Sharron Angle: Down With Maternity, Autism Coverage

[St_Francis]

Everybody. EVERYBODY. Is called to live out the evangelical counsels in some way. Not all are called to religious life, but all are called to chastity, obedience to authority, and poverty in spirit.

Exactly. So why are you criticizing someone for wanting to support his family by telling him that he needs to live by the evangelical cousels? What makes you think that he and his family haven’t already cut to the bone in order that they can afford for his wife to stay home, or to send the children to Catholic school, or care for a handicapped or
elderly relative, or…

The fact that you qre able to live very frugally by living with other people in an apartment
leads me to believe that you are single, and able to control your finances and lifestyle in a way that most families cannot.

About 1/3 of our income goes to state and federal taxes, SS, etc–we never see that. And the cost of insurance now, before the rules kick in, is already 14%. That’s almost half our income, and we can’t get health insurance for any less because it costs more if you get it privately, and catastrophic insurance is impossible to get, at least in our state.

And that’s just insurance and taxes. When you have a family, there are a lot of other expenses as well. You wouldn’t think about this as a cost of having a family, but you need a bigger car, so gas costs are higher. Bigger living space with fewer people earning
money takes quite a bite out of the budget too. And so on.

So I really think your comment was uncalled for. Most parents make incredible sacrifices for their familes and don’t fill that many wants; most of their income goes to needs.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I was criticizing not you, but the platform of the Republican Party, which pays lip-service to the Pro-Life Movement, and has no concept of social responsibility.

The pro-life accomplishments of the Republican Party have been well documented on CAF. It’s real.

Social responsibility implies also that people not buy houses that they cannot make the payments for.

 

[RACJ]

I was criticizing not you, but the platform of the Republican Party, which pays lip-service to the Pro-Life Movement, and has no concept of social responsibility.

You should know, St.Tommy, that as of several years ago, EVERY shelter for unwed moms in America was run by pro-lifers. As well, post-abortive healing counseling is done by right-to-lifers. The pro-abortion crowd are loathe to admit that the killing of one's own flesh and blood could possibly lead to rational guilt. It is "Republicans" such as Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski who insist upon lukewarm language in the platform. But as I pointed out, allocating money through the government is almost never cost-effective. :cool: Rob

 

[bbarrick8383]

I was criticizing not you, but the platform of the Republican Party, which pays lip-service to the Pro-Life Movement, and has no concept of social responsibility.

The republicans in my state have been trying to come up with laws to limit the number of abortions in this state. But our current governor, who is a democrat and hopefully the last democrat governor we see for awhile, tries to veto them. This last time he failed, but a group of yankees came down to fight it in the courts.

 

[StTommyMore]

The republicans in my state have been trying to come up with laws to limit the number of abortions in this state. But our current governor, who is a democrat and hopefully the last democrat governor we see for awhile, tries to veto them. This last time he failed, but a group of yankees came down to fight it in the courts.

I don’t see what you are getting at. You cannot defend the amorality of thr Republican platform by the actions of one Republican. At the last Judgment, Jesus will say “I was hungry and you did not feed me” He will NOT say “I was Republican and you did not vote for me”

 

[bbarrick8383]

I don’t see what you are getting at.

Of course you dont.

You cannot defend the amorality of thr Republican platform by the actions of one Republican. At the last Judgment, Jesus will say “I was hungry and you did not feed me” He will NOT say “I was Republican and you did not vote for me”

Of course I can, it’s more than one Republican.

 

[StTommyMore]

Of course you dont.

Of course I can, it’s more than one Republican.

One need not be a a Republican, which serves the top echelons of society in order to be a faithful Catholic. Truthfully, the majority of the Republican platform is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. The Church transcends political party. One should view oneself as Catholic FIRST. I would even argue that the Republican Party is not truly Pro-Life. I would suggest you get off of your party bandwagon, and look at individuals, NOT party affiliation. I have a suspicion that if you were faced with two pro-life candidates, and one supported benefits for the poor, while the other espoused unregulated capitalism (this is a historic Republican position) you would vote for the capitalist, justifying it by misapplying the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[bbarrick8383]

One need not be a a Republican, which serves the top echelons of society in order to be a faithful Catholic. Truthfully, the majority of the Republican platform is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. The Church transcends political party. One should view oneself as Catholic FIRST. I would even argue that the Republican Party is not truly Pro-Life. I would suggest you get off of your party bandwagon, and look at individuals, NOT party affiliation. I have a suspicion that if you were faced with two pro-life candidates, and one supported benefits for the poor, while the other espoused unregulated capitalism (this is a historic Republican position) you would vote for the capitalist, justifying it by misapplying the principle of subsidiarity.

