Nuns get involved in the battle for the White House

[Lapey]

“Deserves no respect”? I’m puzzled, we are not to respect the ‘misrepresentation of early Christianity’ with regard to abortion…and what else? What about respect for those who misrepresent the nature and history of God Himself and His relation to human beings, including the main figures of our Catholic faith? Is it okay to respect them as long as they do not misrepresent abortion?

I’ll ask you too the same questions I asked Matt, what about the republican candidate’s policies are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ? If you find some, actual that is not made up or implied, how do they compare to the intrinsic evils supported by our president and his party’s platform?

How does this group of nuns stay in compliance if their support of this party and what it stands for is so blatant?

Btw, who is misrepresenting the nature and history of God and His relation to human beings? What are the main figures of the Catholic Church? In my opinion if a person can support the taking of life in the womb, they are capable of anything and I do not trust their judgment on anything.

Example, a local parish election candidate came to me to support him recently, an old school mate of mine. First question I asked him was what his stance on abortion was. He laughed at me. Then I followed up with this, if you can allow the killing of an innocent child in the womb of it’s mother, by it’s mother, I have no confidence that you can make the right decision on how to clean a ditch. His laughter stopped, and he explained to me how he is truly pro-life. It matters, life matters, nothing else is equal to it.

 

[Lapey]

These nuns make me sick. Sister Simone should be chiding the faithful to tithe rather than pretending the Govt programs solve poverty or bring social justice.

Her position is forced tithing through taxes is the right answer. She is a socialist.

And so was Jesus.

Where did the poster say that Jesus was a socialist?The idea that using taxes to help the poor is ‘socialist’ is what is ludicrous to me.

Maybe it’s just that many of our faithful Catholics don’t read the lives of the saints anymore. Were our saints in leadership positions also socialists for imposing taxes that went to the upkeep of the poor?

Right here. Can you see it now that I have put it all together for you?

None of us said taxation to help “safety net” the poor is bad. I for one have no quarrels with taxation to take care of the section of society that is in need. I haven’t heard anyone here or the Republican Party say that taxation to take care of certain necessities is socialistic. What is socialistic is expecting the government to tax more than what is needed to supply the genuine need, not the system of entitlements we currently have. Taxation and dependence on government is not charity. Free giving of ones wealth and/or property is charity, see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. There is no virtue in having money taken from you to feed the government.

 

[seekerz]

I’ll ask you too the same questions I asked Matt, what about the republican candidate’s policies are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ? If you find some, actual that is not made up or implied, how do they compare to the intrinsic evils supported by our president and his party’s platform?

The candidate has no policies since he is not president and since he now disavows major policies of his as governor. He has proposed some policies and our job is not simply to accept them at face value, but to critically examine them in light of who he is, what he has done and what he holds as important.

How does this group of nuns stay in compliance if their support of this party and what it stands for is so blatant?

I suppose the same way the priest and nuns in full garb featured at Romney’s rallies do.

Btw, who is misrepresenting the nature and history of God and His relation to human beings? What are the main figures of the Catholic Church? In my opinion if a person can support the taking of life in the womb, they are capable of anything and I do not trust their judgment on anything.

Similarly for me, if a person does not share my views on the distinction between God and man, I cannot trust their judgment on anything…or their motives for that matter. As to the rest of your question, I answered that for myself and so I would imagine, should every thinking Catholic.

Example, a local parish election candidate came to me to support him recently, an old school mate of mine. First question I asked him was what his stance on abortion was. He laughed at me. Then I followed up with this, if you can allow the killing of an innocent child in the womb of it’s mother, by it’s mother, I have no confidence that you can make the right decision on how to clean a ditch. His laughter stopped, and he explained to me how he is truly pro-life. It matters, life matters, nothing else is equal to it.

There are more fundamental questions of faith than abortion.

 

[kimmielittle]

Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions

Nice try : Care to defend your claim?

I’ll defend mine That yes we ARE being forced to fund abortions.

