Note: An abbreviated version of this story appeared in this morning's California Catholic Daily.
The February 17 issue of “The Broadview,” the student newspaper of the Convent of the Sacred Heart /Stuart Hall High Schools in San Francisco reported:
“Tomorrow, during Principal’s Meeting students are scheduled to watch portions of the documentary “Pink Smoke Over the Vatican” and participate in a presentation about women attempting to become ordained by the Catholic Church. The Rev. Victoria Rue will be interviewed by Women’s Studies students about her own ordination experience.”
Pink Smoke Over the Vatican is a 2010 film produced and directed by Jules Hart and distributed by Eyegoddess Films. From the Eyegoddess Films web page:
“Pink Smoke Over the Vatican is a documentary film about the controversial movement of women seeking to be ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. On June 3, 2008, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the modern name for The Holy Office of the Inquisition, issued a sweeping order of excommunication for ‘the crime of attempting sacred ordination of a woman.’ Pink Smoke Over the Vatican chronicles the events that led up to this severe punishment and tells the stories of the determined women and men who, through the forbidden and illicit path of female ordination, are working to end the underlying misogyny and outdated feudal governance that is slowly destroying the Roman Catholic Church.”
While the screening of such a blatantly anti-Catholic movie to Catholic High School students should raise questions about the motivations and judgment of the school authorities, their choice of speaker is even more outrageous. Despite what the Broadview reported, the speaker scheduled to address the students, Victoria Rue, is not exactly a “Reverend.” She describes herself on her website as a “Roman Catholic Woman Priest,” and relates how she made that happen: “In 1997 I co-founded and con-celebrated a feminist, inclusive Eucharist with 12 other women and hundreds of witnesses on the former site of the Oakland cathedral in California. With this act, we claimed that we are all priests.” In point of fact, Ms. Rue has excommunicated herself from the Catholic Church. She also happens to be one of the women profiled in "Pink Smoke."
According to her webpage, Ms. Rue offers the following “Services and Sacraments”: Baptisms, Marriages, Funerals, The Celebration of the Eucharist, Spiritual Guidance and ministry to LGBT people. She also says she celebrates “Bi-monthly Feminist Masses at the chapel of Trinity Episcopal Church” in San Francisco.
(A little excursus: this last would seem to demand some high-level Catholic/Episcopal ecumenical dialogue. Why is an Episcopal Church allowing an excommunicated Catholic to celebrate "Masses" there? Are they being advertised as genuine Catholic Masses? The Trinity Episcopal website's "Services" page says:
10:30 A.M. Sophia in Trinity (2nd & 4th Saturdays of the month) Sophia in Trinity is an inclusive community welcoming everyone including all those on the margins and especially those marginalized by the Roman Catholic Church: LGBT people, as well as those who are divorced, remarried, those who witness to reproductive rights, and all those seeking justice, equality and the integrity of creation. Find out more on our Sophia at Trinity page.
Well, Trinity Episcopal's "Sophia in Trinity" webpage directs one to http://www.sophiaintrinity.org/, which says :
"Bi-monthly Feminist Masses at the chapel of Trinity Episcopal Church. Click here to learn more." and "Presider: Victoria Rue, M.Div., Ph.D, Roman Catholic Woman Priest.")
Ms. Rue is also an open lesbian and homosexualist activist:
“In 1990 my partner Kathryn Poethig and I celebrated a ceremony of commitment with our families and friends. … Through the years we have worked for a more body positive theology, as well as the inclusion and ordination of lesbian and gay people in both the Protestant and Catholic churches.”
She has an affiliation with Dignity USA dating back to at least 1998. In June, 2009 California Catholic Daily reported that Ms. Rue gave a seminar at the Dignity USA convention in San Francisco. The title was Valid but Illicit: Being a Roman Catholic Lesbian Priest (“Dignity USA Catholics to Explore Leather Spirituality”).
In a number of ways, the screening of Pink Cloud is eerily reminiscent of the March 2009 performance of the homosexualist play “Be Still and Know” by students of Sacred Heart High School of Atherton, just south of San Francisco. San Francisco’s notorious Most Holy Redeemer parish had scheduled the students to perform the play in their church, but when the event became widely known, Archbishop George Niederauer forced the performance to be cancelled. (The Jesuit University of San Francisco, in defiance of His Excellency's wishes, allowed the play to be performed there). At the time, one of the questions raised was why the school chose MHR as a venue. Investigation revealed that the Principal of Sacred Heart of Atherton, Mr. Jim Everitt, was also serving as a lector at Most Holy Redeemer. Now investigation has revealed that the Department Chair of Religion/Theology at Stuart Hall, the Convent of the Sacred Heart’s sister school, Mr. Ray O’Connor, is a member of the seven-person Worship Committee at MHR. He is the coordinator of lectors for the church. The Winter, 2010 issue of the Convent of the Sacred Heart’s Broadview newspaper reported that Mr. O’Connor led a group of Convent students to Most Holy Redeemer.
On February 18, following the screening and Ms. Rue’s scheduled appearance, an email uninformative to the point of deception was sent to the parents of CSH students. The email was signed by Paul Pryor Lorentz, Chair of the Theology/Philosophy Department at CSH, and Andrea Shurley, CSH’s Head of School. They wrote, in part:
“Today we had a guest speaker who shared her views on the role of women in the Catholic Church. Her viewpoint was carefully and intelligently shared, and our Women’s Studies students led a question and answer session. Unfortunately, given our time constraints, we did not have the opportunity to allow exploration of contrasting viewpoints.”
Unless another woman substituted for Ms. Rue, between the time the advertisement appeared in the Broadview on February 17 but before the email was sent on February 18, that email refers to her. Significantly, nowhere in the email are the parents informed of the identity of the speaker. That suggests the possibility that it was Ms. Rue, that the school was quite aware of Ms. Rue’s background and that the school wished to keep that background from the parents. Nowhere are the parents informed that the “careful and intelligent” Ms. Rue considers herself a Roman Catholic Woman Priest. Nowhere are they informed that she is excommunicated from the Church. Nowhere are they informed that she is an open lesbian and homosexualist activist. Faced with an issue where souls are at stake, not the least being that of Ms. Rue, those responsible at the Convent of the Sacred Heart did not even bother to find a spokesperson for a "contrasting" non-excommunicated, non-lesbian viewpoint—that of the Catholic Church.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 28, 2011
Must See! Pro-Life Flash Mob
h/t Catholic Vote.
Our young people are so amazing! They surprise a bunch of Planned Parenthood supporters in Chicago, who can only respond with ancient chants. The Lord of the Rings music is a nice touch!
Our young people are so amazing! They surprise a bunch of Planned Parenthood supporters in Chicago, who can only respond with ancient chants. The Lord of the Rings music is a nice touch!
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Second Annual Walk for India's Missing Girls
50 million girls have been eliminated from India's population in the last century.10 million girls have been killed by their parents, either before or immediately
after birth in the last two decades.
In 2010, to combat and raise awareness of this horrific injustice, Indian women and their supports worldwide founded the "Walk for India's Missing Girls." Seven cities across four countries participated in the Walk.
This year the movement has grown and the Global Walk will take place in over 15 cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Chandigarh, Agra, Kolkata, Chennai, Jamshedpur, Goa, Sri Ganganagar, Dubai, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington D.C and San Francisco.
The San Francisco Walk will begin at 11AM on Saturday, March 5 at San Francisco's City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet Place, San Francisco and ends at Union Square.
To learn more visit the Walk's Facebook page, or visit http://www.petalsinthedust.com/
FDR Was Right: Why Public Sector Unions Must Go
Last week we quoted President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on public sector unions. Here are two writers making the same point well.
Ruben Navarette in the Fresno Bee:
"One reason could be that more Americans are figuring out that there is a difference between private- and public-sector unions. In the private sector, what keeps everyone honest is that companies can only be pushed so far or they'll go bankrupt. If this happens, then everyone loses. In the public sector, cities and states don't go bankrupt all that easily and so unions can push and push, and take and take, until a system becomes insolvent."
Professor Thomas J. Lorenzo expands on this:
"When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. In contrast, when a city teachers' or garbage-truck drivers' union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers' tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil-service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.
Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire 'industry' they 'work' in indefinitely. The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councillors to quickly cave in to the union's demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction....
The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their 'demands,' it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction....
Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The 'solution' to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.
As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived."
Emphasis added.
UPDATE: Even David Brooks in the New York Times is willing to acknowledge the problem:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Walker’s side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.
That’s because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest. Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Ruben Navarette in the Fresno Bee:
"One reason could be that more Americans are figuring out that there is a difference between private- and public-sector unions. In the private sector, what keeps everyone honest is that companies can only be pushed so far or they'll go bankrupt. If this happens, then everyone loses. In the public sector, cities and states don't go bankrupt all that easily and so unions can push and push, and take and take, until a system becomes insolvent."
Professor Thomas J. Lorenzo expands on this:
"When the employees of a grocery store, for example, go on strike and shut down the store, consumers can simply shop elsewhere, and the grocery-store management is perfectly free to hire replacement workers. In contrast, when a city teachers' or garbage-truck drivers' union goes on strike, there is no school and no garbage collection as long as the strike goes on. In addition, teachers' tenure (typically after two or three years in government schools) and civil-service regulations make it extremely costly if not virtually impossible to hire replacement workers.
Thus, when government bureaucrats go on strike they have the ability to completely shut down the entire 'industry' they 'work' in indefinitely. The taxpayers will complain bitterly about the absence of schools and garbage collection, forcing the mayor, governor, or city councillors to quickly cave in to the union's demands to avoid risking the loss of their own jobs due to voter dissatisfaction....
The enormous power of government-employee unions effectively transfers the power to tax from voters to the unions. Because government-employee unions can so easily force elected officials to raise taxes to meet their 'demands,' it is they, not the voters, who control the rate of taxation within a political jurisdiction....
Politicians are caught in a political bind by government-employee unions: if they cave in to their wage demands and raise taxes to finance them, then they increase the chances of being kicked out of office themselves in the next election. The 'solution' to this dilemma has been to offer government-employee unions moderate wage increases but spectacular pension promises. This allows politicians to pander to the unions but defer the costs to the future, long after the panderers are retired from politics.