Locally and statewide I take a much closer look at the candidate and have no problem voting Democrat depending on the person.

Nationally, I vote Republican. I have no right to send a politician to office whose going to try and impose my beliefs on others, unlike the Obama democrats.

Take a look in the mirror before you start telling people they need to get off of their bandwagon my liberal friend.

 

[StTommyMore]

Locally and statewide I take a much closer look at the candidate and have no problem voting Democrat depending on the person.

Nationally, I vote Republican. I have no right to send a politician to office whose going to try and impose my beliefs on others, unlike the Obama democrats.

Take a look in the mirror before you start telling people they need to get off of their bandwagon my liberal friend.

That is funny. I can’t remember the last time I voted democrat!! I just see the sickening view that far too many posters have that Republican=Catholic which is absolutely false. With the exception of the Abortion issue, the Democratic Party is much more in step with Catholic teaching than the Party of the wealthy.

 

[bbarrick8383]

That is funny. I can’t remember the last time I voted democrat!! I just see the sickening view that far too many posters have that Republican=Catholic which is absolutely false. With the exception of the Abortion issue, the Democratic Party is much more in step with Catholic teaching than the Party of the wealthy.

So, are you a hypocrite for telling me how I should vote? If Democrat minus abortion is the Catholic party then why are you telling me how I should vote yet, not voting for them yourself?

Republican does not mean Catholic, I do not equate the two. I think one can be Catholic and vote Democrat locally and statewide and still be in full communion with the Church. Take a good look at politicians from my state, like Inhofe and James Inhofe and Tom Cole. How deep into the pockets of lobbyists are they? They represent my state and try to protect it from liberal politicians elected by other states. I would say that Oklahoma is one of the few states in the union that actually practices what it preaches, we have a Democrat governor, right now we have a democrat representative for my area. But we vote republican nationally. We, I believe, were the only state that did not have one single district vote for Obama.

If other states operated in the same manner they might be in as good shape as mine.

 

[StTommyMore]

So, are you a hypocrite for telling me how I should vote? If Democrat minus abortion is the Catholic party then why are you telling me how I should vote yet, not voting for them yourself?

Republican does not mean Catholic, I do not equate the two. I think one can be Catholic and vote Democrat locally and statewide and still be in full communion with the Church. Take a good look at politicians from my state, like Inhofe and James Inhofe and Tom Cole. How deep into the pockets of lobbyists are they? They represent my state and try to protect it from liberal politicians elected by other states. I would say that Oklahoma is one of the few states in the union that actually practices what it preaches, we have a Democrat governor, right now we have a democrat representative for my area. But we vote republican nationally. We, I believe, were the only state that did not have one single district vote for Obama.

If other states operated in the same manner they might be in as good shape as mine.

I never told you how to vote. I told you that your faith in Republican warmongers and oppressors is misplaced.

 

[Cubsfan]

I was criticizing not you, but the platform of the Republican Party, which pays lip-service to the Pro-Life Movement, and has no concept of social responsibility.

Ahhhh, the social justice argument

The idea that only the Government can be responsible enough to administer Social Justice is such a wrong headed concept, that I can only be dumb founded that you even tried to play this card.

1. Is it not more just to provide an environment that allows people the opportunity to make a living and provide for their own families. How has the government getting involved in Job creation ever helped. The Great Depression would have probably been over by 1936 had FDR let the market correct itself. Instead it lasted until 1943 during WWII.
2. Where is it written that healthcare is a "right’, acess to healthcare may be right but not healthcare to be paid for by someone else.
3. As someone in the military I can tell you that “military healthcare” is not all its cracked up to be. Yes on the battefield and in operational zones the Doctors, Nurses and Corpsman do wonders. In CONUS one has to rely on tricare which is not all that different from conventional insurance, except very few physicians want to accept it.
4. In a nation where only about 51% of working adults actually pay federal income tax is not making these taxpayers pay more for everyone else “unjust”. I think so!
5. I suspect StTomyMore that you might be a democrat operative trying to infiltrate honest conversation to “hooK” honest Catholics into somehow believing that despite being pro-deat, pro-gay marriage, pro-confiscatory tax rates and anti-school choice that Democrats are better for catholics.

