Mrs. Pelosi received a 100 percent rating from NARAL

[Maranatha]

For one thing, the Church is not a democracy. Besides, these people have all incurred Latae Sentiae Excommunication which is just as damning as any public declaration of Excommunication.

Public excommunication is a teaching opportunity. Latae Sentiae is just as effective but it fails to teach. However, historically public excommunication has been limited to catholic with official position which only included public officials in expressly Catholic countries. This no longer includes any Western democracies since they have adopted (to a greater or lesser degree) separation of Church and state.

 

[Vincent_N]

Maranatha:

Public excommunication is a teaching opportunity.

Every moment is a teaching opportunity. The question is who will learn and this is besides the point. Jeffrey asked, perhaps as wishful thinking, if we could petition the Church to make these public excommunications. While I might also feel that public excommunications are in order, the Church is not a democracy.

 

[Al_Masetti]

If I were elected to the house of representatives today. I would immediately write a bill that banned abortion and introduce it. Yeah it would be tough to even get to a vote, wouldn’t it. But, you and I know that I should do that anyway and to keep doing that over and over again. Then if I give some other lawmaker courage he might do the same, and then another and then another. Sooner or later we FEW would get noticed because we would never tire of introducing these bills. Besides that then the voters could really get an idea of who really is against abortions in our nation.

Right now I believe the majority of republicans hide behind the pro-life plank of the party. I think it’s there for window dressing. In other words I’m calling the party OUT on this plank. I don’t think they are serious about it and that’s why we don’t see any of these guys making the effort to hold their own party accountable to the pro-life plank. Today it’s nothing bu words because they as a group don’t walk the walk. The majority of republicans are a bunch of hipocrits.

Here is a list from thread #114708:

17 things that the Republicans have actually DONE. If they get re-elected, they will do MORE. There are MORE judges to appoint, but the Democrats keep bottling them up.

As far as the republican party goes the record is clear in the last 6 years that both Bush and the Republican party have delivered on their promises concerning abortion and values dear to our Church:

1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion - by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
2. Reversed Clinton’s move to strike Reagan’s anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton’s policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act - and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.
13. Passed the parental consent law-currently being blocked by DEMOCRATS
14. Pro-life Judge Alito placed on the Suprem Court
15. Made pro-life roberts Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
16. Have placed over 2 dozen pro-life judges on Federal District courts. 6 Pro-life judges were blocked by the Democrats solely becuase of their support for Life.
17. Passed the Born alive Act
18. Passed the violence against the unborn act

Can you tell us which of the above would have been implemented if democrats had been in contol?

 

[maklavan]

i wonder if she is attending mass and receiving the eucharist. if so, i see no reason why i, a non catholic (and very pro life) is denied the sacrament.

As a poster from over the pond, I must confess I had never heard of Mrs Pelosi before today. AS the media were presenting her as a rather sweet mother of 5, with sincere views on pverty and justice, I came into the CA forum to be enlightened,only to be greeted with a bucket of slime. Wiill you stone thowers,who have never sinned of course, consider this?

The Catholic Catechism states:
2477
" Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty
of rash judgement who,even tacitly,assumes as true, without sufficient foundation,the moral fault of a neighbour,
of detractionwho,without objectively valid reason,discloses another’s faults and failings,to persons who did not know them,of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth,harms the reputatation of others,and gives occasion for false judgements concerning them"
2478

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favourable interpretationto another’s statement than to condemn it”

 

[ncgolf]

As a poster from over the pond, I must confess I had never heard of Mrs Pelosi before today. AS the media were presenting her as a rather sweet mother of 5, with sincere views on pverty and justice, I came into the CA forum to be enlightened,only to be greeted with a bucket of slime. Wiill you stone thowers,who have never sinned of course, consider this?

Pelosi’s record speaks for itself …it is in the public domain and thus can be commented on … nobody knows whether she beats her kids, plays poker or even smokes cigars and no one cares. She opposes Catholic doctrine publically and thus can be admonished publically. I see no problem here.

 

[Blackhawk]

The people have spoken and a new direction is beginning. I voted for some democrats, some republicans, a couple of independents and some libertarians. So what does that make me? There was a time when I would have voted mostly republican, but not anymore. What’s the old saying “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I think that’s what happened to the republican party. A correction is being made by the voters. I think the correction will continue in the next election as well.

Al Masetti pointed out 17 things the republicans have accomplished. that’s a pretty short list and most of it has nothing to do with abortion. I still say that most republican lawmakers hide behind the abortion plank. they give lip service to it and not much more. They believe we are fools and I believe many of you have been fooled by many of those you support. I dare you to ask your favorite republican lawmaker to write a bill banning abortion and see what his response is to you. I double dare you to do that. My bet is that he will come up with all kinds of “excuses” why he shouldn’t do that and in the next breath he will assure you that he is definitely against abortion. Give him a test.

 

[rlg94086]

And, you think the new speaker (possibly Nancy Pelosi) would bring a bill like that to the floor? Right. If life issues are important to you, know that they will indeed be on the back burner for a while now.