As taxpayers in California, Wisconsin, Indiana, and many other states are realizing, the future has arrived."
Emphasis added.
UPDATE: Even David Brooks in the New York Times is willing to acknowledge the problem:
"Even if you acknowledge the importance of unions in representing middle-class interests, there are strong arguments on Walker’s side. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.
That’s because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest. Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.
As a result of these imbalanced incentive structures, states with public sector unions tend to run into fiscal crises."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, February 25, 2011
That's What Happens: If You're Pro-Choice, the Truth Threatens You
One of the hallmarks of a being invested in a lie is that you have to construct an entire alternate reality to support it. Example: the pro-life billboard in New York with the simple, verifiable, one sentence statement of fact "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb."
That simple statement of fact so threatened pro-abortion New Yorkers that they pressured the billboard company to remove it, which the company did.
So that problem has gone away.
Visit www.TooManyAborted.com to learn more about abortion in the African American community.
That simple statement of fact so threatened pro-abortion New Yorkers that they pressured the billboard company to remove it, which the company did. So that problem has gone away.
Visit www.TooManyAborted.com to learn more about abortion in the African American community.
Support California Catholic Daily!
California Catholic Daily, to which we contribute from time to time, needs YOUR help.
CalCatholic keeps the fire burning on issues that many Dioceses in California would prefer just not to see.
Unless they can develop a base of monthly contributors, they will no longer be able to publish. You can contribute by going here.
Here are a few recent CalCatholic stories about the Church in San Francisco and Northern California not found anywhere else:
Ties to the homosexual power structure
Honorary committee for Catholic Charities of San Francisco annual fundraiser includes politicians well known for their opposition to Church teachings
On March 4, Catholic Charities of San Francisco (CCCYO) will host its annual Loaves and Fishes Fundraising dinner at the upscale St. Regis hotel in San Francisco. As is the case every year, the honorary committee includes a number of local politicians. And, as usual these politicians are completely and without exception actively opposed to the Church’s teaching on issues of life or the family.
Read the whole thing.
_______________________________________________________
“Extreme agenda”
‘Catholic’ Pelosi vows all-out attack on pro-life measures introduced in Congress
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat and former House Speaker who describes herself as “an ardent, practicing Catholic,” has vowed to rally the public against a series of anti-abortion measures now pending in Congress.
“Pelosi described the GOP push as the ‘most radical assault’ on women's reproductive rights ‘in our lifetimes,’” the Washington Post reported, based on a Feb. 10 conference call Pelosi made to supporters. “And she was equally blunt in her assessment of right-wing assaults on family planning. ‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’
Read the whole thing.
___________________________________________________________
“We can help you get the abortion you need”
Catholic Healthcare West grant goes to organization whose members include abortion providers
On Jan. 6, Catholic Healthcare West awarded nearly $1.2 million in grants to various nonprofit organizations in Sacramento, Placer, Yolo and Nevada counties – including one “network of community clinics” that includes Planned Parenthood and Women’s Health Specialists, both abortion providers.
Read the whole thing.
CalCatholic keeps the fire burning on issues that many Dioceses in California would prefer just not to see.
Unless they can develop a base of monthly contributors, they will no longer be able to publish. You can contribute by going here.
Here are a few recent CalCatholic stories about the Church in San Francisco and Northern California not found anywhere else:
Ties to the homosexual power structure
Honorary committee for Catholic Charities of San Francisco annual fundraiser includes politicians well known for their opposition to Church teachings
On March 4, Catholic Charities of San Francisco (CCCYO) will host its annual Loaves and Fishes Fundraising dinner at the upscale St. Regis hotel in San Francisco. As is the case every year, the honorary committee includes a number of local politicians. And, as usual these politicians are completely and without exception actively opposed to the Church’s teaching on issues of life or the family.
Read the whole thing.
_______________________________________________________
“Extreme agenda”
‘Catholic’ Pelosi vows all-out attack on pro-life measures introduced in Congress
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat and former House Speaker who describes herself as “an ardent, practicing Catholic,” has vowed to rally the public against a series of anti-abortion measures now pending in Congress.
“Pelosi described the GOP push as the ‘most radical assault’ on women's reproductive rights ‘in our lifetimes,’” the Washington Post reported, based on a Feb. 10 conference call Pelosi made to supporters. “And she was equally blunt in her assessment of right-wing assaults on family planning. ‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’
Read the whole thing.
___________________________________________________________
“We can help you get the abortion you need”
Catholic Healthcare West grant goes to organization whose members include abortion providers
On Jan. 6, Catholic Healthcare West awarded nearly $1.2 million in grants to various nonprofit organizations in Sacramento, Placer, Yolo and Nevada counties – including one “network of community clinics” that includes Planned Parenthood and Women’s Health Specialists, both abortion providers.
Read the whole thing.
"There are any number of anti-abortion politicians in Kansas and none of them are hated with the vehemence directed at Phill Kline"
Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key" offers his take on why that would be.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Great News! Said Musa Alive, Free
Said Musa, the Afghani Christian who had been sentenced to death becuase he converted to Christianity has been freed. We posted about Mr. Musa back on February 15.
Christian Post has details of his release.
Praise God!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"97.6% of Pregnant Women Going to Planned Parenthood Are Sold Abortions"
Over at Life News Steve Ertelt has some remarkable statistics from the abortion giant's most recent report.
"A new report the Planned Parenthood national abortion business recently released shows the embattled agency did more abortions in 2009 than it has done in any prior year. The report also shows it providing fewer pregnant women with non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently posted on its website what it calls its service numbers for 2009. This document, dated February 2011, shows Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide did 332,278 surgical abortions or abortions using the dangerous RU 486 abortion during in 2009."
Nothing too surprising there, but the following numbers are striking:
"A new report the Planned Parenthood national abortion business recently released shows the embattled agency did more abortions in 2009 than it has done in any prior year. The report also shows it providing fewer pregnant women with non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently posted on its website what it calls its service numbers for 2009. This document, dated February 2011, shows Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide did 332,278 surgical abortions or abortions using the dangerous RU 486 abortion during in 2009."
Nothing too surprising there, but the following numbers are striking:
"The new document the abortion organization posted shows Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.
As a result, 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008.
The Life News article also cited Jim Sedlak, vice-president of the American Life League, who noted:
"...Planned Parenthood now does 340 abortions for every one adoption referral and 47 abortions for every one prenatal care client."Good and Better: Obama Refuses to Defend Marriage
It's good because he never was going to anyway. It's better because hopefully now someone really will.
It was obvious from the beginning that President Obama was lying about his support for counterfeit "marriage," and that his justice department was not going to defend marriage. So it is just as well that he has come clean.
Andy McCarthy, writing today in "The Corner" agrees with this:
"On balance, I far prefer that Obama’s Justice Department openly advocates for the outcome desired by Obama’s base, as it is finally doing with DOMA. This way, the court can appoint lawyers who will truly defend the statute with the best legal arguments available.
Obama's action further shows that he, and counterfeit "marriage" supporters know that they are losing. They cannot allow the issue to have a fair hearing--and this is not only true of marriage but of other issues as well.
It is instructive to reflect on how the supporters of counterfeit "marriage" show time and again they have no concern for the right to self government nor for the common good of society.
William C. Duncan, noted this today, writing in The Corner:
"There is something about the marriage issue that provokes an “any means necessary” approach from its proponents (among whom I believe we can count the president, notwithstanding campaign rhetoric to the contrary)."
That's been the case right from the start, when Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses.
It continued when opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.
It continued when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.
It continued when Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.
It continued in Massachusetts when the state legislature refused to allow the people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defending marriage, despite the record number (170+000) of signatures.
This is self-interest denying the common good, and the right of the people to self-government.
I said above that this uncivil attitude of the Left is evident in other issues as well. It is all of a piece of what we are seeing in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Governer Walker and the Republicans ran on a platform promising to address the budget crisis and reform the state's government. They won big. What happens? Do their opponents say "This is America. We are a democracy. The people made a choice. We have to abide by it if we are to remain a democracy. We don't like it, but there are other elections, and if we make our case to the people we can win, and then offer our own solutions." Not on your life.
The Democratic legislators try to prevent government by functioning by leaving the state. Teachers Union members walk off their jobs (illegally) and occupy the capitol. Sympathetic doctors violate their professional ethics, and probably the law as well, by writing phony excuses so the teachers can say they were sick, thus defrauding the taxpayers.
President Obama, Congressman Pelosi et al. side with those in Wisconsin, just as they side with those who support counterfeit "marriage." On the other side are the American people.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
It was obvious from the beginning that President Obama was lying about his support for counterfeit "marriage," and that his justice department was not going to defend marriage. So it is just as well that he has come clean.
Andy McCarthy, writing today in "The Corner" agrees with this:
"On balance, I far prefer that Obama’s Justice Department openly advocates for the outcome desired by Obama’s base, as it is finally doing with DOMA. This way, the court can appoint lawyers who will truly defend the statute with the best legal arguments available.
Obama's action further shows that he, and counterfeit "marriage" supporters know that they are losing. They cannot allow the issue to have a fair hearing--and this is not only true of marriage but of other issues as well.
It is instructive to reflect on how the supporters of counterfeit "marriage" show time and again they have no concern for the right to self government nor for the common good of society.
William C. Duncan, noted this today, writing in The Corner:
"There is something about the marriage issue that provokes an “any means necessary” approach from its proponents (among whom I believe we can count the president, notwithstanding campaign rhetoric to the contrary)."
That's been the case right from the start, when Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses.
It continued when opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.
It continued when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.
It continued when Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.
It continued in Massachusetts when the state legislature refused to allow the people of the state to vote on a constitutional amendment defending marriage, despite the record number (170+000) of signatures.
This is self-interest denying the common good, and the right of the people to self-government.
I said above that this uncivil attitude of the Left is evident in other issues as well. It is all of a piece of what we are seeing in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Governer Walker and the Republicans ran on a platform promising to address the budget crisis and reform the state's government. They won big. What happens? Do their opponents say "This is America. We are a democracy. The people made a choice. We have to abide by it if we are to remain a democracy. We don't like it, but there are other elections, and if we make our case to the people we can win, and then offer our own solutions." Not on your life.