Good day sir!

 

[Lujack]

If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.

Well doesn’t that sum it all up; who needs St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ideas about men for others when you can just say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.” That’s just about the epitome of selfishness right there, I think.

We’re supposed to rally to help the least of us, and those who need it. I mean, Catholicism is based around the Son of God, infinitely better than those he was saving, coming to Earth to die a painful and humiliating death for the redemption of mankind, and the goal of every Catholic is supposed to be to live in the imitation of Christ (an impossible goal, but it is the pursuit of that goal which makes us truly Catholic, even if we never get there). So if He who were are imitating died for us, and we are infiinitely lower than him (in fact, the best of us is closer in worthiness to Hitler than to Christ), how dare we say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.”

Isn’t that turning our back on the basis of the faith?

 

[bbarrick8383]

I never told you how to vote. I told you that your faith in Republican warmongers and oppressors is misplaced.

And if you paid attention to what I said, I said we tend not to vote strictly down the party line in local and state elections. In a national election, I have very little faith that the Republicans will do what they say, with the exception of a few. But I have even less faith in the party that panders to peoples emotions and suckers Christians and zero liability voters in with the pro abortion and homosexual crowd.

Republicans are about as much warmongers and oppressors as Democrats are honest politicians trying to look out for people.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

priestsforlife.org/elections/consequences.htm

A list of accomplishments of the Republican party regarding pro-life goals.

It’s real, contrary to some folks’ assertions that the Republicans are not really in favor of life.

Excerpt:

Elections Have Consequences

[Click here for a PDF version of this article.]

Does it matter to the pro-life cause whether a President is pro-life or not? Does it matter how many pro-life people are elected to Congress?

Part of the responsibility pro-life educational organizations like Priests for Life is to familiarize people with the electoral process and its implications.

The present document, therefore, explores the progress made for the pro-life cause under a pro-life administration, and the possible impact of a pro-abortion one.

PRO-LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.
8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
16. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it.

During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.

1. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
2. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Because of length, 3/4 of the essay above had to be cut, but here are a few more excerpts:

IF AN ABORTION SUPPORTER BECAME PRESIDENT…

1. Supreme Court appointments

If the next president serves one term, given the current ages of Supreme Court Justices and the average age of the last six Justices to leave the Court, he will likely make at least one, probably two, and possibly more appointments to the nation’s highest court.

Based on the average term of service of the last six Justices to leave the Court, the newly appointed Justices of the next president will each serve an average of 23 years.

Because the two Justices most likely to retire next are both pro-abortion, it is not an overstatement to say that the next President could shape abortion jurisprudence for the next generation. This will be an incontrovertible fact if the next president appoints six justices.

In short, whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or enshrined for another 30-40 years could be determined by the next president.

1. Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

The Freedom of Choice Act goes beyond Roe v. Wade. It would establish abortion on demand with no restrictions whatsoever as the law of all 50 states.

FOCA, which has been introduced in Congress since the 1990s but is now regaining attention, would wipe out all state laws on abortion, including parental notification or consent acts, public funding restrictions, 24-hour waiting period requirements, and women’s right to know measures, whereby a woman must be told of the risks caused by abortion and about the development of her unborn child. If the next Congress has a pro-abortion majority, a pro-abortion president could sign FOCA into law, eliminating 35 years of laws that have reduced the number of abortions in the United States.

1. Hyde Amendment

The Hyde Amendment, which has prevented almost all abortions from being federally funded through Medicaid for the last 30 years, could be eliminated by a pro-abortion President and Congress. While some states use their own money to subsidize abortions for poor women, the Hyde Amendment has protected federal taxpayers from being forced to bankroll these procedures. The Clinton Administration lobbied for its repeal.

1. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding

A pro-abortion president could sign a bill authorizing taxpayer money to be used for stem cell research experiments that kill human embryos. Such measures have passed Congress already, but were vetoed by President Bush.

1. National Health Insurance

A pro-abortion president would undoubtedly include abortion as a covered procedure in any national health care/insurance plan, thereby making abortions more available and forcing taxpayers to subsidize them.

Any national system of health care coverage must be closely monitored as such a system is a potential backdoor vehicle for abortion on demand.

