Archbishop: Obama Needs To Stop 'Intruding Into Internal Life Of Church'

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”
Click to expand...
Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.
Click to expand...
nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan
Click to expand...
This is SO important! I remember clearly that Obama claimed this bill would “get between a woman and her doctor.” His callowness was astonishing to me, particularly as a member of a minority population who had two children of his own. The whole article is worth reading and we need to keep this issue front and center.

I thought this final paragraph was very clear:And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.

…**
**

This man is not simply pro-“choice” but he is clearly pro-abortion.
Lisa
 
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This was my favorite pull quote:
Click to expand...
“Science backs up the policy of the administration,” he declared, adding, “Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee, this is established science.”
Click to expand...
Yes, this puzzled me. What is established science? That all women are entitled free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient insurance coverage? Really?
 
JimG said:
Yes, this puzzled me. What is established science? That all women are entitled free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient insurance coverage? Really?
Click to expand...
Of course, politicians spout nonsense all the time, but this is a piece of a much larger propaganda that has a long history, stretching back to the enlightenment, at least. The idea is that secularism is rational and scientific and religion is irrational. This is the same sense in which communism claimed to be scientific, something nobody says with a straight face today but which still underlies much of the secular infatuation with socialism.

When you hear Democrats promising to put science ahead of ideology and moralism, this is what you should understand they mean.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Of course, politicians spout nonsense all the time, but this is a piece of a much larger propaganda that has a long history, stretching back to the enlightenment, at least. The idea is that secularism is rational and scientific and religion is irrational. This is the same sense in which communism claimed to be scientific, something nobody says with a straight face today but which still underlies much of the secular infatuation with socialism.

When you hear Democrats promising to put science ahead of ideology and moralism, this is what you should understand they mean.
Click to expand...
If they only had a brain!

I still scratch my head that contraception is some kind of entitlement, while life-saving medications like diabetes medications or the medications my mother-in-law are on for her heart are not.
 
Incomplete said:
If they only had a brain!

I still scratch my head that contraception is some kind of entitlement, while life-saving medications like diabetes medications or the medications my mother-in-law are on for her heart are not.
Click to expand...
I made this exact point when writing to my idiot Senator who claimed that “a small group of radical Republicans is trying to prevent women from getting access to healthcare…” because there is opposition to making us PAY for it.

I asked if he would please explain why my 11 year old stepson who will DIE if he doesn’t get insulin must continue to pay out of pocket under Obamacare when women who choose to engage in sex (not something necessary to life) get FREE access to anything they want under the guise of ‘healthcare.’ The non-sensical approach of the Left just baffles me. Do they really believe their baloney?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I made this exact point when writing to my idiot Senator who claimed that “a small group of radical Republicans is trying to prevent women from getting access to healthcare…” because there is opposition to making us PAY for it.

I asked if he would please explain why my 11 year old stepson who will DIE if he doesn’t get insulin must continue to pay out of pocket under Obamacare when women who choose to engage in sex (not something necessary to life) get FREE access to anything they want under the guise of ‘healthcare.’ The non-sensical approach of the Left just baffles me. Do they really believe their baloney?

Lisa
Click to expand...
I know this is a silly question, because I suspect I know the answer, but…did he answer you? I mean, did he actually answer that question or just send a form letter?
 
LisaA said:
I asked if he would please explain why my 11 year old stepson who will DIE if he doesn’t get insulin must continue to pay out of pocket under Obamacare when women who choose to engage in sex (not something necessary to life) get FREE access to anything they want under the guise of ‘healthcare.’ The non-sensical approach of the Left just baffles me. Do they really believe their baloney?

Lisa
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think they believe their baloney. They believe in their left wing ideology and they will do and say anything to support that left wing ideology - to kill, to destroy,to ruin any moral and traditional values, as well as to control people’s lives and thoughts.
 
Alan55 said:
The President doesn’t want Catholic institutions, which employ hundreds of thousands of non-Catholic workers, to deny those non-Catholic workers (or, for that matter, Catholic workers who differ with the Church on contraception) to have insurance coverage for contraception. I don’t agree that this is an infringement on freedom of worship. The Church cannot convince Catholics to forego contraception, but they want to use the political process to deny contraception to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. That’s overreaching on the part of the Church in the U.S. I support Obama on this one.
QUOTE]

If a non-Catholic or pseudo-Catholic who works for a Catholic employer is so desperate for insurance-paid contraception, they are perfectly welcome to exercise the CHOICE to find themselves another employer, who does not have a moral objection to paying for it. No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to work for a Catholic employer.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
PODCAST: Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate

blog.heritage.org/2012/02/29/podcast-obamacares-anti-conscience-mandate/
Senate Defeats Blunt Amendment to Stop Obama HHS Mandate 51-48

lifenews.com/2012/03/01/senate-defeats-blunt-amendment-to-stop-obama-hhs-mandate/

McCaskill, Snowe, and Tester all voted against the Blunt Amendment, Casey, Manchin, Murrkowski, Ben Nelson support it.

Many Catholic Democrat Senators voted for Catholic institutions to be forced to violate their conscience.
Mitt Romney Supports Blunt Amdt to Overturn Obama Mandate

lifenews.com/2012/02/29/mitt-romney-supports-blunt-amdt-to-overturn-obama-mandate/
Cardinal Dolon on HHS mandate

blog.archny.org/?p=2291
 
USCCB says Senate vote ‘impels the church to strengthen its resolve’ on religious freedom
From a statement just issued after the Senate today tabled the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act:
Click to expand...
Code: 
WASHINGTON—The Senate’s 51-48 vote March 1 to table the bipartisan Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467), sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and 37 other senators, impels the Church to strengthen its resolve to support religious freedom.
Click to expand...
Code: 
“The need to defend citizens’ rights of conscience is the most critical issue before our country right now,” said Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Lori chairs the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). “We will continue our strong defense of conscience rights through all available legal means. Religious freedom is at the heart of democracy and rooted in the dignity of every human person. We will not rest until the protection of conscience rights is restored and the First Amendment is returned to its place of respect in the Bill of Rights.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
“I am grateful today to Senator Roy Blunt and the 47 other Senators who cast a bipartisan vote reaffirming our nation’s long tradition of respect for rights of conscience in health care,” said Bishop Lori.  “We will build on this base of support as we pursue legislation in the House of Representatives, urge the Administration to change its course on this issue, and explore our legal rights under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
Freedom of conscience has been in the forefront since the Obama Administration issued a regulation under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act forcing most employers, including religious institutions, to provide coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, even when they violate church teaching.
Click to expand...
cnsblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/usccb-says-senate-vote-impels-the-church-to-strengthen-its-resolve-on-religious-freedom
 
Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion Groups Split on Outcome of Blunt Amdt
Leading pro-abortion and pro-life groups are split as far apart as possible in their reactions to today’s vote in the Senate to defeat the Blunt Amendment protecting religious employers that do not want to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees.
Click to expand...
The following are comments from top pro-life leaders and groups:
Click to expand...
lifenews.com/2012/03/01/pro-life-pro-abortion-groups-split-on-outcome-of-blunt-amdt/
 
Now that this pro forma repeal has been turned aside, what next? (This legislation was never going to become law but now Senators are on record.) The battle is lost but the war has only just begun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top