The Democratic legislators try to prevent government by functioning by leaving the state. Teachers Union members walk off their jobs (illegally) and occupy the capitol. Sympathetic doctors violate their professional ethics, and probably the law as well, by writing phony excuses so the teachers can say they were sick, thus defrauding the taxpayers.
President Obama, Congressman Pelosi et al. side with those in Wisconsin, just as they side with those who support counterfeit "marriage." On the other side are the American people.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Archbishop Dolan to Celebrate Dr. Nathanson's Funeral Mass
Tom Peters reports that Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York will celebrate a funeral Mass for pro-life hero Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
Most people know the story of Dr. Nathanson, a one-time abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL Pro-Choice America. By his own count Dr. Nathanson partcipated in the deaths of 75,000 unborn babies. But, after witnessing a sonogram, the Doctor had a change of heart, a conversion, and became one of the most important voices for life in the United States. Think how hard it is to admit we are wrong, even in small things, and then reflect on what moral courage Dr. Nathanson's acceptance and conversion must have required! And his example must surely have encouraged others like Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Abby Johnson, not to mention many whose names we will never know. Tom writes:
"Today it was made known that Archbishop Timothy Dolan will celebrate Dr. Nathanson’s funeral Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Imagine, someone who brought about the deaths of 75,000 human beings and who was instrumental in ushering in the era of legalized abortion being granted a Catholic burial.
But thus is the infinite mercy of Christ.
Tom then quotes his father, canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters:
My father writes movingly about this:
'Nathanson’s baptism at the hands of Cdl. John O’Connor in 1996 completely forgave him all his sins up to that point (all of his 75,000 supervised or directly-performed abortions, including one of his own children, his multiple divorces, and God knows what else) and totally paid all of the punishments due for such sins. CCC 1263. Everything, everything, Nathanson did up to the day of his baptism is buried forever in Christ.'
Tom continues:
This is an extraordinary point to reflect upon.
After all, the Church, in the debate over abortion, is often portrayed as unfeeling, harsh, unforgiving. I think critics of the Church who say such things should take note of Dr. Nathanson’s Catholic burial.
In truth, nothing is more forgiving than the Church because the Church forgives through the power of Christ – He who IS forgiveness for sin. The Church can be no less forgiving of sin as He is, and the same is true for us. If Dr. Nathanson can be saved, we all can. And we can pray for everyone including the Dr. Nathansons of this world to experience conversion.
The example of Dr. Nathanson, his baptism and funeral brings this one thing to mind: conversion.
As we pray for the repose of Dr. Nathanson’s soul – and petition God to show all His mercy to him – we should also pray for the conversion of those who continue to believe in the lie of abortion.
Lord, harden not their hearts. Lord, show them your mercy!"
Mary Help of Christians, pray for us!
Most people know the story of Dr. Nathanson, a one-time abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL Pro-Choice America. By his own count Dr. Nathanson partcipated in the deaths of 75,000 unborn babies. But, after witnessing a sonogram, the Doctor had a change of heart, a conversion, and became one of the most important voices for life in the United States. Think how hard it is to admit we are wrong, even in small things, and then reflect on what moral courage Dr. Nathanson's acceptance and conversion must have required! And his example must surely have encouraged others like Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Abby Johnson, not to mention many whose names we will never know. Tom writes:
"Today it was made known that Archbishop Timothy Dolan will celebrate Dr. Nathanson’s funeral Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.
Imagine, someone who brought about the deaths of 75,000 human beings and who was instrumental in ushering in the era of legalized abortion being granted a Catholic burial.
But thus is the infinite mercy of Christ.
Tom then quotes his father, canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters:
My father writes movingly about this:
'Nathanson’s baptism at the hands of Cdl. John O’Connor in 1996 completely forgave him all his sins up to that point (all of his 75,000 supervised or directly-performed abortions, including one of his own children, his multiple divorces, and God knows what else) and totally paid all of the punishments due for such sins. CCC 1263. Everything, everything, Nathanson did up to the day of his baptism is buried forever in Christ.'
Tom continues:
This is an extraordinary point to reflect upon.
After all, the Church, in the debate over abortion, is often portrayed as unfeeling, harsh, unforgiving. I think critics of the Church who say such things should take note of Dr. Nathanson’s Catholic burial.
In truth, nothing is more forgiving than the Church because the Church forgives through the power of Christ – He who IS forgiveness for sin. The Church can be no less forgiving of sin as He is, and the same is true for us. If Dr. Nathanson can be saved, we all can. And we can pray for everyone including the Dr. Nathansons of this world to experience conversion.
The example of Dr. Nathanson, his baptism and funeral brings this one thing to mind: conversion.
As we pray for the repose of Dr. Nathanson’s soul – and petition God to show all His mercy to him – we should also pray for the conversion of those who continue to believe in the lie of abortion.
Lord, harden not their hearts. Lord, show them your mercy!"
Mary Help of Christians, pray for us!
Dear Lord!
LifeSiteNews is now reporting that Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario may remove baby Joseph Maraachli's life support, and that the hospital is denying his parents' a private visit with their own son. The parents are only allowed to see the boy with a security guard present.
Hospital threatens to remove baby Joseph’s life support anyway - parents denied private visitations
"While things were looking up for the parents of Joseph Maraachli this past weekend, the picture has now become bleaker. In the latest twist in the case the London hospital where their dying son is being cared for is seeking to remove the parents’ decision-making power after they refused to have him taken off life support. Hospital security is also denying them private visitations....
With the help of pro-life and anti-euthanasia advocates, Joseph’s parents have been trying to have their son moved to a hospital in Michigan. London’s Victoria Hospital, where Joseph has been treated since October, sent the records to the Michigan hospital Monday and the parents are still waiting to hear back.
But hospital officials now say that they may go ahead with removing Joseph’s life support even if the Michigan hospital or another agrees to the transfer. Because the parents refused to have Joseph’s life support removed Monday, the hospital has asked the Office of the Public Guardian to assume decision-making power. That office is expected to take a couple days, but could order his life support removed at any point."
Mary Help of Christians, Pray for us!
Hospital threatens to remove baby Joseph’s life support anyway - parents denied private visitations
"While things were looking up for the parents of Joseph Maraachli this past weekend, the picture has now become bleaker. In the latest twist in the case the London hospital where their dying son is being cared for is seeking to remove the parents’ decision-making power after they refused to have him taken off life support. Hospital security is also denying them private visitations....
With the help of pro-life and anti-euthanasia advocates, Joseph’s parents have been trying to have their son moved to a hospital in Michigan. London’s Victoria Hospital, where Joseph has been treated since October, sent the records to the Michigan hospital Monday and the parents are still waiting to hear back.
But hospital officials now say that they may go ahead with removing Joseph’s life support even if the Michigan hospital or another agrees to the transfer. Because the parents refused to have Joseph’s life support removed Monday, the hospital has asked the Office of the Public Guardian to assume decision-making power. That office is expected to take a couple days, but could order his life support removed at any point."
Mary Help of Christians, Pray for us!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Baby Joseph Maraachli Granted Reprieve
Good news, background here. LifeSiteNews reports:
"One-year-old Joseph Maraachli of Windsor, Ontario, who was to have his life support removed Monday at 10 am. against his parents’ wishes, will now not die on the day that Ontario residents celebrate as Family Day. A hustle by pro-life and anti-euthanasia groups resulted in a change in legal counsel, which has led to at least a temporary stay of removal of the child’s ventilator. "
In a statement released today, London Health Sciences Centre said it has received a request from a Michigan hospital 'to review Baby Joseph Maraachli’s medical information regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of a potential patient transfer.'
'Our focus at this time is to work with the family on a patient care plan and to continue to provide compassionate and dignified care and comfort to Baby Joseph,' said the statement.
"One-year-old Joseph Maraachli of Windsor, Ontario, who was to have his life support removed Monday at 10 am. against his parents’ wishes, will now not die on the day that Ontario residents celebrate as Family Day. A hustle by pro-life and anti-euthanasia groups resulted in a change in legal counsel, which has led to at least a temporary stay of removal of the child’s ventilator. "
Alex Schadenberg, head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, informed LifeSiteNews Sunday evening that negotiations are underway to transfer Joseph to a hospital in Michigan.
In a statement released today, London Health Sciences Centre said it has received a request from a Michigan hospital 'to review Baby Joseph Maraachli’s medical information regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of a potential patient transfer.'
'Our focus at this time is to work with the family on a patient care plan and to continue to provide compassionate and dignified care and comfort to Baby Joseph,' said the statement.
Thanks to LifeSiteNews, which stayed on the story and provided contact info for various Canadian officials, and thanks to all who called or emailed them.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Doctor Weighs in on Wisconsin Doctors' Phony Excuses
I was waiting to hear what other members of the medical profession would have to say about those Wisconsin doctors--and I did not have to wait long.
A physician who blogs under the handle "Unlikely Hospitalist" has a few choice words for the professionalism of his Wisconsin colleagues. What's more, he has identified them.
(NOTE: We had mistaken "Unlikely Hospitalist for "Happy Hospitalist," who has a few choice words of his own.)
"What a week it has been in Madison Wisconsin, of all places. First we have teachers roaming the capital petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Not so bad, until they call in sick, en masse, and bring their students with them as political pawns. Then we have the duly elected State Senators abdicating their sworn obligation to represent the people of Wisconsin in the state senate and literally running away to the Tilted Kilt. Now we have "Doctors" giving out sick notes like they hand out flyers in New York's Times Square.
Being sick of the Wisconsin Governor is not billable code as far as Medicare is concerned and daring an interviewer to get in the middle of a private consultation between a patient and caregiver in the middle of thousands of people is not what is meant by bedside manner. What a joke. All this professionalism is making me sick...
This brings me to Dr. Lou Sanner. (the man in the first video in the previous post). He is a family practitioner whose ego, no doubt, precedes his intellect. I have seen his type before as I meandered through medical school and residency. He is the doc who looks down his nose at you as you struggle for the esoteric answer to some zebra diagnosis, all the while pretending to know the answer himself. Well, I am not a resident anymore and what this fellow has done is professionally obscene. He has abrogated his professional responsibility for political expediency....