1. Mexico City Policy

A pro-abortion President could issue an Executive Order on his first day in office, as President Clinton did, eliminating the Mexico City Policy established by President Reagan and adopted by both Presidents Bush. The policy bars U.S. foreign aid money from being given to groups that perform or promote abortion overseas.

1. Partial-birth Abortion

A pro-abortion Congress and a pro-abortion President could repeal the federal ban on partial-birth abortion passed and signed into law by President Bush in 2003 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Earlier versions were either vetoed by President Clinton or struck down by the Supreme Court.

1. Unborn Victims of Violence Act

A pro-abortion Congress and a pro-abortion President could repeal the federal law making the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a federal criminal offense a separate crime. Under the law, if a pregnant woman is killed on a military base or in a federal building, the perpetrator could be charged with the separate crimes of murdering the mother and murdering the child. It took five years for this measure to be enacted by Congress. Pro-aborts have always opposed it because it recognizes the unborn child as a human being.

1. Restore Funds for UNFPA

A pro-abortion President could restore the tens of millions of dollars in annual funding that President Bush has denied the United Nations Population Fund because of the fund’s support for China’s policies of forced abortion and sterilization.

1. United Nations Treaties and Conferences

A pro-abortion President would end U.S. opposition to continued United Nations efforts to impose abortion “rights” on the over 100 countries that still significantly restrict abortion. While no U.N. treaty officially mentions “abortion,” U.N. bodies consistently seek to interpret treaty references to “human rights,” “women’s rights” and “reproductive health” as including abortion.

1. Push Abortion on Foreign Countries

In addition to using the United Nations to try to coerce foreign nations to adopt abortion on demand, a pro-abortion president could ask U.S. ambassadors to urge host nations to adopt more liberal abortion laws.

1. Abortions in Military Hospitals

In 1988, President Reagan issued an Executive Order banning abortions at military hospitals worldwide, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life was endangered. This ban continued until President Clinton revoked it with another Executive Order in one of his first acts as President. Two years later, Congress reinstituted the ban through a funding restriction in the Defense budget. This ban has remained in effect to this day. Should pro-aborts in Congress lift the ban, a pro-abortion president would not veto the move.

1. RU-486

With more deaths being attributed to the abortion pill, RU-486, the next administration will have to reexamine whether it should be available to the public. A pro-abortion president would do nothing to protect women from this dangerous killer.

 

[ProVobis]

My paychecks are not getting bigger and my taxes are going up. I have my own family to feed. What about my family?

The only taxes I worry about are my property taxes which the local Republicans usually allow to go through the roof. The federal income tax I don’t worry about yet since China funds most of our war and corporate welfare spending.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The only taxes I worry about are my property taxes which the local Republicans usually allow to go through the roof. The federal income tax I don’t worry about yet since China funds most of our war and corporate welfare spending.

The highest tax states are Democrat states.

Or were.

New Jersey was [and may still be] #1 highest. They just fired their Democrat governor and replaced him with a Republican.

New York State is still Democrat.

 

[Lujack]

The highest tax states are Democrat states.

Or were.

New Jersey was [and may still be] #1 highest. They just fired their Democrat governor and replaced him with a Republican.

New York State is still Democrat.

As if taxes were the only measure of whether or not a state is a good place to live. Corzine was not a good governor, but Christie is almost exponentially worse. He’s a bully.

 

[estesbob]

Well doesn’t that sum it all up; who needs St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ideas about men for others when you can just say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.” That’s just about the epitome of selfishness right there, I think.

We’re supposed to rally to help the least of us, and those who need it. I mean, Catholicism is based around the Son of God, infinitely better than those he was saving, coming to Earth to die a painful and humiliating death for the redemption of mankind, and the goal of every Catholic is supposed to be to live in the imitation of Christ (an impossible goal, but it is the pursuit of that goal which makes us truly Catholic, even if we never get there). So if He who were are imitating died for us, and we are infiinitely lower than him (in fact, the best of us is closer in worthiness to Hitler than to Christ), how dare we say “If I don’t use it, I don’t want to pay for it.”

Isn’t that turning our back on the basis of the faith?

Let me get this straight. We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t,

Written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it.

Passed by a Congress**** that hasn’t read it but ****exempts themselves from it,

To be signed by a president who smokes,

With funding administered by a treasury chief who**** didn’t pay his taxes, ****

To be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

And****** **financed by a country that’s broke.

---

What the hell could possibly** go wrong?**