Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ana_v said:
(emphasis mine)

Depends on what the “one issue” is. The abortion issue is certainly a wise metric to use, to determine the moral reliability of the candidate on matters of public policy. And let’s not forget the president appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Don’t suspect he will appoint persons with political opinions that are diametrically opposite of his own. And given the Obama Administration’s contraceptives mandate, I would urge you to not vote for him.

The implications of him winning is this: since he won’t be up for re-election anymore, you can bet his level of boldness will rise in terms of what he is willing to push into law. Whereas, during the first term, the president needs to restrain himself to some degree knowing that too many unhappy citizens can translate into him being voted out of office by the said citizens. Not so during the second term. Do you really want to risk him going further than just testing the waters with Catholic Church? Do you want to risk increasingly graver threats to Her?
Click to expand...
This +1

If we stand on the sidelines or worse condone this what will be our excuse as the Church is persecuted? What do we tell the children deprived of Christian homes now that Catholic orphanages are closing?

Children raised in homes that love Christ are far better off to face the one true challenge of running the race. Isn’t that what we should be concerned about? Too often it seems views expressed even here are not Christocentric. The Church is our greatest ally in running the race. The current secular mindset embraced by the administration seems bent on opposing her.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I think a lot of people are voting (still) for a Democratic Party that no longer exists. It has been so radically transformed as to be unrecognizable, yet it keeps the same name.

FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ, JFK, did not support abortion on demand, did not support homosexual marriage, did not pass mandates to force the Catholic Church to abandon its morals or get out of business.

What we have now is the most pro-abortion party in U.S. history, the most pro-homosexual marriage party, the most anti-Catholic party, the most anti-religion party, the most fiscally irresponsible party. None of those positions are good for the country. 50 million deaths since Roe v Wade. $16 trillion in debt which has no chance of being repaid.

The current administration has contempt for Catholics. Why should we support his re-election?
Click to expand...
👍 This indeed is the lay of the land with this President and his administration. The problem being (1) the Republicans DO NOT have the media on their side. They hide facts that would shed a different light on Democrats and in particular this President and his administration. (2) Republicans don’t have “the man”. So, there are a ton of people that are totally uninformed as to what is really going on in Washington, and they are turned off by the dirt being dug up on each candidate…Rick Santorum is the one least picked apart, but if he would happen to come out swinging in Florida, they would immediately pounce on his non belief in gay marriage, and probably also for his staunch Catholic identity. Don’t kid yourself, the media as corrupt as they are, wields a ton of power. They are as we speak, suiting up for the battle. (3) People that get their info from main stream media are oblivious to the real truth of this administration. The President is a master communicator. The best I have ever seen. In his State of the Union address to the Nation, I sat there both mesmerized and shocked by the out and out lies coming from him. If you didn’t know any better, you would be sucked in by him lock stock and barrel. You would actually think that he is on the side of faith based initiatives…you would also think that he is promoting business expansion and jobs by his “deregulation policies”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So the long and short of it is, we need to have a long conversation on the state of the Democratic Party in current politics, and how they differ from the Democratic Party of old. For some, it will be an eye opener, and for others it probably won’t matter as they have their mind made up that the social issues are really not all that important. While some are correct in that Republicans don’t tend to push all that hard to reverse cultural trends, they at least don’t PROMOTE anti life, anti family values. Guess some people haven’t been watching this President’s shoving and pushing anti life, anti family values both in this country and internationally. He certainly hasn’t been trying to hide it.
 
christofirst said:
When it comes to life issues, I have been, for the most part, let down by every Republican president since I could first vote (Reagan). I hear a lot of talk about their pro-life stance, but when their term is done, little changes. Abortion on-demand is still the law of the land. Somehow, they get other things done, such as union-busting, tax breaks for the wealthiest, and military action, but life issues never seem to be a priority. Maybe this time will be different.
Click to expand...
You do realize that this statement is highly flawed, right?
 
St_Francis said:
I did not vote for Obama last time and I will not vote for him this time. I do not agree with any of his ideas and do not think that he has served the Amercian people well as president.

Unfortunately, there is very little, at this point, that attracts me from the GOP. It seems like each election the Dem seems worse to me, and the Republicans get worse too. It’s just that the Dems have this major thing about killing babies in the womb, and the Republicans don’t.

It’s sort of like choosing the fast lane or the slow lane downhill.

It’s so sad to see this happening to my country.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the GOP is becoming “Democrats Light”

I am afraid that Santorum and Paul, while some of their positions are flawed, are getting the shaft.
 
BVM_1221 said:
If we must. 🤷

Or the Republicans might win and we can tolerate more wars in the middle east, more suffering at home, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer etc etc etc:hmmm:

Or we can tolerate the fact that most abortion bills will not get througth Congress, or if the do, the will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. :tsktsk:

We certainly need to tolerate the fact that many non-Catholic americans are totally disgusted with the Catholic Church and its child rape scandles (and sunsequent coverups). :mad:

And we can even learn to tolerate the anti-abortion types who use these Forums to set up straw dummies, the better to knock the stuffing out of them and bad-mouth Catholics who vote Democrat :compcoff:

So…where should we start? 🍿
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

This is a narrow minded view as the current crop of Democrats are no better. Libya anyone? Unliateral action? Seeing no problem with insider trading or lobbying? Closing down non-union factories?
 