It’s official - President Obama late today signed an Executive Order repealing whats been called the Mexico City Policy which correctly barred the use of federal funds by non-governmental agencies abroad for abortion counseling and abortions, sets a disappointing tone that will mean more abortions and less protection for the unborn.

President Obama wasted no time in letting the nation know what many pro-life Americans suspected President Obama is committed to promoting pro-abortion policies. With the stroke of a pen, the President cleared the way for even more tax dollars to be used to promote abortion.

aclj.org/abortion/update-president-repeals-mexico-city-abortion-funding-policy

Obamacare:

Money for so-called “Community Health Centers”: Many of these Community Health Centers will be run by Planned Parenthood and other groups that see abortion as an essential service and, without abortion-restricting language in the bill, money that goes to these centers will be used to pay for abortions.

Money for federal insurance plans: Obamacare will provide two or more state-sponsored insurance plans. According to the bill, only one of these plans actually needs to have restrictions on abortion—meaning that federal dollars will almost definitely be paying for abortions in the other state plan. And even this restriction is limited, and will have to be renewed every year.

Money for “temporary high-risk pools”: Obamacare provides 5 billion dollars for “temporary high-risk pools” that will cover people with pre-existing conditions until the actual health care exchanges kick in 2014. This money goes straight to the states and is administered by them. Without abortion restrictions, the states are free to use this money to fund abortions if they feel like it. And in fact, some of them tried to do just that

pop.org/content/does-obamacare-fund-abortion-let-us-count-ways

• the president specifically signed a directive to that effect.

Nice try:

An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President’s piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn’t know this. His political allies certainly do. The head of Planned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

 

[seekerz]

Right here. Can you see it now that I have put it all together for you?

None of us said taxation to help “safety net” the poor is bad. I for one have no quarrels with taxation to take care of the section of society that is in need. I haven’t heard anyone here or the Republican Party say that taxation to take care of certain necessities is socialistic. What is socialistic is expecting the government to tax more than what is needed to supply the genuine need, not the system of entitlements we currently have. Taxation and dependence on government is not charity. Free giving of ones wealth and/or property is charity, see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. There is no virtue in having money taken from you to feed the government.

Sorry, but you have me confused: it’s okay to tax to ‘safety net’ the poor but it’s not okay to tax to provide entitlements? So it’s okay to help an unemployed woman feed her kids, but it’s not okay to provide health care coverage to someone who worked her whole life and contributed to that same coverage for others? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Lapey]

Disdain for the poor is a generalization?You know what I meant here, there is no disdain for the poor. It is made up disdain by political hacks. It must be sad to believe that half the population of this country hate the poor. Do you walk in fear of knowing a republican hater? I’ve been posting my views about it for months on this forum and the attitudes I criticized seemed rather specific. Besides, in how many ways does Romney have to say it? Before the 47% comment there was, the not caring about the poor because they have a ‘safety net’ (which incidentally, is up for the axe), and liking to fire people (unemployment tends to contribute to poverty) - a repetitive theme, not just one statement. Romney was not alone either, during the primaries, Gingrich was actually the worst in his condescending attitude to the poor.

Call it a generalization if you like, I call it an ideological stance which goes something like this: the poor are losers (victims…choose your synonym), their predicament is their fault (they are lazy, lack ambition, lack work ethic, are jealous of the ‘haves’) or perhaps even a result of not being ‘blessed’ by God; helping them is voluntary* for Christians* (we can skip the major prophets and all the Gospels 'cause only the Bible had genuinely poor people)…I could go on: just from this forum alone I have learned that some posters do not even believe that the poor are really poor because they are not thin as rakes…and on and on.

All this leaves me to wonder is: how is it possible to genuinely care for the babies of those for whom such contempt is expressed? Who is fooling who here?

You take your stance here with these issues based on your perception of statements and policies. I make my stance on these issues from my perspective. If I disagree with your method of helping the poor, does that mean I have disdain for the poor? I would hope this is not your belief.