Now I don't know the legality of his actions, although I am sure that the Wisconsin Medical Society may have some thoughts on the matter.
Is it really his position that he is conducting medical examinations in the midst of thousands of people while attaining a right to privacy? One of the most important things in a genuine patient/physician interaction is honesty and this dude is dishonest!"
Unlikely Hospitalist goes on to ID three of the other doctors who are doing this. (NOTE: See comment #4 below, referring to Anne Eglash. The commenter says Dr. Eglash was not in the demonstration, nor even in Madison at the time. If that is true, I apologize for relaying incorrect information, and, awaiting confirmation, have removed Dr. Eglash's name from the following quotation).
"He and his colleagues . . . Hannah Keevil, and James Shropshire should know better. Undoubtedly they do know better, but let political emotion trump professional integrity."
As we said in the previous post, you can voice your concern about this (and them) to the Medical Examing Board of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. The email address is:
DRLBoards@wisconsin.gov
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
A physician who blogs under the handle "Unlikely Hospitalist" has a few choice words for the professionalism of his Wisconsin colleagues. What's more, he has identified them.
(NOTE: We had mistaken "Unlikely Hospitalist for "Happy Hospitalist," who has a few choice words of his own.)
"What a week it has been in Madison Wisconsin, of all places. First we have teachers roaming the capital petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Not so bad, until they call in sick, en masse, and bring their students with them as political pawns. Then we have the duly elected State Senators abdicating their sworn obligation to represent the people of Wisconsin in the state senate and literally running away to the Tilted Kilt. Now we have "Doctors" giving out sick notes like they hand out flyers in New York's Times Square.
Being sick of the Wisconsin Governor is not billable code as far as Medicare is concerned and daring an interviewer to get in the middle of a private consultation between a patient and caregiver in the middle of thousands of people is not what is meant by bedside manner. What a joke. All this professionalism is making me sick...
This brings me to Dr. Lou Sanner. (the man in the first video in the previous post). He is a family practitioner whose ego, no doubt, precedes his intellect. I have seen his type before as I meandered through medical school and residency. He is the doc who looks down his nose at you as you struggle for the esoteric answer to some zebra diagnosis, all the while pretending to know the answer himself. Well, I am not a resident anymore and what this fellow has done is professionally obscene. He has abrogated his professional responsibility for political expediency....
Now I don't know the legality of his actions, although I am sure that the Wisconsin Medical Society may have some thoughts on the matter.
Is it really his position that he is conducting medical examinations in the midst of thousands of people while attaining a right to privacy? One of the most important things in a genuine patient/physician interaction is honesty and this dude is dishonest!"
Unlikely Hospitalist goes on to ID three of the other doctors who are doing this. (NOTE: See comment #4 below, referring to Anne Eglash. The commenter says Dr. Eglash was not in the demonstration, nor even in Madison at the time. If that is true, I apologize for relaying incorrect information, and, awaiting confirmation, have removed Dr. Eglash's name from the following quotation).
"He and his colleagues . . . Hannah Keevil, and James Shropshire should know better. Undoubtedly they do know better, but let political emotion trump professional integrity."
As we said in the previous post, you can voice your concern about this (and them) to the Medical Examing Board of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. The email address is:
DRLBoards@wisconsin.gov
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
More Wisconsin: Doctors Caught Writing Phony Excuses for Teachers
Shocking, and probably actionable.
We are seeing a wholesale disregard for the common good, the rule of law, and the right to self-government by the Left in the State of Wisconsin. It's very similar to the way those on the Left have tried to impose counterfeit marriage on other states.
1) An elected governor, and a majority in the State Senate, attempt to carry out their mandate.
2)In response the Democratic legislators flee their jobs and their state so that a vote (which they know they will lose) cannot be held.
3) Wisconsin teachers, and their supports, flood the capitol to try and intimidate the remaining Senators. The teachers walk off their jobs to do this, lying about being sick, thus forcing public schools to close.
4) Now, Wisconsin doctors, who support the public sector unions which are bankrupting the state, have been caught on film writing phony excuses for those teachers who pretended to be sick. It's an ever-growing web of corruption. Watch one of the videos:
USA Today reported: "Doctors from numerous hospitals set up a station near the Capitol to provide notes to explain public employees' absences from work. Family physician Lou Sanner, 59, of Madison, said he had given out hundreds (!) of notes. Many of the people he spoke with seemed to be suffering from stress, he said."
Ann Althouse has another video:
You can voice your concern about this to the Medical Examing Board of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. The email address is:
DRLBoards@wisconsin.gov
We are seeing a wholesale disregard for the common good, the rule of law, and the right to self-government by the Left in the State of Wisconsin. It's very similar to the way those on the Left have tried to impose counterfeit marriage on other states.
1) An elected governor, and a majority in the State Senate, attempt to carry out their mandate.
2)In response the Democratic legislators flee their jobs and their state so that a vote (which they know they will lose) cannot be held.
3) Wisconsin teachers, and their supports, flood the capitol to try and intimidate the remaining Senators. The teachers walk off their jobs to do this, lying about being sick, thus forcing public schools to close.
4) Now, Wisconsin doctors, who support the public sector unions which are bankrupting the state, have been caught on film writing phony excuses for those teachers who pretended to be sick. It's an ever-growing web of corruption. Watch one of the videos:
USA Today reported: "Doctors from numerous hospitals set up a station near the Capitol to provide notes to explain public employees' absences from work. Family physician Lou Sanner, 59, of Madison, said he had given out hundreds (!) of notes. Many of the people he spoke with seemed to be suffering from stress, he said."
Ann Althouse has another video:
You can voice your concern about this to the Medical Examing Board of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. The email address is:
DRLBoards@wisconsin.gov
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wisconsin Teachers Sick, But Promise They'll be Better on Tuesday
The ridiculousness of the Wisconsin teachers, courtesy Katrina Trinko:
"In Wisconsin, it’s illegal for teachers to strike.
That’s why teachers have been calling out “sick,” instead of declaring an outright strike.
In Madison, schools had to be closed Wednesday, Thursday, and today, due to the number of teachers out.
Must be a plague.
The desperate school district went to court, arguing that the teacher absences constituted an illegal strike.
But Dane County Circuit Court judge Maryann Sum decided today that the teachers’ absences did not count as a strike.
However, Madison Teachers Inc., the union for Madison school teachers, has promised that teachers will return to work on Tuesday."
Plague's over.
"In Wisconsin, it’s illegal for teachers to strike.
That’s why teachers have been calling out “sick,” instead of declaring an outright strike.
In Madison, schools had to be closed Wednesday, Thursday, and today, due to the number of teachers out.
Must be a plague.
The desperate school district went to court, arguing that the teacher absences constituted an illegal strike.
But Dane County Circuit Court judge Maryann Sum decided today that the teachers’ absences did not count as a strike.
However, Madison Teachers Inc., the union for Madison school teachers, has promised that teachers will return to work on Tuesday."
Plague's over.
Nancy Pelosi Calls Legislators/Teachers Abandoning Jobs "Democracy in Action"
She really does.
She also says Wisconsin's "public servants" must have "a seat at the table." Hard to do when they skipped town.
Meanwhile a poll shows 64% of Americans agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and think government workers should not be allowed to unionize. The poll was taken February 4-8. I'd imagine the numbers would be even higher now.
She also says Wisconsin's "public servants" must have "a seat at the table." Hard to do when they skipped town.
Meanwhile a poll shows 64% of Americans agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and think government workers should not be allowed to unionize. The poll was taken February 4-8. I'd imagine the numbers would be even higher now.
Lila on the Congressional De-Funding of Planned Parenthood
Lila Rose, who, with her associates, has done so much to expose the evil of Planned Parenthood, said today at LifeNews:“We applaud those in Congress who championed the safety of women, young girls and children today, and refused to funnel hundreds of millions of tax dollars into an organization that furthers the trafficking of minors and enables sexual abusers. We now turn our attention to the Senate. Now they must examine the facts and move to pull the plug on subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s exploitation of the most vulnerable among us. The case to cease funding is crystal clear. But for any Senator who remains unsure, imagine explaining to your constituents that you voted to keep sending $350 million of their tax dollars to an ‘non-profit’ that puts young girls in harm’s way and made $63 million in profits by performing over 300,000 abortions last year. It’s time once and for all to stop financing these activities.”
God bless this young lady!
Kathryn Jean Lopez profiles Miss Rose here.
Above: Miss Rose at the 2010 Walk for Life West Coast.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
House De-Funds Planned Parenthood
Good news, and about time.
MSNBC reports that the bill passed big, 240-185, with ten Democrats deserting the Party of Death to join the GOP majority, while seven Republicans voted against the measure.
From Christian Newswire:
"U.S. Congressman Mike Pence hailed the passage this afternoon of an amendment he authored that eliminates federal funding for Planned Parenthood for Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment passed with bipartisan support by a margin of 240 to 185:
"This afternoon’s vote is a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life. By banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Congress has taken a stand for millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America.
"I commend my colleagues in both parties for taking a stand for taxpayers and a stand for life. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation and end federal funding of Planned Parenthood once and for all."
On to the Senate.
MSNBC reports that the bill passed big, 240-185, with ten Democrats deserting the Party of Death to join the GOP majority, while seven Republicans voted against the measure.
From Christian Newswire:
"U.S. Congressman Mike Pence hailed the passage this afternoon of an amendment he authored that eliminates federal funding for Planned Parenthood for Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment passed with bipartisan support by a margin of 240 to 185:
"This afternoon’s vote is a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life. By banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood, Congress has taken a stand for millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America.
"I commend my colleagues in both parties for taking a stand for taxpayers and a stand for life. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation and end federal funding of Planned Parenthood once and for all."
On to the Senate.
More on Wisconsin: FDR on Public Sector Unions
Professor Bainbidge has a GREAT column today called "The Case Against Public Sector Unions." It includes quotations from an article by Political Science Professor Daniel DiSalvo of CCNY.
"Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable."
Wow. FDR is describing exactly what is happening in Wisconsin. Emphasis added. Professor DiSalvo also quotes a New York state Supreme Court judge, writing in 1943:
"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."
Wow again.
h/t Instapundit
"Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable."