The people have spoken and a new direction is beginning. I voted for some democrats, some republicans, a couple of independents and some libertarians. So what does that make me? There was a time when I would have voted mostly republican, but not anymore. What’s the old saying “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I think that’s what happened to the republican party. A correction is being made by the voters. I think the correction will continue in the next election as well.

Al Masetti pointed out 17 things the republicans have accomplished. that’s a pretty short list and most of it has nothing to do with abortion. I still say that most republican lawmakers hide behind the abortion plank. they give lip service to it and not much more. They believe we are fools and I believe many of you have been fooled by many of those you support. I dare you to ask your favorite republican lawmaker to write a bill banning abortion and see what his response is to you. I double dare you to do that. My bet is that he will come up with all kinds of “excuses” why he shouldn’t do that and in the next breath he will assure you that he is definitely against abortion. Give him a test.

 

[mikev]

And, you think the new speaker (possibly Nancy Pelosi) would bring a bill like that to the floor? Right. If life issues are important to you, know that they will indeed be on the back burner for a while now.

Unfortunately the new speaker would be more likely to bring a bill UNLIKE that to the floor. After last night, this new bill would stand a better chance getting passed.

That being said, the republicans have been a huge disappointment and should have done more when they could.

 

[Chickamauga]

Abortion will never be made illegal in America.

Not as things stand now, but it may come to an end in a fashion similiar to how slavery ended in America… due to a calamitous event such as war. We have an aging population and the birth rate is falling. We’ve allowed the murder of 32 million of our citizens, the seed-corn of a nation. God will not forget this any more than he forgot those who were oppressed, tourtured and murdered by American slavery:

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? - Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address

 

[Blackhawk]

And, you think the new speaker (possibly Nancy Pelosi) would bring a bill like that to the floor? Right. If life issues are important to you, know that they will indeed be on the back burner for a while now.

You just don’t get it or maybe you don’t want to get it. Write the bill, present it and keep doing that over and over. The news media will finally pick up on a rep continually putting a bill up. It could be a big, big spotlight on abortion.

What’s the catch? The catch is the rep has to be prepared to be a one termer, in other words, sacrifice himself completly to get it before public opinion. If it saves lives because it changes a pregnant woman’s mind, isn’t it worth the effort. Or, the Holy Spirit just might intervene and something special happens.

 

[rlg94086]

And you said I “just don’t get it.” You expect any politician from any party to do that? Lotsa luck.

More progress was made under Republicans. I am not an absolutist, who expects 100% results from my representatives. The partial birth legislation was a good start. Enough? Certainly not. However, I am very confident that nothing will happen with this new Congress. They’ve moved away from pro-life, not towards it.

What’s the catch? The catch is the rep has to be prepared to be a one termer, in other words, sacrifice himself completly to get it before public opinion. If it saves lives because it changes a pregnant woman’s mind, isn’t it worth the effort. Or, the Holy Spirit just might intervene and something special happens.

 

[Lucania]

I am not a voter in Mrs. Pelosi’s district. Therefore I don’t know enough about her to comment specifically.

I’m no where near her district and I know plenty.There’s alot of information about her at your fingertips. You should educate yourself because as Speaker of the House she is third in line for the presidency.

 

[rlg94086]

She’s not Speaker yet…I think it has to go up for a vote once the new Congress starts.

I’m no where near her district and I know plenty.There’s alot of information about her at your fingertips. You should educate yourself because as Speaker of the House she is third in line for the presidency.

 

[Jeffrey]

Shes advocates the murder of children. She’s pro death… how do you expect us to act?

As a poster from over the pond, I must confess I had never heard of Mrs Pelosi before today. AS the media were presenting her as a rather sweet mother of 5, with sincere views on pverty and justice, I came into the CA forum to be enlightened,only to be greeted with a bucket of slime. Wiill you stone thowers,who have never sinned of course, consider this?

The Catholic Catechism states:
2477
" Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty
of rash judgement who,even tacitly,assumes as true, without sufficient foundation,the moral fault of a neighbour,
of detractionwho,without objectively valid reason,discloses another’s faults and failings,to persons who did not know them,of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth,harms the reputatation of others,and gives occasion for false judgements concerning them"
2478

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favourable interpretationto another’s statement than to condemn it”

 

[Blackhawk]

Yesterday I did a google search on Nancy Pelosi and didn’t find what some of you say she stands for. Maybe you could give me some tips on where to go. Please give good tips though and not opinion type articles and sites.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Blackhawk,

What things did you need to look up? Her abortion stance? Embryonic stem cell research? You can review her entire voting record, public statements, speeches, etc. here…
vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H0222103

This site is non-partisan

1. 
   *]No one can join the Project’s board without a political opposite. People as diverse as former Presidents Carter and Ford, former Senators McGovern and Goldwater, former Governor Dukakis, former Congresswoman Ferraro and current Senator McCain have served on the Project’s board, supporting the efforts of the Project’s students and volunteers, and ensuring balance and strict impartiality in PVS programs and services.