I guess I thought we were past this petty partisanship in this discussions, guess not. I believe people have a certain dignity, a dignity that should cause them to want to better themselves, you feel we should keep feeding them without requiring something, without wanting them to make a difference in their own lives.

What did St. Paul have to say about this? Not all people who survive off of entitlements are people who cannot support themselves. Many can and for whatever reason won’t, I say it is dependency. Many have been brought up in this system and know nothing else, shame on us! It is up to us to show these the true path, what do you do to help these people? I can list what I do, can you?

 

[Lapey]

Sorry, but you have me confused: it’s okay to tax to ‘safety net’ the poor but it’s not okay to tax to provide entitlements? So it’s okay to help an unemployed woman feed her kids, but it’s not okay to provide health care coverage to someone who worked her whole life and contributed to that same coverage for others? Is that what you’re saying?

No its not what I said, but it is what you read in my words. This is disappointing that you can twist my words to make me look bad and make you feel better. This is not at all what I said, do you think so negativly about everyone who disagrees with you? I am not the hateful animal you think I am, neither are the other people here who disagree with you politically.

 

[seekerz]

Nice try : Care to defend your claim?

I’ll defend mine That yes we ARE being forced to fund abortions.

aclj.org/abortion/update-president-repeals-mexico-city-abortion-funding-policy

Obamacare:

pop.org/content/does-obamacare-fund-abortion-let-us-count-ways

Nice try:

An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President’s piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn’t know this. His political allies certainly do. The head of Planned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

First, the Mexico City Policy (which incidentally has nothing to do with Obamacare) has not to my knowledge been shown to have any effect beyond political symbolism. That is because the same organizations that seek to push abortion worldwide also promote contraception dependency worldwide. Take away their funding and what do you have, they are less able to promote abortion and also less able to provide contraception to a population that has been actively made dependent on it. According to some authorities, that leads to a spike in ‘unintended’ pregnancies and a spike in abortion by any means available. Should it matter if abortion is done in a clinic or behind it’s door? To the baby it matters not a whit.

If PP dismissed the EO as symbolic, it’s because they know (as do I) that giving or taking away abortion funding does not stop women who want abortions from getting them. Some cold calculations can precede the decision to abort and most people unwilling to be parents can use a calculator to compare even the most costly abortion to the cost of child support. With or without taxpayer money, women will abort - so in that sense the EO is symbolic.

 

[seekerz]

No its not what I said, but it is what you read in my words. This is disappointing that you can twist my words to make me look bad and make you feel better. This is not at all what I said, do you think so negativly about everyone who disagrees with you? I am not the hateful animal you think I am, neither are the other people here who disagree with you politically.

Where is all of this coming from? I asked you a question and you get all personal on me? To the best of my knowledge, I have made no personal attacks on you.

 

[kimmielittle]

Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions - the president specifically signed a directive to that effect.

I guess it’s all in who you trust eh?

Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

READ THE FULL LETTER mrconservative.com/2012/01/1330-breaking-obamacare-forces-employer-dollar-funding-for-abortions/

I dono why Catholic Bishops would lie to Catholics…BUT I do KNOW why MSM would.

‘Darn Tooting!’ Obama Brags About HHS Reg Catholic Bishops Call Attack on Liberty

cnsnews.com/news/article/darn-tooting-obama-brags-about-hhs-reg-catholic-bishops-call-attack-liberty

You need a new claim: Even HHS and Mr Obama don’t make that claim anymore.

 

[seekerz]

You take your stance here with these issues based on your perception of statements and policies. I make my stance on these issues from my perspective. If I disagree with your method of helping the poor, does that mean I have disdain for the poor? I would hope this is not your belief.

I have very clearly stated examples of what I perceive as disdain for the poor. This is not a new theme for me and it is not a personal criticism of you. You are not, to the best of my knowledge, the Republican Party.

I guess I thought we were past this petty partisanship in this discussions, guess not. I believe people have a certain dignity, a dignity that should cause them to want to better themselves, you feel we should keep feeding them without requiring something, without wanting them to make a difference in their own lives.

