CatholicVoteAction.org

@Nate – you can find the code for the ad in several sizes at the USCCB health care site:
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/resources.shtml#ads

The picture that you have “ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE”… Can you post the code for it so that I can post it on myspace, facebook, etc.?

I emailed my two senators. Both Dems in Ca Boxer and Feinstein

Tom,

What can those of us who live in DC (and don’t have congressmen to contact) do to help?

It would be well to speak the whole truth when discussing the health care bill and the proposed language of the Stupak and other “pro life” ammendments: “defending unborn life except in the case of threat to mother’s life and rape/incest.” One is then more precise since one has in mind defending “some unborn lives,” indeed, many but not all unborn. In that case, it is not the right to life that is the reason for defending them. It should not be surprising or astonishing that if we are willing to trade some for the many, so can Nelson and Casey and, yes, Stupak as well as Kmiec and Obama …. all “pro life.”
The paramount obligation is not to save as many babies as possible but not to commit or participate in an intrinsic injustice, in this case, an itnrinsically unjust law. Even the pagan Socrates saw this: “it is a greater evil to commit injustice than to suffer it.” The consequences? These, as the innocnet unborn, will then be in the hands of God, the source of all authority on earth. We, for our part, will gain power and the wisdom to do the right thing for the right reason.

Fake Catholic Katherine S. won’t like you Tom for posting this.

IMO the congressmen worth watching are the ones who voted for the bill when it first went through the house, but have ALSO promised to vote “no” on the bill if Stupak is removed.

Many of the congressmen who voted for the Stupak amendment are still willing to vote for the bill if the amendment is removed; others on the list above, such as Gene Taylor, Charlie Melancon, and Dan Boren, voted against the bill after voting for the Stupak amendment, and are likely to vote against the bill irrespective of Stupak, as they have other reasons to oppose the bill.

The pro-life Dems who voted for the bill are especially important because they provide political “leverage” for the pro-choice Dems who opposed the bill for other reasons (examples include Ike Skelton, Betsy Markey, and Eric Massa). If Pelosi twists their arms enough (and she will try!), then she has to make sure that she gets enough to make up for the pro-life Dems who initially supported the bill.

what bulletin? where? when?