Wow. FDR is describing exactly what is happening in Wisconsin. Emphasis added. Professor DiSalvo also quotes a New York state Supreme Court judge, writing in 1943:
"To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."
Wow again.
h/t Instapundit
Yuval Levin on Washington and Wisconsin
The great Yuval Levin, writing at "The Corner" on what the events of this week in Washington and Wisconsin (and Ohio, Idaho, etc) are teaching us: This is a great moment in American poloitical history.
"Too often, there is not much of a difference between the parties, and people inclined to care about policy are driven to call a pox on both their houses. But as this remarkable week has shown, this is not one of those times. The Democrats are shaming themselves on the premise that American voters can’t handle the truth and that there is political advantage in appealing to the country’s worst instincts. Republicans, whether by choice or by default, are taking up the challenge of telling voters the truth about our problems and persuading them that effective, responsible, and gradual solutions are possible — without taking benefits from current seniors and without abandoning our obligation to fellow citizens in need. There have not been many opportunities for conservatives to be proud of being Republicans in recent years, but this week has certainly been one."
Read the whole thing.
"Too often, there is not much of a difference between the parties, and people inclined to care about policy are driven to call a pox on both their houses. But as this remarkable week has shown, this is not one of those times. The Democrats are shaming themselves on the premise that American voters can’t handle the truth and that there is political advantage in appealing to the country’s worst instincts. Republicans, whether by choice or by default, are taking up the challenge of telling voters the truth about our problems and persuading them that effective, responsible, and gradual solutions are possible — without taking benefits from current seniors and without abandoning our obligation to fellow citizens in need. There have not been many opportunities for conservatives to be proud of being Republicans in recent years, but this week has certainly been one."
Read the whole thing.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Rolled Over to Friday
Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has been staying up late to cover the story.
Congressman Mike Pence is leading the charge--God bless him! And the young people over at Catholic Vote write:
“Taxpayers provide Planned Parenthood $363 million a year. That means one-third of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget comes from the hard working Americans – including you and me! If our tax money is paying for salaries, or rent or other expenses, that frees up their other money to be spent on abortion.”
Let's pray the de-funding goes through tomorrow.
Congressman Mike Pence is leading the charge--God bless him! And the young people over at Catholic Vote write:
“Taxpayers provide Planned Parenthood $363 million a year. That means one-third of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget comes from the hard working Americans – including you and me! If our tax money is paying for salaries, or rent or other expenses, that frees up their other money to be spent on abortion.”
Let's pray the de-funding goes through tomorrow.
John Hinderaker on Wisconsin
John Hinderaker, at the Powerline blog, comments on the public sector unions' behavior in the state of Wisconsin:
"A common theme of the union demonstrators in Madison today was that Governor Walker is a 'dictator.' This showed up on sign after sign. It sheds light, I think, on how public union members in particular, and liberals in general, think. What is going on here is that the voters of Wisconsin have elected a Republican Governor and–overwhelmingly–a Republican legislature, precisely so that they can get the state’s budget under control.
What the Democrats don’t like isn’t dictatorship, it is democracy. That is why the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate fled the state en masse–they prevented a quorum, so that a vote they were going to lose couldn’t take place. Once again, it is democracy they are trying to frustrate, not dictatorship.
One could make the point more broadly about the organized labor movement. The unions' top priority is to eliminate the secret ballot in union certification elections. Why? The secret ballot has been the cornerstone of American labor democracy for generations. In the early days, it was assumed that the secret ballot was needed to protect workers from possible retaliation by employers if they voted for the union. That is no longer the case. Employers now universally favor the secret ballot. It is unions who are trying to abolish it through card check legislation. Why? So their goons can threaten to beat up, or worse, any employee who won't sign the card. The last thing labor unions want is democracy. They want thugocracy, as was on display in Madison today."
Even the kindly and mild-mannered Jay Nordlinger is expressing outrage.
"At this critical hour, Wisconsin’s elected officials should remember whom they work for. And they should take courage in that remembering. They work for all the citizens, not just the ones who can take time off — paid — to shout and bully."
"A common theme of the union demonstrators in Madison today was that Governor Walker is a 'dictator.' This showed up on sign after sign. It sheds light, I think, on how public union members in particular, and liberals in general, think. What is going on here is that the voters of Wisconsin have elected a Republican Governor and–overwhelmingly–a Republican legislature, precisely so that they can get the state’s budget under control.
What the Democrats don’t like isn’t dictatorship, it is democracy. That is why the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate fled the state en masse–they prevented a quorum, so that a vote they were going to lose couldn’t take place. Once again, it is democracy they are trying to frustrate, not dictatorship.
One could make the point more broadly about the organized labor movement. The unions' top priority is to eliminate the secret ballot in union certification elections. Why? The secret ballot has been the cornerstone of American labor democracy for generations. In the early days, it was assumed that the secret ballot was needed to protect workers from possible retaliation by employers if they voted for the union. That is no longer the case. Employers now universally favor the secret ballot. It is unions who are trying to abolish it through card check legislation. Why? So their goons can threaten to beat up, or worse, any employee who won't sign the card. The last thing labor unions want is democracy. They want thugocracy, as was on display in Madison today."
Even the kindly and mild-mannered Jay Nordlinger is expressing outrage.
"At this critical hour, Wisconsin’s elected officials should remember whom they work for. And they should take courage in that remembering. They work for all the citizens, not just the ones who can take time off — paid — to shout and bully."
"Outside of court, the boy's father broke down in tears and called doctors 'killers'."
A horrific story out of Canada.
From the Toronto Sun:
"A court appeal to stop doctors from removing a 13-month-old baby boy's breathing tube was denied Thursday, ending a Windsor couple's tragic fight to take their son home to die.
The parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die.
Joseph Maraachli, who's been in the London Health Science Centre's pediatric critical care unit since last fall, suffers from a terminal respiratory and neurological disorder.
Ontario's consent and capacity board recently agreed with doctors last month the boy's breathing tube be removed.
His parents, who lost a daughter to the same disorder eight years ago, had hoped to have a tracheotomy inserted and be allowed to take the child home to die peacefully.
Again, the parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die. They simply want to bring their own son to their own home, so he can die surrounded by those who love him. A government is denying them this right.
In her decision, an emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady said it was "a sad and difficult case" and praised the child's parents, Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, for their dedication.
That "praise" is simply adding insult to injury.
But she said the baby has no brain stem reflex and is in a permanent vegetative state.
A deadline to take the baby off life support had been set for Friday, but Rady ordered the family to comply by Monday at 10 a.m., "to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes."
That's sounds just like a movie villain telling his victim "say your prayers" before shooting him.
Out side of court, the boy's father broke down in tears and called doctors "killers."
Which certainly makes sense.
Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews has more, including contact emails.
From the Toronto Sun:
"A court appeal to stop doctors from removing a 13-month-old baby boy's breathing tube was denied Thursday, ending a Windsor couple's tragic fight to take their son home to die.
The parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die.
Joseph Maraachli, who's been in the London Health Science Centre's pediatric critical care unit since last fall, suffers from a terminal respiratory and neurological disorder.
Ontario's consent and capacity board recently agreed with doctors last month the boy's breathing tube be removed.
His parents, who lost a daughter to the same disorder eight years ago, had hoped to have a tracheotomy inserted and be allowed to take the child home to die peacefully.
Again, the parents accept that, barring a miracle, it as almost certain the little boy will die. They simply want to bring their own son to their own home, so he can die surrounded by those who love him. A government is denying them this right.
In her decision, an emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady said it was "a sad and difficult case" and praised the child's parents, Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader, for their dedication.
That "praise" is simply adding insult to injury.
But she said the baby has no brain stem reflex and is in a permanent vegetative state.
A deadline to take the baby off life support had been set for Friday, but Rady ordered the family to comply by Monday at 10 a.m., "to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes."
That's sounds just like a movie villain telling his victim "say your prayers" before shooting him.
Out side of court, the boy's father broke down in tears and called doctors "killers."
Which certainly makes sense.
Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews has more, including contact emails.
THE LORD'S PRAYER
I think you will enjoy this. It is very well done. How often have we prayed and not really known what we have asked for? Have a blessed day.
-THE-LORD'S PRAYER
and GOD (in red type) in response.
*********
Our Father Who Art In Heaven.
Yes?
Don't interrupt me. I'm praying.
But -- you called ME!
Called you?No, I didn't call you.I'm praying.Our Father who art in Heaven.
But -- you called ME!
Called you?No, I didn't call you.I'm praying.Our Father who art in Heaven.
There -- you did it again!
Did what?
Called ME.You said,"Our Father who art in Heaven"Well, here I am..What's on your mind?
But I didn't mean anything by it. I was, you know, just saying my prayers for the day.I always say the Lord's Prayer.It makes me feel good,kind of like fulfilling a duty.Well, all right.
Go on.
Okay, Hallowed be thy name .
Hold it right there.What do you mean by that?
By what?
By "Hallowed be thy name"?
It means, it means . . good grief, I don't know what it means.How in the world should I know?It's just a part of the prayer.By the way, what does it mean?
It means honored, holy, wonderful.
It means honored, holy, wonderful.
Hey, that makes sense.. I never thought about what 'hallowed' meant before.
Thanks...
Thy Kingdom come,Thy will be done,on earth as it is in Heaven.
Do you really mean that?
Sure, why not?
What are you doing about it?
Thy Kingdom come,Thy will be done,on earth as it is in Heaven.
Do you really mean that?
Sure, why not?
What are you doing about it?
Doing? Why, nothing, I guess.
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got
control,of everything down here like you have up
there..We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
Yes, I know; but, have I got control of you?
Well, I go to church.
That isn't what I asked you.What about your bad temper?You've really got a problem there, you know.And then there's the way you spend your money -- all on yourself.And what about the kind of books you read ?
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got
control,of everything down here like you have up
there..We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
Yes, I know; but, have I got control of you?
Well, I go to church.
That isn't what I asked you.What about your bad temper?You've really got a problem there, you know.And then there's the way you spend your money -- all on yourself.And what about the kind of books you read ?
Now hold on just a minute!Stop picking on me!I'm just as good as some of the rest
of those people at church!