What are you talking about? I don’t belong to any party and proudly consider myself Independent. I do also happen to support Obama in this race.

I’m not sure what you mean about feeding people without requiring something. To my knowledge, welfare (if that is what you are referring to) was reformed in the 90’s to include work requirements. More recently, approval of a request by governors (including some Republicans I’m told) for more flexibility in those work requirements, was termed as ‘removing’ work requirements.

What did St. Paul have to say about this? Not all people who survive off of entitlements are people who cannot support themselves. Many can and for whatever reason won’t, I say it is dependency. Many have been brought up in this system and know nothing else, shame on us! It is up to us to show these the true path, what do you do to help these people? I can list what I do, can you?

Maybe I could better apply the words of St Paul if I understood better which entitlements you are referring to. The term entitlements seems to imply that the recipients are entitled to what they are receiving perhaps because they*** contributed ***in the past? Naturally, those who worked when they could and made provisions for the time they could not, have every right on earth to eat, no?

 

[kimmielittle]

First, the Mexico City Policy (which incidentally has nothing to do with Obamacare) has not to my knowledge been shown to have any effect beyond political symbolism. That is because the same organizations that seek to push abortion worldwide also promote contraception dependency worldwide. Take away their funding and what do you have, they are less able to promote abortion and also less able to provide contraception to a population that has been actively made dependent on it. According to some authorities, that leads to a spike in ‘unintended’ pregnancies and a spike in abortion by any means available. Should it matter if abortion is done in a clinic or behind it’s door? To the baby it matters not a whit.

If PP dismissed the EO as symbolic, it’s because they know (as do I) that giving or taking away abortion funding does not stop women who want abortions from getting them. Some cold calculations can precede the decision to abort and most people unwilling to be parents can use a calculator to compare even the most costly abortion to the cost of child support. With or without taxpayer money, women will abort - so in that sense the EO is symbolic.

NICE TRY:

This was your claim: and I’m holding you to it ].

Originally Posted by seekerz
Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions

YOUR second Claim was that :

Originally Posted by seekerz
the president specifically signed a directive to that effect.

Insinuating that it protected against funding abortions.

An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President’s piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn’t know this. His political allies certainly do. The head of Planned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

It does NOT protect against funding abortions!

THOSE were YOUR claims.

 

[Lapey]

Disdain for the poor is a generalization? I’ve been posting my views about it for months on this forum and the attitudes I criticized seemed rather specific. Besides, in how many ways does Romney have to say it? Before the 47% comment there was, the not caring about the poor because they have a ‘safety net’ (which incidentally, is up for the axe), and liking to fire people (unemployment tends to contribute to poverty) - a repetitive theme, not just one statement. Romney was not alone either, during the primaries, Gingrich was actually the worst in his condescending attitude to the poor.

Call it a generalization if you like, I call it an ideological stance which goes something like this: the poor are losers (victims…choose your synonym), their predicament is their fault (they are lazy, lack ambition, lack work ethic, are jealous of the ‘haves’) or perhaps even a result of not being ‘blessed’ by God; helping them is voluntary* for Christians* (we can skip the major prophets and all the Gospels 'cause only the Bible had genuinely poor people)…I could go on: just from this forum alone I have learned that some posters do not even believe that the poor are really poor because they are not thin as rakes…and on and on.

All this leaves me to wonder is: how is it possible to genuinely care for the babies of those for whom such contempt is expressed? Who is fooling who here?

Where is all of this coming from? I asked you a question and you get all personal on me? To the best of my knowledge, I have made no personal attacks on you.

There you go, you dismiss everything I said, and inserted you partisan comments. I disagree so I don’t care about the poor, this is the implication. At least you can own your words. I own mine.

Then the question is where it truly gets sad, you question my sincerity in the support of unborn children? “Who is fooling who?” Do you know my inner most beliefs and thoughts more than I do? Really, because I guess I am only loyal to the republican party, right? That in itself is insulting, I have never stated which party I belong to, except that I belong to the Catholic party. I vote issues, not party.