Computergeek25, if by “highly flawed” you mean expecting different results from the current two Republican frontrunners than their GOP predecessors, you are probably right.
 
christofirst said:
Computergeek25, if by “highly flawed” you mean expecting different results from the current two Republican frontrunners than their GOP predecessors, you are probably right.
Click to expand...
I am not a big fan of Romney or Newt. But they are certainly better than Obama.
 
You know, I see more and more bishops taking a stand against this encroachment on our liberties. I have to say, it’s about time! Thank you, God!

Go bishops!
 
An odd move for someone that wants to get re elected. Perhaps he is afraid he wont be able to so is trying to push as many immoral things as he can.
 
So, would that constitute swearing or not? Serious question. But besides that, he is absolutely right. He is arguably the worst president this country has ever had.
 
Way to go Bishop Zubik. 👍

Though I would certainly rather that the circumstances were such that he did not need to issue such a statement. Christians have a reason to be paranoid these days with our 1st Amendment rights being relegated to meaninglessness.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I think a lot of people are voting (still) for a Democratic Party that no longer exists. It has been so radically transformed as to be unrecognizable, yet it keeps the same name.

FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ, JFK, did not support abortion on demand, did not support homosexual marriage, did not pass mandates to force the Catholic Church to abandon its morals or get out of business.

What we have now is the most pro-abortion party in U.S. history, the most pro-homosexual marriage party, the most anti-Catholic party, the most anti-religion party, the most fiscally irresponsible party. None of those positions are good for the country. 50 million deaths since Roe v Wade. $16 trillion in debt which has no chance of being repaid.

The current administration has contempt for Catholics. Why should we support his re-election?
Click to expand...
Just a comment, but technically you could consider the Republican Party in its early days as more anti-Catholic.
 
BVM_1221 said:
If we must. 🤷

Or the Republicans might win and we can tolerate more wars in the middle east, more suffering at home, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer etc etc etc:hmmm:

Or we can tolerate the fact that most abortion bills will not get througth Congress, or if the do, the will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. :tsktsk:

We certainly need to tolerate the fact that many non-Catholic americans are totally disgusted with the Catholic Church and its child rape scandles (and sunsequent coverups). :mad:

And we can even learn to tolerate the anti-abortion types who use these Forums to set up straw dummies, the better to knock the stuffing out of them and bad-mouth Catholics who vote Democrat :compcoff:

So…where should we start? 🍿
Click to expand...
P1: Obama hasn’t done anything to stop the wars in the Middle East. (Sure, troops were pulled out of Iraq. But wasn’t that because of Bush in the first place?) I agree with the rich and poor part, but I can’t support Obama’s views (or what his views seem to be) on redistribution of wealth and taxes. Taxes shouldn’t be raised on the rich to spread the wealth around, since when you use that philosophy it seems to end in socialism. Taxes should be raised on the rich because they have more to give and won’t be hurt by paying higher taxes. Their taxes can be used to help the poor, but they shouldn’t be raised for socialist purposes.

P2: The problem is, the Supreme Court probably wouldn’t rule them unconstitutional. 😦

P3: Because of their ignorance. 😦

P4: I suppose some do. I have no problems with someone (including a Catholic) voting Democrat. In fact, I’m more Democrat than Republican once you eliminate the social views of the Democrats. But with Obama, I don’t know how you can vote for him in good conscience.
 
Obama has a bitter angry tone towards Christians, no more proof than his 20 yr pagan marxist preacher Rev Wright.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
P1: Obama hasn’t done anything to stop the wars in the Middle East. (Sure, troops were pulled out of Iraq. But wasn’t that because of Bush in the first place?) I agree with the rich and poor part, but I can’t support Obama’s views (or what his views seem to be) on redistribution of wealth and taxes. Taxes shouldn’t be raised on the rich to spread the wealth around, since when you use that philosophy it seems to end in socialism. Taxes should be raised on the rich because they have more to give and won’t be hurt by paying higher taxes. Their taxes can be used to help the poor, but they shouldn’t be raised for socialist purposes.
Click to expand...
Many people who buy into this “raise taxes on the rich because it’s fair” statement are proposing a simple solution to a complex issue.

Problem 1: People like Warren Buffet are statisical outliers and at one point most likely earned an income, which was taxed at the income rate.

Collary to Problem 1: Many people, “rich” and “poor” own stocks in one form or another. If you want to punish people who heavily invest in the market, you may have the consequence of crashing the market since people may pull their monies out and invest somewhere else. No one wins.

Problem 2: There are too many loop holes, levels and deductions in the current tax code. If you want the rich to pay more, then (1) eliminate these loop holes and deductions (2) don’t take advantage of any loop holes and deductions yourself.
 
Anthony Picarello says on ‘World Over live’ on EWTN that the Bishops are willing to litigate over this mandate. (Discussion starts at 29.20).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top