CatholicVoteAction.org

GW, Read Mit Brenneder Sorge. Pius XI condemned the Nazi Party. I believe he would condemn the Democratic Party for its drooling pro-abortion on demand position if he were around today. They don’t make Popes like they used to. I guess they all want to be loved as opposed to being lions for the Faith.

off topic,
TJM’s comment about a nuclear option prompted me to think (and invoke Godwin’s law): what did the Church do regarding Communion and high ranking Nazi officials during WW2?

I think it’s time for the “nuclear option” by the bishops, that is. A decree should be issued from Rome that If any Catholic member of Congress votes for a healthcare bill that includes funding of abortion they are automatically excommunicated, and their bishop, is also subjec to automatic excommunication, if they publicly give Holy Communion to such a legislator. That should end this charade once and for all.

Blue Shoe – exactly. Pro-aborts and pro-lifers cannot both be happy in the same way at the same time. One of our “agendas” is losing, and right now, it’s ours that is.

Martin and Jon,
The Stupak amendment may not be sufficiently pro-life and faithful to the Church’s teachings on life and human dignity, but I think it is appropriate to view Stupak in the light that it is the naturally extends status quo to the next new government health program and health initiative.

At the same time I think pro-lifers may be investing too much effort in its protection. Pelosi needs Stupak and the 40 Democrats that voted for the amendment AND the overall bill. And due to vacated seats, she also needs to flip a few of those that had originally opposed the overall bill. She’s not going to be able to pass it without strict language on abortion. The Stupak amendment is not merely available and supported by the plurality of House members, it is the natural extension of the Hyde framework and largely popular with the American voter. It’s going to be passed in any final HCR bill.

Would like to add – if the President’s bill would not allow for public funding of abortions, and if the Stupak Amendment is indeed toothless and unnecessary, then why are the President and pro-abortion Democrats in Congress fighting so hard to keep it out of the legislation?

Janet Mitchell,
Before shooting your mouth off, why don’t you read the bill? I doubt a Democrat (one who belongs to the Party committed to an intrinsic evil like abortion by the way) would raise the issue unless it were so. Also your “death” statistics are beyond ludicrous. Where did you get them, Moveon.org? I suspect you are another Catholic fallen into “state worship” who comes by here to post just to get your jollies, or perhaps you are a Democratic Party operative. By the way, there are plenty of news stories posted everyday which speak of the horrors that is “national healthcare.” Why do you think that rich, Canadian government official went to Florida for what we in the evil American healthcare system would view as a pretty routine heart procedure? Could it be that kind of a government run system is crap?

I hope he doesn’t invite him. The only reason Bohnner would suggest it, is because he wants to kill health care (which in reality will only kill 100’s of thousands of unborn babies, 45,000 Americans, along with ill and disabled people who can’t afford health care or the high cost of having a baby) because this is a hot button controversial issue. There is nothing in our President’s health plan that would pay for an abortion in spite of the Republican’s insistence on lying about the issue along with all the other issues surrounding health care. They are working for the insurance companies and it appears many of our Bishops and priests (Republican) are as well. We should get together, write the pope, and complain.

Jon wrote, “We should concentrate on things that actually save lives rather than toothless amendments.”

Such as what? Even with its flaws, Stupak seems to approximate the Hyde amendment. Hyde has similar flaws. I think the point we need to make is that we will not accept a bill that does not have the same protections as the Hyde amendment.

The Stupak Amendment was going to have absolutely no effect whatsoever, and we should not be wasting time and credibility acting like it was. It has gaping loopholes for rape and incest (and is therefore not a pro-life amendment). Are they going to require a rape conviction or a paternity test to enforce it? Highly unlikely. It is also completely moot since the Republicans have continued to fund planned parenthood even while in control of all 3 branches of government, so we’re already funding abortions. We should concentrate on things that actually save lives rather than toothless amendments.