I can tell you who is fooling who. It is the voter and these nuns who think they can support a party who have supported these intrinsic evils publically and stay within the confines of the teachings of the Church; those are the ones fooling them selves. Furthermore, to make a statement that there is a disdain for the poor in the republican or democrat party is not honest.

 

[kimmielittle]

I can tell you who is fooling who. It is the voter and these nuns who think they can support a party who have supported these intrinsic evils publically and stay within the confines of the teachings of the Church; those are the ones fooling them selves. Furthermore, to make a statement that there is a disdain for the poor in the republican or democrat party is not honest.

 

[Lapey]

I have very clearly stated examples of what I perceive as disdain for the poor. This is not a new theme for me and it is not a personal criticism of you. You are not, to the best of my knowledge, the Republican Party. So the party disagrees with you on how to help the poor, and this is justification to say they have a disdain for th epoor? A disdain for people whom their Lord says they must love? Do you know the definition of disdain?

What are you talking about? I don’t belong to any party and proudly consider myself Independent. I do also happen to support Obama in this race.

I’m not sure what you mean about feeding people without requiring something. To my knowledge, welfare (if that is what you are referring to) was reformed in the 90’s to include work requirements. More recently, approval of a request by governors (including some Republicans I’m told) for more flexibility in those work requirements, was termed as ‘removing’ work requirements.Guess I would have to ask, what should be the goal of welfare? To keep people and families on the rolls for generations, or for short periods when a family needs the safety net?

Maybe I could better apply the words of St Paul if I understood better which entitlements you are referring to. The term entitlements seems to imply that the recipients are entitled to what they are receiving perhaps because they*** contributed ***in the past? Naturally, those who worked when they could and made provisions for the time they could not, have every right on earth to eat, no?

2 Thess. 3:10 “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”

Jesus is specifically talking about the spirit of ceasing to work for a living, different reasons for this fact but same result with these Thessalonians people and those addicted to welfare and other government handouts. The Thessalonians stopped working and providing for their own families because they were expecting the “second coming” very soon. Paul recognized the need to get them back to work, so he used the fraternal correction spelled out in this chapter. The same result is here and now. How do we end this cycle of dependence on the government? Jobs and training for those jobs right? How do we get someone who has no ambition to work to go out and work? You answer that one.

Are all people on social programs addicted to the system, no not at all. Many are required, because of disability or any such reason. But many have no reason to continue on these programs except lack of will. Bad people or hated people? Not in the least, uneducated maybe, or uninformed, maybe. That is just speculation.

But to think that people who have a different solution is disdain, is just wrong. St. Paul was guilty as charged, just like me I guess.

 

[kimmielittle]

Maybe I could better apply the words of St Paul if I understood better which entitlements you are referring to. The term entitlements seems to imply that the recipients are entitled to what they are receiving perhaps because they*** contributed ***in the past? Naturally, those who worked when they could and made provisions for the time they could not, have every right on earth to eat, no?

This a a logic fallacy you seem to like using them ]

You are attempting to blame the Republican party for tentative budget cuts. In such as Social Security.

YET! Mr Obama has no plan to protect / keep Social Security.
weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-admits-obama-doesnt-have-plan-keep-social-security-going-bankrupt_652998.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

One could, perhaps, be more understanding of these nuns’ having become de facto appendages of the Democrat party if the latter actually did anything for the poor other than provide them with abortions. But it doesn’t.

It is my obseration that the “social safety net” is inadequate for many, excessive for many. For two full years, the Dems could have passed anything they wanted. Yes, they helped wealthy people buy new cars with “cash for clunkers”. Yes, they aided political donors like the principals of Solyndra. Yes, they did the bidding of AARP and big Pharma with Obamacare. Yes, they provided public money to unions. And just lately, they promised to pay public money to Lockheed Martin if it got penalized for breaking the law in violating the WARN Act just so it wouldn’t send out termination notices to employees before the election, as the law requires.

But improve SSI for the poorest of the poor? No.
Improve Medicaid funding for those who need it? No.
Give the “clunkers” to the poor who could have used them for transportation? No.