Excuse ME..I thought you were prayingfor my will to be done.If that is to happen,it will have to start with the oneswho are praying for it.Like you -- for example ....
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.Now that you mention it,I could probably name some others.
So could I.
I haven't thought about it very much until now,but I really would like to cut out some of those things.I would like to, you know, be really free.
of those people at church!
Excuse ME..I thought you were prayingfor my will to be done.If that is to happen,it will have to start with the oneswho are praying for it.Like you -- for example ....
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.Now that you mention it,I could probably name some others.
So could I.
I haven't thought about it very much until now,but I really would like to cut out some of those things.I would like to, you know, be really free.
Good.Now we're getting somewhere.
We'll work together -- You and ME.I'm proud of You.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,I need to finish up here.This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.Give us this day, our daily bread.
You need to cut out the bread..You're overweight as it is.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?Here I was doing my religious duty,and all of a sudden you break in and remind me of all my hang-ups.
Praying is a dangerous thing...You just might get what you ask for.Remember, you called ME -- and here I am.It's too late to stop now. Keep praying. ( pause ... . )Well, go on.
We'll work together -- You and ME.I'm proud of You.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,I need to finish up here.This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.Give us this day, our daily bread.
You need to cut out the bread..You're overweight as it is.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?Here I was doing my religious duty,and all of a sudden you break in and remind me of all my hang-ups.
Praying is a dangerous thing...You just might get what you ask for.Remember, you called ME -- and here I am.It's too late to stop now. Keep praying. ( pause ... . )Well, go on.
I'm scared to.
Scared? Of what?
Scared? Of what?
I know what you'll say.
Try ME.
Try ME.
Forgive us our sins,
as we forgive those who sin against us.
What about Ann?
See? I knew it!I knew you would bring her up!Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.She never paid back the money she owes me.I've sworn to get even with her!
But -- your prayer --What about your prayer?
I didn't -- mean it...
as we forgive those who sin against us.
What about Ann?
See? I knew it!I knew you would bring her up!Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.She never paid back the money she owes me.I've sworn to get even with her!
But -- your prayer --What about your prayer?
I didn't -- mean it...
Well, at least you're honest.But, it's quite a load carrying around all that
bitterness and resentment isn't it?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.Boy, have I got some plans for her.She'll wish she had never been born.
bitterness and resentment isn't it?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.Boy, have I got some plans for her.She'll wish she had never been born.
No, you won't feel any better.You'll feel worse.Revenge isn't sweet.You know how unhappy you are -- Well, I can change that.
You can? How?
Forgive Ann. Then, I'll forgive you; And the hate and the sin, will be Ann's problem -- not yours.
You can? How?
Forgive Ann. Then, I'll forgive you; And the hate and the sin, will be Ann's problem -- not yours.
You will have settled the problems far as you are concerned.
Oh, you know, you're right. You always are. And more than I want revenge, I want to be right with You . . (sigh).All right, all right . ...I forgive her.
There now! Wonderful! How do you feel?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.Not bad at all!In fact, I feel pretty great!You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight. I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
Oh, you know, you're right. You always are. And more than I want revenge, I want to be right with You . . (sigh).All right, all right . ...I forgive her.
There now! Wonderful! How do you feel?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.Not bad at all!In fact, I feel pretty great!You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight. I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
Yeah, I know.But, you're not through with your prayer, are you?
Go on.
Go on.
Oh, all right. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Good! Good! I'll do that.Just don't put yourself in a place where you can be tempted.
What do you mean by that?
You know what I mean.
Yeah. I know.
Okay. Go ahead. Finish your prayer.
For Thine is the kingdom,and the power,and the glory forever.Amen.
Good! Good! I'll do that.Just don't put yourself in a place where you can be tempted.
What do you mean by that?
You know what I mean.
Yeah. I know.
Okay. Go ahead. Finish your prayer.
For Thine is the kingdom,and the power,and the glory forever.Amen.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A Busy Day: CA Supreme Court to Rule on Prop 8 "Standing" Question
California Catholic Daily has the court's press release. It reads, in part:
The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011.
The briefing schedule set by the court follows:
• The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.
• A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.
• Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011.
• Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011.
The order states, “The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines.”
Meanwhile, over at "The Volokh Conspiracy" law blog, Professor Dale Carpenter, a respectable supporter of counterfeit "marriage," examines possibilities, and makes this observation:
"Whatever the outcome in the state court and the 9th Circuit on the standing issue, the final resolution of the Prop 8 case has likely been delayed well into 2012 and beyond. That has one immediate consequence. It makes any effort to repeal Prop 8 very unlikely in November 2012. Donors, already hesitant to fund a repeal drive while Perry moves forward, will be even less likely to do so while there is so much legal flux and no resolution in time to put a ballot effort together. That means that if Prop 8 is to be eradicated before at least November 2014 it must be by judicial decision."
The California Supreme Court shortened the normal briefing schedule to expedite consideration and resolution of the issues in the matter and to accommodate oral argument as early as September 2011.
The briefing schedule set by the court follows:
• The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.
• A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.
• Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011.
• Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011.
The order states, “The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines.”
Meanwhile, over at "The Volokh Conspiracy" law blog, Professor Dale Carpenter, a respectable supporter of counterfeit "marriage," examines possibilities, and makes this observation:
"Whatever the outcome in the state court and the 9th Circuit on the standing issue, the final resolution of the Prop 8 case has likely been delayed well into 2012 and beyond. That has one immediate consequence. It makes any effort to repeal Prop 8 very unlikely in November 2012. Donors, already hesitant to fund a repeal drive while Perry moves forward, will be even less likely to do so while there is so much legal flux and no resolution in time to put a ballot effort together. That means that if Prop 8 is to be eradicated before at least November 2014 it must be by judicial decision."
First SF, Now NY. Another Abortion Activist out in Financial Scandal
Last year, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's long-time Director Dian Harrison was fired in the midst of a financial scandal. Now it's an even bigger fish, NARAL Pro-Choice New York's ex-President Kelli Conlin.
Steve Ertelt at Life News describes Conlin:
"Kelli Conlin was the pro-abortion giant of New York — essentially running the pro-abortion movement in the Empire State. That is, until she was forced to quit recently after allegations related to massive financial misconduct."
On Tuesday, as the story developed, the New York Times reported a statement from two NARAL spokesmen:
“No conclusions have been reached based on the information gathered thus far, and there has been no determination as to whether there was any wrongdoing that would require the notification of the legal or regulatory authorities,” Ms. Howard and Ms. Steck said in their statement.
But today's New York Post reported that the "legal or regulatory" authorities aren't waiting for any notification from NARAL:
"ALBANY – Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance launched a criminal probe today into wild overspending by an influential pro-choice charity that counts the state attorney general’s father as its treasurer.
The investigation came on the heels of a bombshell internal audit that found ex-NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin siphoned more than $100,000 from the abortion rights group to support her own lavish lifestyle.
The leaked audit, which was first detailed Tuesday night on the State of Politics blog, questioned the longtime NARAL chief’s spending on meals, high-end clothing, a summer rental in the Hamptons and more than $100,000 on a car service she ordered to chauffeur her kids to school.
The Post story also noted that in New York, just like in California, the Democratic Party and abortion activists are pretty much interchangable:
"The allegations against one of New York’s most high-profile Democrat-allied activist groups could have far-reaching political implications, particularly for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman, whose office regulates charities, received the abortion-rights group’s potent endorsement during last year’s contentious Democratic attorney general primary.
The attorney general’s father, Irwin Schneiderman, was NARAL’s treasurer during the period covered by the audit.
Schneiderman’s office, after promising comment for hours to respond, issued a statement late today afternoon pledging to name special counsel to handle 'any potential investigation or agency action' into NARAL.
'Because of the nature of his father’s association with the organization, Attorney General Schneiderman will recuse himself from any investigation into the matter,' Schneiderman Danny Kanner said.
Meanwhile, Vance was already "actively investigating" the charity, according to a source familiar with the probe."
Steve Ertelt at Life News describes Conlin:
"Kelli Conlin was the pro-abortion giant of New York — essentially running the pro-abortion movement in the Empire State. That is, until she was forced to quit recently after allegations related to massive financial misconduct."
On Tuesday, as the story developed, the New York Times reported a statement from two NARAL spokesmen:
“No conclusions have been reached based on the information gathered thus far, and there has been no determination as to whether there was any wrongdoing that would require the notification of the legal or regulatory authorities,” Ms. Howard and Ms. Steck said in their statement.
But today's New York Post reported that the "legal or regulatory" authorities aren't waiting for any notification from NARAL:
"ALBANY – Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance launched a criminal probe today into wild overspending by an influential pro-choice charity that counts the state attorney general’s father as its treasurer.
The investigation came on the heels of a bombshell internal audit that found ex-NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin siphoned more than $100,000 from the abortion rights group to support her own lavish lifestyle.
The leaked audit, which was first detailed Tuesday night on the State of Politics blog, questioned the longtime NARAL chief’s spending on meals, high-end clothing, a summer rental in the Hamptons and more than $100,000 on a car service she ordered to chauffeur her kids to school.
The Post story also noted that in New York, just like in California, the Democratic Party and abortion activists are pretty much interchangable:
"The allegations against one of New York’s most high-profile Democrat-allied activist groups could have far-reaching political implications, particularly for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman, whose office regulates charities, received the abortion-rights group’s potent endorsement during last year’s contentious Democratic attorney general primary.
The attorney general’s father, Irwin Schneiderman, was NARAL’s treasurer during the period covered by the audit.
Schneiderman’s office, after promising comment for hours to respond, issued a statement late today afternoon pledging to name special counsel to handle 'any potential investigation or agency action' into NARAL.
'Because of the nature of his father’s association with the organization, Attorney General Schneiderman will recuse himself from any investigation into the matter,' Schneiderman Danny Kanner said.
Meanwhile, Vance was already "actively investigating" the charity, according to a source familiar with the probe."
US Supreme Court Asked to Review "Catholic League v. San Francisco"
Thomas More Law Center Goes to Supreme Court
On Tuesday, February 15, The Thomas More Law Center filed a petition (read here) with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of October 22, 2010, which upheld San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ virulently anti-Catholic resolution 168-06. Adopted unanimously on March 21, 2006, resolution 168-06 refers, among other things, to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ” “defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignorant.”