1. 
   God bless,
   
   Robert
   

   Yesterday I did a google search on Nancy Pelosi and didn’t find what some of you say she stands for. Maybe you could give me some tips on where to go. Please give good tips though and not opinion type articles and sites.

 

[PLAL]

Nancy Pelosi is no doubt 100% Pro-Abortion.

However the Clinton’s still control the Democratic Party. Hilary Clinton will be trying to sell herself as a conservative the next two years before the '08 Presidential Election.

Therefore I see the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party putting a muzzle on Nancy Pelosi’s Pro-Death values over the next two years. Then if Hilary gets in as President, you will see a Pro-Death government like you have never seen before.

 

[miguel]

…Besides that then the voters could really get an idea of who really is against abortions in our nation.

Right now I believe the majority of republicans hide behind the pro-life plank of the party. I think it’s there for window dressing. In other words I’m calling the party OUT on this plank. I don’t think they are serious about it and that’s why we don’t see any of these guys making the effort to hold their own party accountable to the pro-life plank. Today it’s nothing bu words because they as a group don’t walk the walk. The majority of republicans are a bunch of hipocrits.

I think you make some valid points. Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to stop the Supreme Court from imposing its will in specific areas (e.g., abortion).
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

A few points…

1. As written, the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts were intended to have jurisdiction over cases where the parties in the case were from different states. Criminal matters (e.g., abortion laws) within a state were intended for state court jurisdiction. As written, the Supreme Court does not have constitutional jurisdiction over state and local criminal matters.
2. But in cases (like abortion) where the Supreme Court has clearly over-reached its constitutional authority, Congress still has the authority to limit that over-reaching by law. It could simply pass a law telling the Supreme Court that it has no jurisdiction over state abortion cases. It’s authority to do this is explicitly constitutional, unlike the so-called implicit “right to privacy.”
3. That the Republicans didn’t simply take this stand while they held executive and legislative power for the last six years tells me they don’t care about abortion. They hide behind the Supreme Court pretending their hands are tied. Their hands are not tied. That is the biggest lie of the last 33 years of the Roe v Wade regime. They come to us pro-lifers every election cycle looking for support, knowing we think we have nowhere else to go.
4. If they don’t deliver and start protecting innocent babies, I really don’t care if they win or lose. I sure as hell won’t be voting for Democrats. But what have I gained for the babies by voting Republican?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I think you make some valid points. Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to stop the Supreme Court from imposing its will in specific areas (e.g., abortion).
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

A few points…

1. As written, the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts were intended to have jurisdiction over cases where the parties in the case were from different states. Criminal matters (e.g., abortion laws) within a state were intended for state court jurisdiction. As written, the Supreme Court does not have constitutional jurisdiction over state and local criminal matters.
2. But in cases (like abortion) where the Supreme Court has clearly over-reached its constitutional authority, Congress still has the authority to limit that over-reaching by law. It could simply pass a law telling the Supreme Court that it has no jurisdiction over state abortion cases. It’s authority to do this is explicitly constitutional, unlike the so-called implicit “right to privacy.”
3. That the Republicans didn’t simply take this stand while they held executive and legislative power for the last six years tells me they don’t care about abortion. They hide behind the Supreme Court pretending their hands are tied. Their hands are not tied. That is the biggest lie of the last 33 years of the Roe v Wade regime. They come to us pro-lifers every election cycle looking for support, knowing we think we have nowhere else to go.
4. If they don’t deliver and start protecting innocent babies, I really don’t care if they win or lose. I sure as hell won’t be voting for Democrats. But what have I gained for the babies by voting Republican?

It is correct that the Congress determines the agenda of the Federal courts.

In fact, it is my understanding that Congress regularly DOES forbid the Federal courts … as for example, in 2002, Congress passed a law at the urging of then-Senator Tom Daschle (a very left-liberal) to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases about brush clearing in South Dakota. At the time, environmentalists had succeded in tying up most of the states in knots and prevented them from removing brush that was susceptable to the devastating forest fires and wild fires. Dashle, even though an ardent supporter of environmentalism, put the interests of South Dakota first and was able to prevent South Dakota from being burned to the ground.

I strongly recomment two excellent books on this subject:

“Men in Black” by Mark Levin, and,

“The Supremacists” by Phyllis Schlafly

Both are packed with examples of what can be done and what the Constitution actually says.

 

[miguel]

It is correct that the Congress determines the agenda of the Federal courts.

In fact, it is my understanding that Congress regularly DOES forbid the Federal courts … as for example, in 2002, Congress passed a law at the urging of then-Senator Tom Daschle (a very left-liberal) to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases about brush clearing in South Dakota. At the time, environmentalists had succeded in tying up most of the states in knots and prevented them from removing brush that was susceptable to the devastating forest fires and wild fires. Dashle, even though an ardent supporter of environmentalism, put the interests of South Dakota first and was able to prevent South Dakota from being burned to the ground.

I strongly recomment two excellent books on this subject:

“Men in Black” by Mark Levin, and,

“The Supremacists” by Phyllis Schlafly

Both are packed with examples of what can be done and what the Constitution actually says.

Thank you for adding some crucial substance.