So, let’s not pretend that the Dem party serves the cause of “social justice”. It doesn’t.

Now, we have a dying breed of nuns who don’t mind riding around the country in a $100,000+ bus with a rock star paint job (just to carry two nuns) directly supporting abortion and homosexual “marriage”-promoting candidates, and we have to wonder why they would aid in promoting some of the worst moral positions any political party has ever taken.

Sister Campbell is a lawyer and a lobbyist. Undoubtedly, in the course of lobbying for taxpayer money to finance those causes she finds consistent with her ideology, she needs people who are grateful for political support. One is tempted to think of the biblical story of Esau and Jacob and wonder whether such people are selling their birthright for pottage, but never mind.

It must be admitted, of course, that at least she doesn’t ask for taxpayer money to fight with the bishops who seek to reform LCWR. At least not directly.

 

[kimmielittle]

Now, we have a dying breed of nuns who don’t mind riding around the country in a $100,000+ bus with a rock star paint job (just to carry two nuns) directly supporting abortion and homosexual “marriage”-promoting candidates, and we have to wonder why they would aid in promoting some of the worst moral positions any political party has ever taken.

One ponders; where the funds came from ? Even if just counting the paint job and fuel ].
One Ponders; Does an “religious order” have that kinda money just laying around?
One ponders; If that money was just laying around - why was it?
One ponders; if those funds could have actually SERVED local poor and disenfranchised?

 

[Ridgerunner]

One ponders; where the funds came from ? Even if just counting the paint job and fuel ].
One Ponders; Does an “religious order” have that kinda money just laying around?
One ponders; If that money was just laying around - why was it?
One ponders; if those funds could have actually SERVED local poor and disenfranchised?

Possibly someone will provide at least some of the answers, but I don’t have them. But any way you look at it, utilizing that fuel-hog of a bus to carry two nuns around to political campaigns seems more than a bit unseemly to me. But what do I know about such things? The movement I think of as “Liberation Theology Lite” has its own goals and its own methods.

I recall reading that some of the dying orders are turning/have turned into liberal private foundations. Some of the orders don’t have much in the way of assets, but some have a lot, particularly in the form of valuable real estate or institutions (like hospitals or colleges) gained through generations of donations from the faithful who had very different ideas about how their donations were going to be used.

It’s too bad, really, and it doesn’t apply to all. But in some ways the Church in the U.S. is “starting over” with bishops, religious orders, colleges and even young parish priests who are faithful to the Church, and there is significant evidence that it is getting a good start. Some of the older religious orders are well on their way to total secularization and service to political agendas, and there probably isn’t much the Church can do to reverse that.

 

[seekerz]

NICE TRY:

This was your claim: and I’m holding you to it ].

Originally Posted by seekerz
Nobody is asking you to pay for abortions

YOUR second Claim was that :

Originally Posted by seekerz
the president specifically signed a directive to that effect.

Insinuating that it protected against funding abortions.

An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President’s piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn’t know this. His political allies certainly do. The head of Planned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

It does NOT protect against funding abortions!

THOSE were YOUR claims.

Abortion funding is already supposedly separate from general health insurance coverage in some insurance companies, so what is unbelievable about government also keeping it separate? We could get into the nitty gritty of which drugs are abortion-inducing versus which drugs (a much shorter list) are called abortion pills, but what would be the point? Abortions will be done in significant numbers as long as significant numbers of women demand it - that’s simply a fact of life.

We can do something about that, or we can keep allowing politicians to play politics with the issue. I don’t see where the health care law is forcing people to pay for abortion and no, I don’t support the contraceptive mandate either. Is that enough, to make me consider Obama unfit for the presidency? No. Like I said in another thread, once he is elected I have no problem demonstrating against the mandate but with Romney as his opponent, to me he is the clear moral choice. As I have said already today, Obama is not perfect and he’s definitely not God. I’m perfectly fine with that fact…actually, I’m reassured by the fact that he does not aspire to be God.