The case has its genesis in the decision of at least two separate branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco) to facilitate the adoption of children by same-sex households. Those actions compelled the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to reiterate its 2003 statement, and instruct Catholic adoption agencies to stop placing children in same-sex households. On March 13, 2006, Cardinal William Levada wrote “The reasons given in the (2003)document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies." The Cardinal’s response to the actions of Catholic Charities resulted, a week later, in the issuance of Resolution 168-06, which in its turn resulted in the lawsuit of the two San Francisco Catholics and the Catholic League.
Today's TMLC press release announcing the appeal described the Ninth Circuit's October, 2010:
“This past October, in a fractured, eleven judge opinion in which 3 judges concluded that TMLC should prevail, 3 judges concluded that the City should prevail, and 5 judges concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court.
As Circuit Judge Kleinfeld appropriately observed in his opinion, which, unfortunately, received only two additional votes:
The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”
Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, noted an apparent incongruity in the court’s juruisprudence:
“The Ninth Circuit prohibits a government display of the passive symbol of the war memorial cross on Mt. Soledad, yet it expressly approves of the government’s explicit condemnation of Catholic religious beliefs. This outrageous double standard is made possible by the Supreme Court’s flawed tests by which it interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—an interpretation that is hostile toward religion.”
On Tuesday, February 15, The Thomas More Law Center filed a petition (read here) with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it reverse a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision of October 22, 2010, which upheld San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors’ virulently anti-Catholic resolution 168-06. Adopted unanimously on March 21, 2006, resolution 168-06 refers, among other things, to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ” “defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignorant.”
The case has its genesis in the decision of at least two separate branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco) to facilitate the adoption of children by same-sex households. Those actions compelled the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to reiterate its 2003 statement, and instruct Catholic adoption agencies to stop placing children in same-sex households. On March 13, 2006, Cardinal William Levada wrote “The reasons given in the (2003)document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies." The Cardinal’s response to the actions of Catholic Charities resulted, a week later, in the issuance of Resolution 168-06, which in its turn resulted in the lawsuit of the two San Francisco Catholics and the Catholic League.
Today's TMLC press release announcing the appeal described the Ninth Circuit's October, 2010:
“This past October, in a fractured, eleven judge opinion in which 3 judges concluded that TMLC should prevail, 3 judges concluded that the City should prevail, and 5 judges concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court.
As Circuit Judge Kleinfeld appropriately observed in his opinion, which, unfortunately, received only two additional votes:
The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”
Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, noted an apparent incongruity in the court’s juruisprudence:
“The Ninth Circuit prohibits a government display of the passive symbol of the war memorial cross on Mt. Soledad, yet it expressly approves of the government’s explicit condemnation of Catholic religious beliefs. This outrageous double standard is made possible by the Supreme Court’s flawed tests by which it interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—an interpretation that is hostile toward religion.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Free Said Musa!
Said Musa is an Afghani Christian who is in prison and sentenced to death in Afghanistan. That's him helping the little boy. Here's his story, and their are links at the bottom of the page with ways we can try to help.Matthew Archbold reports:
"An Afghanistan Christian and father of six, is imprisoned and scheduled to die. His crime? He believes Christ is his Savior. And he is scheduled to die because of it. No defense lawyer will take his case for fear of retribution. And he has been told that if he renounces Christ things would go easier. But he doesn’t. He won’t.
Said Musa, who lost his leg from a landmine in the 1990’s and has worked since then as a medical worker for the Red Cross fitting children with prosthetics, has been in jail for eight months. According to a public letter written by him and addressed to our President and the world community, he has been brutally tortured and abused in every way possible, both by guards and inmates.
As of yet the media and the world seem to have taken little notice of Said Musa. There are currently less than 100 mentions of Musa in the news and most of them are not considered part of the mainstream media, other than the Wall Street Journal.
Musa wrote a public letter which I will excerpt here, courtesy of The Barnabus Fund. The English is rough but I think you’ll understand what he’s saying:
“To the international church of world and to the President Brother Barak Obama President of the United States and to the head of ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] in Afghanistan!
“My name is Said Musa 45 years old. I have been working since 15 years as a Physiotherapist in I-C-R-C [International Committee of the Red Cross] orthopaedic centre in Kabul, Afghanistan. About four and a half months before by security force of Afghanistan I [was] captured, due to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world.
...Since that time I am in jail. The authority and prisoners in jail did many bad behaviour with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, they did sexual things with me, beat me by wood, by hands, by legs, put some things on my head, mocked me ‘He’s Jesus Christ’, spat on me, nobody let me for sleep night and day. Every person spat on me and beat me. Also the prosecutor wrote something wrong against me. He told from himself something wrong against me on my file.
“He is stimulating every day the prisoners against me, ‘He is also in jail due to spy for Iran country’, to reveal the church in Kabul. I’m in a very and very bad condition in the jail.
“I agree with long imprisonment about my faith even for long life. Because I’m the sinnest person in the world. Because sometimes they treated for died I refuse my faith due to died. Sometimes I tolerate the persecution but immediately I acknowledge my sin before Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Don’t refuse me before your holy angels and before your Father.’ Because I am very very weak and sinful man…
I am alone between 400 handlers of terrible values in the jail like a sheep. Please, please, for the sake of Lord Jesus Christ help me. Please send a person who should supervise my document and my file, what I said in it. My prosecutor has told something wrong to the judge because he asked [for] money but I refused his request. Please, please you should transfer me from this jail to a jail that supervises the believers. I also agree with died on cross of my pride. I also agree with the sacrifice [of] my life in public, I will tell the faith in Lord Jesus Christ son of God and other believers will take courage and be strong in their faith. Hundred percent I am stable to my word. I have family of seven - one wife, three daughters and three sons. My big son [is] about eight years old. One of my daughters can’t speak, she has some mental problems.
“This is a request from me to all over the world, people please help me. I could not have any person to help. For [the] sake [of] Lord Jesus Christ please pray and immediately help me and rescue me from this jail. Otherwise, they will kill me, because I know they’re very very very cruel and hard hearted!
“Your destitute brother in the world.
“Please my English writing is not enough good. If I did some mistake please forgive me! From Kabul Provincial jail.”
Persecution.org offers some ways for us to help:
Go here to sign the petition asking for freedom for Said Musa as well as another imprisoned Afghani Christian named Shoib Assadullah:
https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/InternationalChristianConcer/OnlineSignupTwo.html?petitionSigned=Free Afghans
Go here to download a PDF petition that you can ask others to sign:
http://www.persecution.org/pdf/2010-12Afghanistan.pdf
Wacky Ex-Male Hooker Turned Catholic Priest Sues LifeSiteNews
LifeSiteNews is being sued by Canadian Priest, Fr. Raymond Gravel. I've never heard of the guy, but he sounds like a real piece of work.
Wikipedia reports:
"Gravel had an eventful youth during which he worked in bars in Montreal’s Gay Village; he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during that time.[1] He entered the seminary in 1982 and became a priest. Gravel is controversial among the Catholic clergy and laity for his support of abortion and same-sex marriage — two issues officially opposed by the Church. He is currently the priest at St-Joachim de la Plaine Church in La Plaine, Quebec."
Details of the lawsuit aren't yet public, except for the fact that Fr. Wacky wants $500,000, but Life Site News reports they and Gravel have quite a history:
"The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican 'which forced me to retire from political life,' attached to the letter 'was a file almost exclusively in English (Fr. Gravel is apparently one of those Anglophobe Quebecers--that's the significance of the "exclusively in English" remark) made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media.' He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!
And then, more recently, Fr. Gravel was removed from a position as a chief catechist for his diocese. In his motion Fr. Gravel suggests that the articles by LSN caused him to lose this responsibility."
If it's true that LifeSiteNews got a guy like that dismissed as chief cathechist, they deserve canonization, not a lawsuit. The Thomas More Society will help LSN, but they will need Canadian lawyers, too, apparently.
US and International donors can go here to support LifeSiteNews:
https://secure.lifesitenews.com/np/clients/lifesitenews_us/donation.jsp?campaign=27
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wikipedia reports:
"Gravel had an eventful youth during which he worked in bars in Montreal’s Gay Village; he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade worker during that time.[1] He entered the seminary in 1982 and became a priest. Gravel is controversial among the Catholic clergy and laity for his support of abortion and same-sex marriage — two issues officially opposed by the Church. He is currently the priest at St-Joachim de la Plaine Church in La Plaine, Quebec."
Details of the lawsuit aren't yet public, except for the fact that Fr. Wacky wants $500,000, but Life Site News reports they and Gravel have quite a history:
"The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican 'which forced me to retire from political life,' attached to the letter 'was a file almost exclusively in English (Fr. Gravel is apparently one of those Anglophobe Quebecers--that's the significance of the "exclusively in English" remark) made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media.' He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!
And then, more recently, Fr. Gravel was removed from a position as a chief catechist for his diocese. In his motion Fr. Gravel suggests that the articles by LSN caused him to lose this responsibility."
If it's true that LifeSiteNews got a guy like that dismissed as chief cathechist, they deserve canonization, not a lawsuit. The Thomas More Society will help LSN, but they will need Canadian lawyers, too, apparently.
US and International donors can go here to support LifeSiteNews:
https://secure.lifesitenews.com/np/clients/lifesitenews_us/donation.jsp?campaign=27
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 14, 2011
Vigil for Victims at Planned Parenthood TODAY
Steve Ertelt reports at Life News:
Pro-Life Groups Promote Monday Vigils at Planned Parenthood
A collection of national pro-life organizations are promoting vigils at Planned Parenthood abortion centers across the nation in response to the series of videos showing staff at the abortion business aiding sexual traffickers.
The Expose Planned Parenthood Coalition features groups ranging from the Susan B. Anthony List and Students for Life of America to Americans United for Life, CWA, Catholics Advocate, 40 Days for Life and state pro-life groups. Live Action, the sponsor of the investigative series of undercover videos is a member of the coalition as is LifeNews.com.
The goal is to encourage pro-life advocates to hold vigils at Planned Parenthood offices at noon on Monday across the country to highlight the videos and the massive taxpayer funding Planned Parenthood receives.
“Are you sick and tired of Planned Parenthood getting $363 million of taxpayer funding a year — while aiding and abetting illegal underage sex trafficking?” the groups say on the Expose Planned Parenthood web site promoting the vigils. “Take a public stand Monday and tell Congress ‘No more tax funding for Planned Parenthood.”
To find the location of Planned Parenthood's new San Francisco business, go here:
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Wise Words from Father Gregory Coiro, O.F.M. Cap.
Father Coiro serves at the National Shrine of St. Francis of Assisi in San Francisco. This is an excerpt from his bulletin message for this week:
Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him.
The Lord is telling us, not that we can create our own reality, as many steeped in New Age thinking profess, but that we can choose the reality we want in our lives. To many, this might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the fact is that there is a difference, albeit a subtle one.
If we think that we can create our own reality, we will fall into the error farthest from reality: subjectivism. People who embrace this way of thinking are the ones you hear saying things like,“You have your truth but this is my truth.” A good example of this kind of subjectivism is found among those who consider themselves “pro-choice” with regard to abortion.
According to them, the reality of the unborn child in the womb--the objective truth--is not the issue. Rather, the issue for them is whether or not a woman should have absolute freedom not to be pregnant. Nothing shows this more explicitly than the seemingly schizophrenic nature of the law regarding killing the unborn.
Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child, Conner. Yet, had Laci Peterson chosen to have Conner killed by a professional, there would have been no crime. How can this be? The answer is that subjectivism trumped reality: if a mother determines to kill her unborn child, the child is not a human being whose life is protected by the law. There is no homicide, as far as the law is concerned.
But if someone else kills that child—even the child’s own father—against the mother’s will, then the law treats it as a homicide. In other words, the reality of the child’s humanness is predicated on a subjective belief rather than on an objective fact.
Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him.
The Lord is telling us, not that we can create our own reality, as many steeped in New Age thinking profess, but that we can choose the reality we want in our lives. To many, this might seem like a distinction without a difference, but the fact is that there is a difference, albeit a subtle one.
If we think that we can create our own reality, we will fall into the error farthest from reality: subjectivism. People who embrace this way of thinking are the ones you hear saying things like,“You have your truth but this is my truth.” A good example of this kind of subjectivism is found among those who consider themselves “pro-choice” with regard to abortion.
According to them, the reality of the unborn child in the womb--the objective truth--is not the issue. Rather, the issue for them is whether or not a woman should have absolute freedom not to be pregnant. Nothing shows this more explicitly than the seemingly schizophrenic nature of the law regarding killing the unborn.
Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child, Conner. Yet, had Laci Peterson chosen to have Conner killed by a professional, there would have been no crime. How can this be? The answer is that subjectivism trumped reality: if a mother determines to kill her unborn child, the child is not a human being whose life is protected by the law. There is no homicide, as far as the law is concerned.
But if someone else kills that child—even the child’s own father—against the mother’s will, then the law treats it as a homicide. In other words, the reality of the child’s humanness is predicated on a subjective belief rather than on an objective fact.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Brian Fairchild on Muslim Brotherhood
Our friend the counter-terrorism expert Brian Fairchild of the Intrepid Group takes down the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper over his bizarre statement the the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" organization. Brian writes today in Pajamas Media:
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee today, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a largely secular, non-violent umbrella group.
I have quickly put together the quotes below from the Brotherhood’s former and current leaders. They clearly show that the Muslim Brotherhood is extremely religious and violent, and that former Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef even supports Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Mr. Clapper’s congressional testimony reveals that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding one of the most important topics for American policy considerations throughout the Muslim world, and particularly and immediately in Egypt.
The fact that the director of national intelligence is so ignorant of facts that are so easily amassed, and that he could lead U.S. policymakers so far astray from reality at such a crucial time, is inexcusable and grounds for his immediate resignation...."
Follow the link to see the readily available evidence Brian has amassed.
To listen to Brian in an extended discussion of Salfist Islam, go here.
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee today, stated that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a largely secular, non-violent umbrella group.
I have quickly put together the quotes below from the Brotherhood’s former and current leaders. They clearly show that the Muslim Brotherhood is extremely religious and violent, and that former Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef even supports Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Mr. Clapper’s congressional testimony reveals that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding one of the most important topics for American policy considerations throughout the Muslim world, and particularly and immediately in Egypt.
The fact that the director of national intelligence is so ignorant of facts that are so easily amassed, and that he could lead U.S. policymakers so far astray from reality at such a crucial time, is inexcusable and grounds for his immediate resignation...."
Follow the link to see the readily available evidence Brian has amassed.
To listen to Brian in an extended discussion of Salfist Islam, go here.
Nancy Pelosi versus the Church (Again)
Updated version.
On February 8, Richard Doerflinger associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, speaking for the Catholic bishops, testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee in strong support of H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act).
Two days later, on February 10 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) led a conference call which included bloggers and Democratic activists. The subject of the call was the upcoming votes on H.R. 3 and H.R. 358. The conference call was an attempt to rally like-minded persons to oppose the two bills. Greg Sargeant writing in the Washington Post, reported that Pelosi promises a major fight against both bills. Sargent’s headline read “Pelosi Vows Huge Fight With GOP Over Abortion.”
"Nancy Pelosi's extremely blunt assessments of the true motives of Republicans are why her supporters love her and her enemies hate her with equal passion, and on a conference call with bloggers just now, she unleashed a slashing attack on the House GOP's new anti-abortion push that may churn up emotions on both sides.”
While Mr. Sargeant characterized Pelosi’s "blunt assessments" as targeted at Republicans, it would be more accurate to describe them as targeted at Catholics, and especially the Catholic bishops. In the call Pelosi said:
“‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’"
The Think Progress blog reported Pelosi’s statement slightly differently:
“in a different philosophical place on…all engagements that result in a child. So that’s why homosexuality, that’s why birth control, all these things that are not consistent with their beliefs that are all about procreation.”
That is not a "Republican" position--far from it. The opposition to contraception as well as to abortion is not “Republican” but is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Congresswoman Pelosi’s ongoing and well-known dissents from the teaching of the church on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and natural marriage are no longer properly described as “dissent” but have become outright attacks. She is now doing everything in her considerable power to thwart the Catholic bishops.
Pelosi’s positions have not been unopposed, but at the higher levels of the Church that opposition has mostly taken the form of debate. On December 21, 2009 Pelosi said:
“I practically mourn this difference of opinion (over abortion) because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”
To which San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer responded:
"While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."
While Archbishop Niederaur’s response may have been intellectually satisfying, it does not seem to have changed Congressman Pelosi positions one whit. On March 26, 2010 noted canon lawyer and Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura Dr. Ed Peters wrote:
“Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so.
I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe. But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application' of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi…. If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin."
Emphasis in original.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
On February 8, Richard Doerflinger associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, speaking for the Catholic bishops, testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee in strong support of H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act) and H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act).
Two days later, on February 10 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) led a conference call which included bloggers and Democratic activists. The subject of the call was the upcoming votes on H.R. 3 and H.R. 358. The conference call was an attempt to rally like-minded persons to oppose the two bills. Greg Sargeant writing in the Washington Post, reported that Pelosi promises a major fight against both bills. Sargent’s headline read “Pelosi Vows Huge Fight With GOP Over Abortion.”
"Nancy Pelosi's extremely blunt assessments of the true motives of Republicans are why her supporters love her and her enemies hate her with equal passion, and on a conference call with bloggers just now, she unleashed a slashing attack on the House GOP's new anti-abortion push that may churn up emotions on both sides.”
While Mr. Sargeant characterized Pelosi’s "blunt assessments" as targeted at Republicans, it would be more accurate to describe them as targeted at Catholics, and especially the Catholic bishops. In the call Pelosi said:
“‘They are at a different philosophical place,’ she said, characterizing their view as: ‘all engagement has to result in a child.’ Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is ‘not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation.’"
The Think Progress blog reported Pelosi’s statement slightly differently:
“in a different philosophical place on…all engagements that result in a child. So that’s why homosexuality, that’s why birth control, all these things that are not consistent with their beliefs that are all about procreation.”
That is not a "Republican" position--far from it. The opposition to contraception as well as to abortion is not “Republican” but is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Congresswoman Pelosi’s ongoing and well-known dissents from the teaching of the church on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and natural marriage are no longer properly described as “dissent” but have become outright attacks. She is now doing everything in her considerable power to thwart the Catholic bishops.
Pelosi’s positions have not been unopposed, but at the higher levels of the Church that opposition has mostly taken the form of debate. On December 21, 2009 Pelosi said:
“I practically mourn this difference of opinion (over abortion) because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”
To which San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer responded:
"While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."
While Archbishop Niederaur’s response may have been intellectually satisfying, it does not seem to have changed Congressman Pelosi positions one whit. On March 26, 2010 noted canon lawyer and Referendarius of the Apostolic Signatura Dr. Ed Peters wrote:
“Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so.
I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe. But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application' of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi…. If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinent perseverance in manifest grave sin."
Emphasis in original.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
U.S. Bishops Support HR 3 "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion" Act
Permanent abortion funding ban long overdue, bishops tell U.S. House
From Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews:
"The U.S. bishops are supporting the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (H.R. 3) because a permanent ban on abortion funding is long overdue, a representative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) told a U.S. House subcommittee this week.
“H.R. 3 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee February 8....
Since regaining the majority of seats last November, GOP House members have begun launching a series of pro-life bills aimed at curtailing government involvement in abortion. The Protect Life Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), was debated before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health on Wednesday. It would amend the federal health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.
The full testimony can be found online here:
www.usccb.org/prolife/HR3-testimony-2011-02-08.pdf
From Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews:
"The U.S. bishops are supporting the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (H.R. 3) because a permanent ban on abortion funding is long overdue, a representative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) told a U.S. House subcommittee this week.
“H.R. 3 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee February 8....
Since regaining the majority of seats last November, GOP House members have begun launching a series of pro-life bills aimed at curtailing government involvement in abortion. The Protect Life Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), was debated before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health on Wednesday. It would amend the federal health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.
The full testimony can be found online here:
www.usccb.org/prolife/HR3-testimony-2011-02-08.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
